570 Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 35, 2008
Hard-Core Members’ of Consumption-Oriented Subcultures Enactment of Identity: The
Sacred Consumption of Two Subcultures
Tandy D. Chalmers, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
Damien Arthur, University of Adelaide, Australia
ABSTRACT
This study investigates how hard-core members of two non-
brand focused consumption-oriented subcultures enact their iden-
tities. The authors analyzed data collected from prolonged investi-
gations of the North American organized distance running subcul-
ture and the Australian Hip Hop culture. Results suggest hard-core
members enact their subcultural identities through reverence to
sacred objects, times, people, and places. In addition, drawing upon
the properties of sacredness outlined by Belk et al (1989), hard-core
members experience a sacred-like lifestyle through objectification,
commitment, sacrifice, mystery, and ecstasy and flow. These
findings imply that sacred subcultural experiences can be enacted
in domains traditionally conceptualized as profane.
“I have run on average 39 out of 40 days for 20 years solid. So
at one level it fits into my lifestyle, but I absolutely have to do
it now. It’s ingrained in my lifestyle so now, it’s my outlook.
It still is a bigger chunk of my life than it ought to be because
it is a totalizing kind of pursuit, because it is about pursuing
absolute limits, and that always involves a very significant
emotional and mental and physical commitment. For the vast
majority of my life it has been at least the number one or two
priority in my life.” [Bryan, male runner aged 42]
“I’d spend every weekend passionately driving with friends or
catching trains to get every single photo of graffiti I possibly
could. Ended up with six/seven thousand photos of graffiti.
That was from Australia, and now I’ve got thousands from
traveling the world a couple of times. And I’ve continued to do
that.” [Simon, male graffiti artist aged 25]
Leisure and non-work activities are important and at times
obsessive elements of consumers’ lives, with several researchers
espousing the benefits of exploring these kinds of consumption
domains (e.g. Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Kozinets et al. 2004).
One interesting facet of this type of consumption is leisure activities
taking on extreme levels of importance for an individual and
becoming the dominant aspect of the individual’s lifestyle and
social identity (Borgmann 2000, 2003; Donnelly 1981). This is the
case for the runner and graffiti artist in the opening narrative. The
collectives that form around these kinds of focal activities are
referred to as consumption-oriented subcultures and those indi-
viduals for whom the activity is the dominant aspect of their
lifestyle are referred to as hard-core members of the subculture.
Extant research has documented, in a variety of contexts and
academic domains, the high levels of commitment exhibited by
hard-core members of a subculture. The purpose of this study is to
gain a deeper understanding of the nature of these commitments.
Through a detailed analysis of two consumption-oriented subcul-
tures, we explore the behaviors of hard-core subculture members to
uncover the theoretical character of their identity enactments.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Understanding the behaviors of hard-core consumption-ori-
ented subculture members requires understanding the answers to
three key questions: (1) what are consumption-oriented subcultures
and how are they understood in consumer research? (2) what is the
link between these collectives and the individuals that comprise
them? and (3) how are hard-core members characterized and how
do they differ from others in the subculture? To address these
questions, the following literature review offers a parsimonious
description of consumption-oriented subcultures and several key
characteristics of these groups. First, we present an overview of
how consumption-oriented subcultures are examined in consumer
research. Building upon this foundation, we highlight the link
between membership in a consumption-oriented subculture and
individual identity. A discussion of the unique characteristics of
hard-core members of consumption-oriented subcultures follows
this.
Consumption-Oriented Subcultures:
Schouten and McAlexander (1995) introduced subcultures of
consumption to consumer research. They define these groups as “a
distinctive subgroup of society that self-selects on the basis of a
shared commitment to a particular product class, brand, or con-
sumption activity” (p. 43). They state that these groups are charac-
terized by “an identifiable, hierarchical social structure; a unique
ethos, or set of shared beliefs and values; and unique jargons,
rituals, and modes of symbolic expression” (p. 43). Subcultures of
consumption are conceptually similar to brand communities which
Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) define as specialized, non-geographi-
cally bound communities based on a structured set of social rela-
tionships among admirers of a brand. Together, these collectives
are referred to as consumption-oriented subcultures (or cultures). In
this study, we focus on non-brand consumption-oriented subcul-
tures.
Much research on consumption-oriented subcultures and the
behaviors of its member has adopted a case study approach in which
different theoretical aspects of these groups are highlighted through
a detailed analysis of a particular consumption-oriented subculture.
For example, Celsi, Rose, and Leigh (1993) examine the role of risk
in the sky-diving subculture, Kozinets examines how a subculture
forms around a television show to experience a fictitious utopian
reality (Kozinets 1997, 2002), Kates (2004) examines the legiti-
mization of brands within these communities, while Quester,
Beverland, and Farrelly (2006) examine the ways in which commit-
ment to a subculture is enacted by extreme sports participants.
Each of these studies offers a unique theoretical contribution
relating to consumption-oriented subcultures as well as converging
on several important key characteristics about these groups. Two of
these characteristics are that these collectives are comprised of
individuals with differing levels of commitment to the focal activity
(e.g. Fox 1987) with the activity dominating the lifestyle of those
members who are considered hard-core members of the subculture
(e.g. Donnelly 1981) and that engagement with the focal activity
involves the enactment of specific consumption practices and
behaviors unique to each subculture (Schouten and McAlexander
1995). This kind of identity salience and its link to behavioral
enactments are discussed next.
Identity and Consumption-Oriented Subculture Membership:
Research on consumption-oriented subcultures demonstrates
that consumption activities can become extremely identity salient
for core members of the subculture (e.g. Celsi et al. 1993; Donnelly

Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35) / 571
and Young 1988; e.g. Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Turner
and Oakes (1986) note as individuals become more embedded in a
collective, their perception of self changes from that of an indi-
vidual person to being an exemplar of the group. This occurs as an
individual increases their level of identification with the group
though increased involvement, knowledge, possessions related to
the identity, esteem related to the identity, and social connections
related to the identity (Donnelly and Young 1988; Kleine, Kleine,
and Kernan 1993)
As discussed in the previous section, consumption-oriented
subcultures are comprised of individuals who vary in their level of
identification with the collective, with some members being very
closely tied to the group (e.g. hard-core members) and other being
only peripherally related to the group (e.g. soft-core or peripheral
members) (Fox 1987; Kates 2002; Quester et al. 2006). This
intracultural variation results in several important differences
amongst subculture members and sub-groups within the subcul-
ture. These differences stem from differences in the relationship
between the subculture and each member’s lifestyle (Donnelly
1981). Specifically, the differences at each level are a function of
the amount of information possessed by members, the amount of
commitment expressed by members of the subculture, and the
degree to which the subculture is a dominant part of the member’s
lifestyle and constitutes a major component of their identity (Clarke
1974; Donnelly 1981; Fox 1987). Thus, for hard-core members of
a subculture, the subcultural activity is the dominant aspect of their
lifestyle, whereas, for peripheral members of the subculture, the
subcultural activity is only a minor part of their lifestyle. Outlined
next are the characteristics of hard-core members.
Hard-Core Members and their Identity Enactments:
Hard-core members of a consumption-oriented subculture
exhibit a high level of devotion to the focal activity, with the focal
activity being the dominant aspect of their lifestyle (Donnelly and
Young 1988; Fox 1987; Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Con-
sumer researchers have outlined several characteristics of hard-
core subculture members. These members tend to know more about
the ‘backstage’ activities and the history of the subculture (Quester
et al. 2006), they generally know more about the activity (Thornton
1995), and they are better able to reconcile contradictions within the
subculture through the utilization of their broader knowledge base
(Donnelly and Young 1988). Hard-core members tend to be more
interested in the functionality of objects associated with the activity
while peripheral members focus more on the image that objects
communicate to others (Donnelly and Young 1988; Quester et al.
2006). Also, while all members of a subculture tend to share the
same core values, hard-core and peripheral members tend to be
drawn to different elements of those core values and also enact
those values differently (Quester et al. 2006). Finally, hard-core
members of a subculture often serve as opinion leaders within a
subculture and are actively involved with shaping the ethos and
behaviors of the collective (Donnelly 1981).
In summary, extant literature suggests hard-core member’s
commitment to a consumption-oriented community is character-
ized by an extreme commitment to the lifestyle, large amounts of
specialized knowledge, a strong link between the activity and self-
identity, and that they differ from others within the subculture.
However, while we are aware of the characteristics of hard-core
members, very little research interprets why the consumption
pattern of the focal activity dominating lifestyle exists and persists.
While we have some knowledge of how an individual progresses
from a neophyte member of a community (Donnelly and Young
1988), we know little about why the extreme involvement of hard-
core members persists over time and how this involvement is
experienced. In addition, our knowledge of the nature of identity
enactments amongst hard-core members through group member-
ship and consumption practices is scant.
To address these questions, we conducted two ethnographi-
cally oriented studies analyzing the behaviors, and the meanings
associated with these behaviors, of hard-core subculture members
to explore why their characteristic traits exist and how their identi-
ties are enacted through consumption. Such research objectives
were deemed imperative given the potential contributions the
findings would make to the subculture literature, examining the
nature of the hard-core member’s experience (i.e. developing an
understanding of their passion, commitment, and what keeps them
coming back to the subculture). An investigation solely focusing on
hard-core members was deemed appropriate as these participants
act as opinion leaders within subcultural groups, actively shaping
the ethos and behaviors of other members (Donnelly 1981).
METHODOLOGY
To explore the lifestyles of hard-core subculture members, we
conducted analyses of two non-brand based consumption-oriented
subcultures: the North American organized distance running sub-
culture and the Australian Hip Hop subculture. These subcultures
were selected for this study as both subcultures are firmly rooted in
consumption objects and experiences. Furthermore, they have both
been shown to be excellent sites for gaining insights about hard-
core members’ behaviors (Arthur 2006; Chalmers 2006). The
inclusion of multiple case analyses allowed the authors to compare
and contrast findings across subcultures that differ in both geogra-
phy and focal activity.
We adopted an existential-phenomenological approach to
understand how involvement with these particular subcultures
shapes the lives of hard-core members (Thompson et al. 1989). This
study relied on two principle methods: prolonged participant obser-
vation and in-depth interviews (McCracken 1989). The first author
collected and analyzed data on the North American organized
distance running subculture, while the second author collected and
analyzed ethnographic data on the Australian Hip Hop culture.
Both researchers spent a considerable amount of time in the field,
3 and 4 years respectively. This extended presence and participa-
tion in the field allowed the researchers to ‘learn the language’ of
those under investigation, to experience life as one of the subjects
(Elliot and Jankel-Elliot 2003), and to gain access to, and to
understand life through the eyes of, the hard-core subculture mem-
bers.
During the research process, both researchers kept field notes
of their observations and informal conversations, which were then
written up as soon as possible after the event. In addition, in-depth
interviews with 21 hard-core members of the North American
organized distance running subculture (14 males and 7 females) in
both Canada and the United States and 20 hard-core members of the
Australian Hip Hop subculture (18 males and 2 females) were
conducted (McCracken 1989). As the researchers were subcultural
participants a good rapport with the interviewees was established
which helps to ensure the quality of the information (Elliot and
Jankel-Elliot 2003). Purposive sampling was used throughout the
research process to identify hard-core members of the subcultures.
The transcribed interviews and field notes were first coded
using a free coding technique and then using QSR NVivo/N6 and
standard data analysis and interpretation procedures (Glaser and
Strauss 1967; Thompson 1997). Important themes and tensions
were uncovered through across informant, within informant, across
subculture, and within subculture analyses. The findings presented
below represent a small subset of the findings from this study and
focus almost exclusively on how hard-core members of the subcul-