3 ms·

[Caveat: I'm not an expert here, so ignore all this.] Well, yes and no. The mainstream culture was far more dominant in the 50s than even 20 years later. And o

by zamfi 4y ago

[Caveat: I'm not an expert here, so ignore all this.] Well, yes and no. The mainstream culture was far more dominant in the 50s than even 20 years later. And of course there were countless little (and often not-at-all-little!) cultures going on at the time -- and still going on. But "counterculture" is not merely "alternative culture" -- and no one would write a post describing America today as lacking "alternative culture" because it's both false and also meaningless. In the 1950s, regular church attendance was over 50%, union membership was at 35% of private sector workers, there were 3 channels on TV, and they predominantly espoused a particular leave-it-to-beaver culture that typified what was perceived as mainstream culture. The fact that it was not actually mainstream in the sense that fewer than half of Americans actually lived that way, is mostly irrelevant. The '60s counterculture was not merely an "alternative culture"; it was powerful because it made it appear that the progeny of mainstream culture were condemning it; they questioned the power structure of that mainstream culture, despite being its plausible beneficiaries, and they were much more threatening to it than any other alternative cultures at the time (or, maybe, since) exactly because they were perceived as products of that monolithic mainstream culture. In the US, there is currently no single monolithic culture being preached endlessly in the same way 1950s culture commanded media attention, it's not clear there ever will be one again without a dramatic turn towards the authoritarian, and so it's not at all clear what a national-level counterculture would even look like anymore?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Three channels (at least 3 networks) on TV. Perhaps more than one local paper, but all the out-of-town news came from UPI or AP. Time and Life. Maybe the New York Times. And that was about it. Those eight organizations defined mainstream culture. And their positions were not very far apart. Nothing has that level of control today. There are more major organizations, and they have much more divergent positions. As a result, the culture has fragmented, becoming multiple cultures. There is no "mainstream" any more. There are multiple major streams, but no one mainstream.
somenameforme 4y ago
There's one really common fallacy you're engaging in here, largely because our media perpetuates it endlessly. The hippy movement itself was strongly apolitical. I think to many that would be surprising, so I'm going to link to a search [1] instead of any given article. Because this is not an opinion. Okay I can't resist linking to one especially interesting article though [2]. I recall The History Channel on TV turning into complete crap, but they have an oddly great selection of online articles! Of course people in a movement about freedom, finding yourself, and spirituality would generally respond one way if asked, "Hey should we go get involved in a war on the other side of the world, to try to imperil the reach and influence of a geopolitical competitor?" but the core philosophy was not only apolitical, but largely anti-political: "Do what you want... man." Everything was largely based on a loose interpretation of Eastern philosophy which is similarly much more about the pursuit (and search) for the betterment of one's inner self. The culture you're describing sounds much more like the Yippie [3] culture, which is something extremely different than hippy. As for authoritarianism - I'd argue that the lack of authoritarianism is precisely what enables counter-cultures. You're not going to see a counter-culture movement in places like Saudi Arabia. And I think something similar is happening in the US. Had the Occupy Movement been treated similarly to the hippies, I think there's a strong argument to be made that it would still exist. [1] - https://search.brave.com/search?q=were+hippies+political&source=web https://search.brave.com/search?q=were+hippies+political&sou... [2] - https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-hippies-counter-culture https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-hippies-counter-cul... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_International_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_International_Party
- zamfi 4y ago
  I think you're putting words in my mouth: I didn't make any claims of the '60s counterculture being hippies or any other specific movement, let alone being political. Further, the '60s counterculture was a bunch of groups with often very different goals. Beyond that, I was not claiming the mainstream culture as authoritarian, only that reconsolidating media control could perhaps be a result of a resurgence of authoritarianism. I think we mostly agree, btw.

by zamfi 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Three channels (at least 3 networks) on TV. Perhaps more than one local paper, but all the out-of-town news came from UPI or AP. Time and Life. Maybe the New York Times. And that was about it. Those eight organizations defined mainstream culture. And their positions were not very far apart. Nothing has that level of control today. There are more major organizations, and they have much more divergent positions. As a result, the culture has fragmented, becoming multiple cultures. There is no "mainstream" any more. There are multiple major streams, but no one mainstream.

somenameforme 4y ago

There's one really common fallacy you're engaging in here, largely because our media perpetuates it endlessly. The hippy movement itself was strongly apolitical. I think to many that would be surprising, so I'm going to link to a search [1] instead of any given article. Because this is not an opinion. Okay I can't resist linking to one especially interesting article though [2]. I recall The History Channel on TV turning into complete crap, but they have an oddly great selection of online articles! Of course people in a movement about freedom, finding yourself, and spirituality would generally respond one way if asked, "Hey should we go get involved in a war on the other side of the world, to try to imperil the reach and influence of a geopolitical competitor?" but the core philosophy was not only apolitical, but largely anti-political: "Do what you want... man." Everything was largely based on a loose interpretation of Eastern philosophy which is similarly much more about the pursuit (and search) for the betterment of one's inner self. The culture you're describing sounds much more like the Yippie [3] culture, which is something extremely different than hippy. As for authoritarianism - I'd argue that the lack of authoritarianism is precisely what enables counter-cultures. You're not going to see a counter-culture movement in places like Saudi Arabia. And I think something similar is happening in the US. Had the Occupy Movement been treated similarly to the hippies, I think there's a strong argument to be made that it would still exist. [1] - https://search.brave.com/search?q=were+hippies+political&source=web https://search.brave.com/search?q=were+hippies+political&sou... [2] - https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-hippies-counter-culture https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-hippies-counter-cul... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_International_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_International_Party

zamfi 4y ago
I think you're putting words in my mouth: I didn't make any claims of the '60s counterculture being hippies or any other specific movement, let alone being political. Further, the '60s counterculture was a bunch of groups with often very different goals. Beyond that, I was not claiming the mainstream culture as authoritarian, only that reconsolidating media control could perhaps be a result of a resurgence of authoritarianism. I think we mostly agree, btw.