61.00. Countercultures

Summary Map

Countercultures seek to expand the Dominant Realm primarily through the Power of cultural change. Their attempts of Boundary Negotiation are based largely in questioning common Mythoscapes. Countercultural movements generally die out following Mythappropriation from the Dominant Realm.

Introduction

Long before ‘the Hippie’ was reduced to a mass-produced Halloween costume, the identity posed an existential threat to the ever-present inequities of American society. Perhaps on the surface, their retreat from society and psychedelic experimentation would seem innocuous when compared to more explicit forms of political action. Hippies rarely demanded policy change or secured electoral victories. They may not have even been actively interested in directly addressing poverty, racism, or other forms of oppression. Despite this, countercultures like them demonstrate an alternate path to challenging the frameworks in society that maintain inequity: generating Power by subverting what we know to be ‘normal.’

The supposed apoliticism of countercultures is complicated by a suspiciously consistent streak of attracting the ire of the oppressor and aligning with the oppressed. Indeed, it is not a straightforward relationship. Countercultures publicly question the resolute supremacy of the universal ideals presented by Dominant Realm, but not necessarily for the same reasons that cause inequality. They do not participate in political debate, but their actions are inherently an “attack mainly against those institutions which reproduce the dominant cultural ideological relations” (Clarke et al., p. 62). Countercultures exemplify the inextricable link between culture and politics. By rejecting the notion of people governed by socially constructed boundaries that they were not consciously involved in the development of, countercultures cement their position as a critical part of social relations.

Authentic, Artificial, or Something Else?

Is something plastic and square? Or hip and cool? From Beats to Bohemians, countercultures throughout history include a broad swath of movements that vary in style, expressions, and geography. Wacky countercultural slang is just one manifestation of “a basic philosophy or point of view [that] remains recognizably constant, though the members of new generations attracted to the same ideas often have rather little personal contact with the survivors of similar movements in the past” (Veysey, 44). Instead of direct lineage, they all seem to share a common raison d’être: rebuking ‘artificiality’ found in the dominant culture in favor of ‘authentic’ lifestyles.

Neither authenticity nor artificiality can be empirically measured; however, there are consistently recurring themes. Mass produced or performative practices, to the counterculture, are a fundamental separation from humanity. Affluence in a society with poverty, art generated for the purpose of profit, and master-planned suburban living are artificial departures from basic values. The alternative to this, then, is the natural state of being. Sexual repression or drug prohibition only serve to prevent a connection to one’s primitive state, so countercultures ignore the taboo placed upon society. Acts that contribute to a sense of inner enlightenment, or finding the truth within oneself, further fulfill the search for authenticity. Personal artistic expressions, like music and literature, are a cornerstone of countercultural activity for this reason.

Classifying authenticity is a moving target of social construction, as a hip practice one day can be square the next. This does not make it an arbitrary construct; rather, it represents the heart of countercultural generation of power. Defining these terms serves as a renegotiation of norms (van Elteren, p. 78), or Boundary Negotiation. Where dominant culture upholds a possible field of action, the nonconformity of countercultures force another debate on what really is ‘normal.’ The slang represents a battle between norms imposed on individuals versus those produced by the groups themselves. Authenticity and artificiality describe more than just stylistic preferences; they facilitate entirely different values for society.

A Material Divide

The countercultural retreat from mainstream society is often a deliberate decision, but for some marginalized groups, there was no such agency. After all, the Dominant Realm is not a neutral one. As argued by Max Weber for example, the very ethos behind Capitalism arises from poverty-justifying Protestant values where, “to wish to be poor was… derogatory to the glory of God (p. 109). Racial segregation was still normalized less than a century ago. The point is, resulting social and economic structures from the Dominant Realm systemically disadvantage certain groups from opportunities afforded to others. This exclusion prevents the ‘universal truths’ of the Dominant Realm from being as hardwired to marginalized communities – an attractive notion for countercultural movements.

In their quest for authenticity, countercultures have found inspiration in the practices of marginalized groups. To some extent, this is intuitive. The pervasiveness of dominant norms prevents any possibility of full insulation when participating in society. Meanwhile, the purity of impoverished or ‘primitive’ people, uncorrupted by the artificiality of modern life, is a countercultural dream. For the counterculture of the 1960s, engaging in voluntary poverty served as a perfect platform to criticize material excess and consumerism (Rizzo, p. 40). Simple living offered an alternative to being bound by existing economic expectations. Beatniks, just a decade prior, similarly romanticized Black culture as a “natural source of spontaneous, precivilized, anti-technological values” (Ross, p. 74). In both cases, the countercultures adopted symbols or lifestyles for their own use. This imitated authenticity seems to be a contradiction, and that illustrates the point of difference between the two groups.

Shared opposition to the Dominant Realm did not prevent tension from arising. Countercultures reflected a conflict with dominant values, but this did not guarantee a history of economic disadvantage. In fact, they frequently emerged as middle-class outgrowths – former beneficiaries of the economic status quo. This is in stark contrast to those that inspired their authenticity, who had no clear divide between cultural and material exclusion. Given how most members of countercultures could return to their privileged position within the country’s economic structure, their inspiration was perceived more like appropriation. To effectively displace the boundaries of the Dominant Realm, countercultures would not only need to adopt new musical stylings. They would also need to adopt the community-based systems of economic solidarity.

Weaponized Appropriation

Countercultures have a monumental task. Changing the dominant field of possibility cannot be achieved through the growth of a movement alone; even if one were to reach critical mass, institutions provide structural advantages to maintaining the status quo. A cultural shift against war or consumerism would need to compete with trillion-dollar industries and global networks. Put simply, countercultures are not organized enough for their norms to displace such sophisticated networks. In the process of norm renegotiation, concessions can be diluted to neutralize the counterculture, which Antonio Gramsci alludes to as a process of maintaining Hegemony:

The authentic becomes artificial when those sacrifices from the ruling class are made. If countercultures exercise power by operating outside defined social boundaries, that power is slowed as soon as the boundary appears to fold in its practices: Infiltration. This is not a new concept; in fact, it has happened consistently for at least two millennia. To prevent threats to its authority, early orthodox Christianity incorporated spiritual language of inner enlightenment while stamping out the heretical Gnostic teachings it originated from. The Orthodox Church’s domesticated adaptation of spiritual language lost the true meaning assigned by its source, though its surface appearance was similar enough to reduce the mysterious allure of Gnosticism. More recently, Internet memes serve as countercultural symbols recognized only by a hip in-crowd. The conventionally low-quality, absurdist, and irony-steeped ‘brainrot’ humor is the latest in a lineage of online content that marks youth disillusionment with the meaningless of social norms. Inevitably, authentic use dies off as soon as a national corporation commercializes memes for fast food hamburgers. In both cases, countercultural symbols and values are appropriated without a substantial change to the normative frame.

Recall Gramsci’s assertion that not only does the ruling class reinforce power, it also reabsorbs lost control. When countercultures are successful in some expansion of the dominant field of possibility, mirror movements contract it in order to reassert who is involved in shaping the boundaries. These Echocultures are a Mythappropriation of the very concept of the counterculture, providing the illusion of breaking away from the status quo as anti-establishment rebels while practicing values that reflect an earlier version of the culture and institutions defined by the Dominant Realm. Take, for example, how Manosphere communities organize a lifestyle not only around protecting male superiority, but actively denigrating the current standing of women in modern society. Women are still systemically disadvantaged, though this Echoculture suggests the boundaries that somewhat shifted toward gender equity were a mistake. Echocultural movements shift the conversation to renormalize the hierarchical, exclusionary structures that underpin the Dominant Realm.

Conclusion

Hippie Halloween costumes are now sold by department store chains in compact, plastic packages. Consumerism ironically fossilized this counterculture with the very tools it stood against. However, that does not mean Hippies lost their war. With each effort to lead a more authentic life, countercultures set an example of how individuals can band together to force dominant culture to reckon with existing social boundaries. This act of operating outside these boundaries, of questioning systems or routines taken for granted, opens the door for others to follow suit.

Each reincarnation of the counterculture may not last long, though perhaps that should not be the marker of success. The practice of questioning unstated assumptions alone is highly transferable, and when ideas of liberation, freedom, or a new way to live are cracked open, it becomes difficult to contain (Clarke et al., p. 67). As much as dominant ideology can stymie the effects of a counterculture, a new group will inevitably take the old one’s place to renegotiate norms once again. Even diluted concessions are still proof that shifting the boundaries is possible – and a threat to the dominant norms upholding inequity. Fighting against the artificial, the imposed norms, is a method of generating power that can be reproduced at scale. Different futures are possible when so much of our present is socially constructed.

REFERENCES

Bennett, A. (2012). Reappraising ‘Counterculture.’ Volume!, (9 : 1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.4000/volume.3499

Clarke, J. (1976). Subcultures, Cultures and Class: A Theoretical Overview. In Clarke, J., Hall, S., Jefferson, T. and Roberts, B., (Eds.), Resistance through rituals: Youth subcultures in post-war Britain, (pp. 56-71). HarperCollins Academic.

Gramsci, A. (1971). State and Civil Society. In Hoare, Q. & Nowell-Smith, G. (Eds.), Selections from the prison notebooks. Lawrence & Wishart, International Publishers.

Rizzo, M. (2015). Class acts: Young men and the rise of lifestyle. University of Nevada Press.

Ross, A. (1989). No respect: Intellectuals & popular culture. Routledge.

van Elteren, M. C. M. (1999). The culture of the subterraneans. A sociological view of the beat generation. In J. van der Bent, M. C. M. van Elteren, & K. van Minnen (Eds.), Beat culture and beyond. American countercultures in the 1950s (pp. 63–92). VU University Press.

Veysey, L. R. (1973). The communal experience: anarchist and mystical counter-cultures in America. Harper & Row.

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Scribner/Simon & Schuster.