While we can see certain elements of neo-tribes may be applicable to goth, particularly the last two points, I would urge against trying to shift the subculture in the direction of transitive identities and non-substantive postmodern culture. As we have seen, and as will be examined, some ancillary groupings in the name of evolution, or modernity, have tried to do just that.

I spoke in my cholo goth article on how these new groupings (ie. pastel goth, nu goth, cholo goth, afro goth) can have negative effects upon a substantive goth subculture. I will not rehash those concerns here, however I would like to refine them, and look at what should be considered a neo-tribe, and what that means. My comprehension of neo-tribe theory has evolved and reified over the last 2 years as I've continued to research the topic and gain perspective. This in turn has caused a shift in my opinion and I'd like to point out, this is simply my opinion, and may continue to change and grow in the years to come.

In recent times these new groupings (nu goth, pastel goth, etc.) have been coming into vogue, using the word goth with the addition of an adjective. While many of these groupings came into being around the same time, I think blanket labeling them as neo-tribes would be incorrect. Many of them share similar traits in that they are postmodern, make use of appropriation, and are made possible, or at least increasingly plausible, by how common place the internet has become, the increase in diverse commercial goods, and how youth are increasingly finding their identity in superficial online personas and communities.

I find difficulty in placing certain groupings such as nu goth, afro-goth, pastel goth, cholo goth and the like, under a sociological term, I don't believe they fit as a subculture, culture, or even idioculture. I feel these groupings (non neo-tribe groups like street goth, pastel goth, ghetto goth, nu goth, health goth etc.) require further research, at least on my own part, before any conclusions can be drawn; I still see the potential for the acculturation of the goth scene, as these groupings, and more importantly, the tourism mindset of participants, gain in popularity among the youth, and potential recruits to goth. While these groupings are fairly consistent, with agreed upon boundaries (usually aesthetic based), they are also fairly superficial in nature, with adherents who, from contact I've had with them, identify themselves in a transitive manner. While the groupings themselves are generally distinct and not prone to ephemerality, participants tend to drift in and out of these groupings as presented in the above neo-tribe section. Below is a quote form one such participant:

"I’ve been called: Goth, Metal, Alternative, Hipster, Biker Girl, Inked, Twee, Electro, Normie, Punk, Mod, Pin Up, Kawaii, New-Wave, Nerd, Mainstream etc. (Tons of names I don’t know)

I don’t identify with any group. I’m not changing styles every 5 mins. Different people just perceive things differently. I’ve been made fun of for being too weird, not weird enough, too girly, too tomboy-like, too thin, too big, there is a point where you just have to wear what you like. If one day that is all black and the next day it is grey and black or lavender and black, then fine."

She then further expresses the ephemerality and temporal nature of the tourist mindset, expressed through neo-tribes:

"I think it is good that the internet has allowed people to bond from different subcultures. It is simply an extension of globalization. There is a loss of identity, but also that identity under a label is not just a security blanket for those who identify with it, but also a cage. I mean that if by identifying as a Goth, you cannot also identify yourself as: steampunk, a comic nerd, a pastel Goth, a nu-Goth, industrial, cyber Goth, etc… You end up missing out on meeting new people, listening to new music, enjoy different aesthetics, and stay current in today’s culture."

Interestingly, she specifically states that her identity is not a part of any one of these subcultures, as she finds them too exclusionary. She finds subcultures problematic in that participants can not adhere to the values and ideals of multiple subcultures. Rather, she claims her individuality through playfully floating between multiple cultures, putting on different hats as the mood takes her. This is, in my view, a very accurate portrayal of these late modern, neo-tribeal identities. I propose we must then understand neo-tribes, as Bennett suggests, as constructed fluid identities, as opposed to pre-exisiting and fixed identities presented by more substantive groupings. I would posit, a neo-tribe, is not so much a grouping in the sense of a subculture, that new identities are created and destroyed at will, but rather the desire for unrestricted participation in all, or a plethora of subcultures, without the substantive and exclusionary nature that comes with the subculture. That these neo-tribes should be viewed from an individual perspective, rather than a loosely structured grouping that shifts with the whims of a large group of participants. Contrary to what Bennett suggests, however, I do not believe this is a replacement of subculture in late modern lifestyles, simply an alternative option for modern youths. I agree with Hodkinson in that neo-tribes will not outright replace subculture and rid us of these substantive groupings.

Bennett says:

" From this point of view the group is no longer a central focus for the individual but rather one of a series of foci or ‘sites’ within which the individual can live out a selected, temporal role or identity before relocating to an alternative site and assuming a different identity."

While I agree with this, he goes on to say this in turn means the existing subculture groups then lose significance and substance themselves, losing permanence and tangibility. While I agree with Hodkinsons refute of this point, I would make a caveat that if a large enough portion of group adherents participate in these floating memberships, the subculture itself is in danger of being absorbed, acculturated, or dissolved. This is not, however, a forgone conclusion.

On the other hand, Maffesoli suggests neo-tribes may form to reject individuality in order to become driven by an unconscious community. I would contend, this may be true during temporal gatherings such as raves as shown by ethnographic research in the UK, but apart from that, neo-tribes are still highly individualized. Aside from the above quotes, we already know individualization is a byproduct of modernity (as shown by Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens), and I would suggest this has, in combination with drastically increasing consumer choices becoming available, spurred the move of some towards these transitive identities (neo-tribes).

Finally, I'd like to reiterate the disparity between goth subculture and this idea that we can turn goth into an anything goes, neo-tribe mentality. Hodkinson says:

"Subcultures, then, can be seen as distinguishable from more fluid elective collectivities by their level of substance, something indicated by the relative satisfaction by a given grouping of the criteria outlined. It remains important to recognize that even the most substantive of subcultures will retain elements of diversity, that some individuals will adopt elements of their values without any particular commitment, and that even the most committed participants are not somehow isolated from other interests or priories. At the same time as emphasizeing these elements of fluidity, though, this book seeks - by focusing in relative terms on levels of identity, commitment, coherence and autonomy - to infer that subcultures are more notable for their substance than for their ephemerality."

CULTURE: