Counter-Culture

I

Introduction

Counter-Culture, in sociology, a set of values and associated behavioural patterns alternative and opposed to those dominant in a society or community which are actively rejected by followers of the counter-culture who derive a sense of a distinct identity or common cause from their opposition to the established values and patterns of life. Such a set of values may be more or less coherent, consistent, and integrated but are generally quite diverse and diffuse, and even contradictory, rather than forming a tight and well-defined system. They are shared to a very varied extent by followers of the movement. The term is related to that of subculture, a broader concept that does not necessarily carry the connotation of radical opposition or rejection of mainstream norms, standards, and patterns of behaviour. Also, while counter-culture often entails a political dimension, it is not primarily political in its aims in not seeking directly to change or reform central social institutions or, at least, differs markedly from the political movement in terms of its methods. The aim is to challenge dominant values directly through actions and lifestyle choices rather than to acquire power or to influence traditional political institutions and organizations. Alliances may be made with more politically motivated groups but counter-cultural groups are generally distinct in their mode of operation and general ethos, which often eschews the overtly political.

The term acquired common currency from the title of Theodore Roszak’s account of the youth rebellion and cultural and political ferment of the 1960s, The Making of a Counter-Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition (1969). Generally taken to refer to this movement, the term has sometimes been used more widely to refer to oppositional subcultures in any society at any period of history as is the case, for example, with J. Milton Yinger’s Countercultures: The Promise and Peril of a World Turned Upside Down (1982) and Frank Musgrove’s Ecstasy and Holiness (1974). Yinger would include, among other things, the ferment in England during the 17th century at the time of the Civil War, and Musgrove the Romantic movement of the 19th century.

II

The 1960s Counter-Culture

The counter-cultural movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s is the paradigm of a counter-culture. With antecedents in the earlier beatnik and hip subculture of the 1950s, this period saw a major movement among young people who sought a very different society from the one they had grown up in; a society in which there would be maximum freedom for the individual to pursue self-realization free from the constraints of what were seen as outmoded, repressive mores and standards of “straight” society and of its emphasis upon material and career aspirations, high consumption of mass-produced goods, and hypocritical conformity to narrow standards of respectability. According to Roszak, it was the “repressive rationality” of the contemporary “technocratic society” that the counter-culture rejected as failing to meet creative, spiritual, and non-rational needs.

Exemplified most radically by the hippies, the 1960s counter-culture preached a message of a better world through becoming better people. Transformation of the self, outlook, and mentality, rather than changing established institutions, the creation of an alternative society and tolerance of diversity and individuality was the hippy proclamation. This transformation would produce a more spontaneous and creative attitude to life in which role-playing would be replaced by authenticity in behaviour and relationships.

The hippies announced their distinctiveness very visually through long hair styles for men and colourful clothing and dress styles. Their extremely unconventional appearance earned them the appellation “freaks”, which they enthusiastically adopted as an entirely appropriate expression of their rejection of “normality”. The ideal was to “drop out” of mainstream society and to create the alternative society by living it on an everyday basis through new patterns that ran counter to the established ones. The emphasis was on finding a way around the wasteful, profligate, capitalist consumer society through such things as free exchange of products, rejection of the work ethic, communal living, and “retribalization”. Hundreds of communes were established, often in remote areas, as havens from the straight world and as examples to that world of an alternative way of life. The word was spread through a host of “underground” newspapers, magazines, and other publications.

The hippy counter-cultural movement upheld non-violence and peace and often denounced the institutions of the state and of government such as the police and the military, which were labelled instruments of repression and tools of the capitalist class. They were vehemently opposed to the war in Vietnam and compulsory military service. Burning the national flag, especially in the United States, was a common symbolic statement of rejection of such institutions and state actions.

A major theme of the counter-culture was sexual liberation. The sexual mores and values of the older generation were questioned and rejected. Not only was sex outside marriage and general sexual freedom extolled but also marriage itself as an institution was frequently questioned. Some tried group marriage, others casual sexual relationships. Above all the counter-culture attempted to dispel all sense of guilt and the “hang ups” associated with sexuality that had bedevilled, in its view, relationships in previous generations. For many caught up in the counter-culture sex was and should be pure, spontaneous, un-possessive fun not necessarily entailing deep or long-term commitment.

Perhaps even more controversial and challenging than its sexual attitudes the counter-culture took a very liberal view of drugs use. Though not tolerant of addictive narcotics “heads”, as they were known, strongly advocated the use of cannabis and, influenced profoundly by the guru and experimenter Timothy Leary who urged them to “turn on, tune in, and drop out”, psychedelic drugs such as LSD. Such substances were upheld as promising to open and expand the mind to new realms of experience and as vital aids to personal, and thereby social, transformation.

Rock music was central in the counter-culture, particular styles and particular bands being closely identified with it. Most notable in this respect were The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane, who not only in their music and lyrics but also in their lifestyles did much to disseminate its ideals and values. The Woodstock Festival provided a potent symbol of counter-cultural values and vitality to the extent that some began to speak of a Woodstock nation, an alternative social and political community within, or more correctly in its own estimation, outside the main society.

Yet another strand of the counter-culture was an incipient environmentalism and emphasis on natural ways of living, avoidance of pollution, protection of the land and of the environment generally. Many adopted distinctive diets based on Daoist ideas of macrobiotics, or which emphasized natural, unprocessed, and whole foods.

The counter-culture stressed the spiritual in contrast to the material aspects of life, which modern society in its view tended to neglect. In search of spiritual goals the counter-culture exhibited much experimentalism and eclecticism, bringing together themes from mystical thought, eastern religion, paganism, Native American, and other tribal traditions, as well as a host of wholly new and innovative ideas.

III

Theories of Counter-Culture

Counter-cultures flourish during periods of rapid social change and generally involve the younger generation of adults (see Youth Culture). What is striking about the counter-culture of the 1960s is that most of those involved were not from underprivileged backgrounds and had rather good prospects. The period was one of relative affluence and prosperity. They were predominantly middle class and had or were receiving higher education in the universities and colleges. Yinger considers that in the United States employment aspirations, greatly elevated by the post-World War II boom, were, for many, no longer capable of being realized, leading to a sense of frustration and anomie. Musgrove, in contrast, found that in the United Kingdom young people were far from rebelling from frustrations resulting from declining employment opportunities and lack of career prospects. Rather they were rebelling against the prospect of career, work, and employment itself, at least of the conventional type which was seen as uninspiring and unfulfilling. Counter-cultural rebels were searching for a more authentic and less constraining style of life characterized by spontaneity and fun rather than dedication to career and company. The counter-culture, for Musgrove, was a rebellion of the un-oppressed.

Not only was the period one of relative affluence but also of high occupational and geographical mobility which had produced a sense of rootlessness and restlessness, on the one hand; and an openness to experimentation and a sense of freedom from the constraints of traditional authority, community, and respectability among the young, on the other.

Demographic factors were also significant in the rise of the counter-culture. The post-World War II generation was that of the baby boomers. The very high birth rate after the war meant that the young adult generation was very much larger than previous generations with a much higher proportion of the population being between the ages of 18 and 30.

The third major factor was the particular set of social and political events that occurred during the period. This included the rise of movements seeking racial and sexual equality. Above all, there was the war in Vietnam that alienated much of the younger generation, much of which was fiercely opposed to it.

The interaction of these factors—economic change, demography, and political events—goes a long way towards explaining the counter-culture of the 1960s. Other significant factors underlying specific aspects of it were the easy availability of reliable contraception, which greatly changed sexual behaviour and attitudes, the expansion of higher education, which placed many more young people in a situation where they had the time and where they acquired the inclination to question and to challenge established values and institutions, and the threat of nuclear conflict, which cast serious doubt upon the benefits of science and technocratic “rationality”.

Some theorists consider that conditions at the time produced a strong sense of relative deprivation among the young from middle-class families. While having high aspirations they found themselves in overcrowded and often impersonal and bureaucratically organized universities with relatively poor standards of accommodation and with increasing competition for jobs that were seen as unrewarding yet personally demanding. They faced the threat of risk to life and limb in military service in a pointless conflict in a country far from their own.

Another sociological concept relevant to understanding the 1960s counter-culture is that of status inconsistency. Social status can be measured along several dimensions such as wealth, education, occupation, ethnicity, and so on. When individuals are ranked highly on some dimensions but low on others they are said to be status inconsistent. Status inconsistency has sometimes been found to be associated with a tendency for involvement in radical social movements. Young people from middle-class backgrounds during the 1960s could be said to be status inconsistent due to their high ranking in terms of their class of origins but low ranking in terms of current income. They were also status inconsistent in terms of their relatively high ranking among their peers with regard to educational attainment before attending university but, for most, only average or low ranking in comparison to their peers once at university where they encountered many more able than themselves.

IV

The Fate of the Counter-Culture

The counter-culture was, in itself, a short-lived affair. Disillusionment set in rapidly. Drugs did not lead to enlightenment but to dependency; free wheeling personal relationships proved to be fragile and undermined by sexual and emotional jealousies; communes were difficult to sustain economically and without hierarchy, authority, and organization; children came along and changed perspectives towards a desire for greater material and personal security.

The counter-culture however, it could be argued, has not entirely disappeared either in terms of values and outlook or in terms of behaviour and life-styles. Its heirs can perhaps be seen in deep green and ecology movements such as Earth First; road protestors; New Age travellers; the appeal of eastern mysticism and of New Age ideas; dietary regimes such as vegetarianism, whole and organic food consumption; peace movements; the anti-globalization movement; rave and dance culture; and many other, often single-issue, movements expressing a culture of dissent and alternativism.