When the subculture concept first entered the social-scientific vocabulary in the 1920s, the Chicago School of sociology was invested in studying the everyday lives of marginalized and deviant groups of people living in and around modern cities. Indeed, the metropolis (and its demands on inhabitants) may be seen as a key social phenomenon that shaped the emergence of the subculture concept. In the 1970s, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) reinvigorated subcultural theory through its studies on working-class British youth subcultures by drawing attention to the growing influence of media and consumer cultures for explaining the rise of new styles and practices. The significance of these early theoretical frameworks can still be seen in contemporary studies that use plug-and-play versions of subcultural theory rooted in the study of problem-solving, resistance, or consumption (for example, Barrett, 2017; Mohammadi, 2022). Now well into the 21st century, subcultural theories are also adapting with the times and have been extended or reworked in connection to the many cultural, economic, environmental, political, social, and/or technological changes and challenges experienced within late modernity (for example, Woo, 2015; Christopher et al, 2018; King and Smith, 2018; Ferrell et al, 2019). What might these changes and challenges mean for the future of subcultural studies?

The preceding chapters in this volume have made plain the significance of interpretive practice for answering such a question. How we approach sociocultural phenomena conceptually, how we contextualize research questions, populations, data, and analysis, and how we embody both ourselves as researchers and the individuals and groups whose actions bring subcultures to life, are fundamental processes that shape the very heart of subcultural studies. Whether implicitly or explicitly, contributors have shown that the value of subcultural theory is clearest when we understand subculture as a sensitizing concept in interpretive practice. As Blumer argued:

In this regard, ‘subculture’ is not something that should have fixed or rigid boundaries, nor need it exist primarily as a formal concept that is applied in a deductive fashion.