5 ms·

There is a sort of nihilism that emerges when you look deeper at counterculture and it's conformity. Neo recognizing with horror the other neos is a great exam

There is a sort of nihilism that emerges when you look deeper at counterculture and it's conformity. Neo recognizing with horror the other neos is a great example. (In that case it only worked out for him because of hollywood's love of love - because he loved trinity so much he was really different from the rest.) I've often wondered how the leaders of the hippie, punk, and more modern movements would compare to classical and romantic leaders of counterculture, like Thoreau or Voltaire, or even music like Chopin or Palestrina. We do have writers today like David Graeber that do seem against the grain. I suppose a major difference is that infuential people back then didn't seem as concerned with being famous and viral (which makes them more punk than punk), and there were less people that tried to follow them. On the other hand, when you look closer, maybe the difference can be explained by how media and money flows today. At the extremes, it can seem like the only 'genuine' counterculture is self-sacrificing civil disobedience (e.g. self-immolation, not blocking traffic) or truly destructive (terrorism), because these are not scalable within mainstream culture. There should be a middle ground, but somehow I'm having trouble recognizing it. Perhaps this is because having a sustainable counterculture requires tacitly playing within the rules of the mainstream culture.

orhmeh09 3y ago
Sadly, we do not have David Graeber anymore.
AlecSchueler 3y ago
> I suppose a major difference is that infuential people back then didn't seem as concerned with being famous and viral They started caring a lot about this as soon as they had the printing press, take a look at the career of Erasmus for example.
DontchaKnowit 3y ago
In my opinion, todays true counterculture is conservative religious communities. There is nother more counter to the cultural moment then being a traditionally moral, upright citizen who doesnt do drugs, doesnt lie, cheat, steal, has their libido under control, is reliable, whose existence is profitable to the rest of the world (not neccessarily economically, just mean someone who contributes more than they take : financially, emotionally, etc) Thats about as counterculture as you can get.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  I think it's a bold claim to make, that conservative religious communities are comprised of humans who don't lie, cheat, steal, and have their libido under control. I'm sure some exist, just by dint of probability, but plenty more are made of regular stock humans like you or me, or worse.
  - brightball 3y ago
    All churches are full of sinners just like hospitals are full of sick people. You're there to get well.
    - pavel_lishin 3y ago
      Well, I'm not. But it's a good point, one that hopefully everyone there agrees on in mind and heart.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      The difference is that doctors and nurses are certified and policed.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - brightball 3y ago
        Pastors are as well. Just differently. Each church has a board of elders who will hire/fire/correct/counsel the pastors. At most protestant churches at least. I can't speak for all churches. I've seen a board of elders remove a megachurch founding pastor. They take their positions seriously.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        I have more faith in the Protestant and Baptist, more decentralized methods. Catholic monoliths, less so.
ethbr1 3y ago
The central tension is between popularity and counterculture. By definition, you cannot have popular counterculture, as it just becomes "the culture." However, most of the capital assets of culture promotion are also tied to popularity (e.g. mass-market media publishing, advertising). Denied access, counterculture exists in the woods, but most people don't know. Which is why you see truer counterculture move closer to popular culture when those assets are (usually temporarily) democratized during technological shifts (e.g. the 1960s and 1990s). But hey, maybe I just miss zines...
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  That's an interesting theory, but what means of cultural promotion were newly democratized in the 60s?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    In the 60s, mass media liberalized pretty quickly in all mediums as decreases in production costs broadened access and led to more experimentation and less ability for a limited set of gatekeepers to police content against historical norms. F.ex. Motown Records was literally founded in the back of a house. [0] It's more difficult to say "There's no market for African American music, so we're not going to make any" when someone is technically able to demonstrate otherwise on their own. Without technical disruption (mostly, in the falling cost and footprint of capable equipment), it could have been business as usual and a lot of ideas would have remained uncirculated. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motown#West_Grand_Boulevard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motown#West_Grand_Boulevard
DeathArrow 3y ago
Counterculture of today is the culture of yesterday,when no one called you a nazi bigot for doing things that were normal in the day.
- atlas_hugged 3y ago
  There’s nothing counterculture to conservatism my good man. Hell, it’s in the name. The left moves society forward, the right holds society back. I don’t like everything the young kids are doing but I know I will eventually be wrong, so I try to understand them and learn to embrace the change they bring. The young left will always, eventually, move society forward. Whether we like it or not. What you’re witnessing is people beginning to understand the paradox of tolerance. Complete tolerance towards all views will always fail because the intolerant will exploit the tolerant. Now that people understand that things are always, or even often, that simple. In order to maintain tolerance, you must also practice intolerance of intolerance. I see the whole “calling people a Nazi bigot” for saying things like “go woke or go broke” or things in that vein, is a part of that realization. I’ve always of the mind of “free speech absolutism” as Elon calls it. Then I read about how Germany handled things post ww2 and concluded that they could no longer allow fully free speech if they were going to stop another Hitler from rising to power. They had to be intolerant to intolerance. It’s a dangerous precedent that requires great care to avoid a more dangerous outcome. In general, being an angry hateful bigot of any kind has progressively been moved to the fringe of the right, instead of being smack dab in the middle of the mainstream. Interracial marriage. Slavery. Voting rights for minorities and women. Jim Crow. Civil Rights. Protection of Voting rights Self ownership / Reproductive rights Acceptance of LGBT+/GSRM communities. Acceptance of minorities. Same sex marriage. Healthcare for all. The right has met all of these with protest and violence. They eventually always lose, but not before killing a bunch of people on the left in the process. You’re on the wrong side of history. I’ve been there. Figure out why you’re so resistant to change/progress. Figure out why you’re so angry all the time. Figure out why you’re so filled with hate. If you’re surrounded by hateful people, figure out how to leave those people behind. Don’t announce your intentions. Don’t evangelize your views. Just start your path to change. The people in your orbit will either move towards you or move away from you. Expect this. Most will move away, but some will see your example and follow it. That’s the approach a friend of mine took when he decided he didn’t want to be a violent alcoholic anymore. He just decided to change. He didn’t ask me to change with him. He just did it. He never left my side so I never left his. Eventually, I followed in his example. Eventually, so did a couple of his other friends. His approach helped me become a much happier person. I hope it helps you.
yunwal 3y ago
My take is that “counterculture” is the wrong thing to look for when talking about changing the system. What’s actually going to do that is an entire generation that basically has decided to not try at their jobs and careers. Previous generations had a substantial number of people who thought that either their jobs could be their passions, or at the very least that doing well at their jobs could lead to a better life. I think Gen-z and below have internalized that trying at your job doesn’t lead to better outcomes, and that’s the real thing that will lead to change.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think that is a very interesting perspective, but think it will not lead to real or positive change. In my opinion (dont take this personally), I think it is a victim mentality, that if someone self sabotages enough, someone else will fix things or improve their situation. I think a closer model of reality is that most people are disposable. I dont think that people becoming more disposable less important increases leverage. A lot of historic change has come from organized striking, but only when the strikers have coherent demands and productivity to leverage.
  - yunwal 3y ago
    I think the key here is “at their jobs and careers”. New generations just don’t see their careers as the center of their livelihood. Their goals have nothing to do with climbing the ladder. It’s not a victim mentality to just refuse to participate in a rigged game, especially when there are other games to play. A job is a thing you do so you can live, that’s it.
tsylba 3y ago
80's Punks were the Tricksters of ancient mythology (eg. Coyote in amerindians culture), it always been the role of those at the margins of Society dealing with uncomfortable other realities, bringing liminal space into our collective consciousness. Punks are not dead, they (or more precisely their archetypal essence) have just shape shifted into another form we fail to recognize as we age while their prior shell have been consumed by mass media and commodification. Chances are the future generation Punks are either that itch we can't quite name or out of our generational perception altogether.
- obscurette 3y ago
  If you want a nerdy sci-fi take on it, then "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke is the one to read.
  - anthk 3y ago
    Nice, as I've already read "Childhood's End".
s1artibartfast 3y ago
>At the extremes, it can seem like the only 'genuine' counterculture is self-sacrificing civil disobedience (e.g. self-immolation, not blocking traffic) or truly destructive (terrorism), because these are not scalable within mainstream culture. There should be a middle ground... The middle ground is productive disengagement. It is deciding to abandon the system and build real alternatives outside of it. You see this with hippy communes, some punk scenes, and homesteaders, ect. It isnt as common because it takes a lot more work and hardship than simply "laying flat", and doesnt provide much social currency in the mainstream culture. There are also barriers in the mainstream that provide headwinds, but I think these are less of a challenge. For example, it isnt impossible for people to check out and build an eco-friendly socialist commune in the wilderness. However, it is a lot of work and few are willing to sacrifice the comforts of mainstream life, as unhappy as they may be with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping

orhmeh09 3y ago

Sadly, we do not have David Graeber anymore.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

> I suppose a major difference is that infuential people back then didn't seem as concerned with being famous and viral They started caring a lot about this as soon as they had the printing press, take a look at the career of Erasmus for example.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago

In my opinion, todays true counterculture is conservative religious communities. There is nother more counter to the cultural moment then being a traditionally moral, upright citizen who doesnt do drugs, doesnt lie, cheat, steal, has their libido under control, is reliable, whose existence is profitable to the rest of the world (not neccessarily economically, just mean someone who contributes more than they take : financially, emotionally, etc) Thats about as counterculture as you can get.

pavel_lishin 3y ago
I think it's a bold claim to make, that conservative religious communities are comprised of humans who don't lie, cheat, steal, and have their libido under control. I'm sure some exist, just by dint of probability, but plenty more are made of regular stock humans like you or me, or worse.
- brightball 3y ago
  All churches are full of sinners just like hospitals are full of sick people. You're there to get well.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    Well, I'm not. But it's a good point, one that hopefully everyone there agrees on in mind and heart.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    The difference is that doctors and nurses are certified and policed.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - brightball 3y ago
      Pastors are as well. Just differently. Each church has a board of elders who will hire/fire/correct/counsel the pastors. At most protestant churches at least. I can't speak for all churches. I've seen a board of elders remove a megachurch founding pastor. They take their positions seriously.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        I have more faith in the Protestant and Baptist, more decentralized methods. Catholic monoliths, less so.

ethbr1 3y ago

The central tension is between popularity and counterculture. By definition, you cannot have popular counterculture, as it just becomes "the culture." However, most of the capital assets of culture promotion are also tied to popularity (e.g. mass-market media publishing, advertising). Denied access, counterculture exists in the woods, but most people don't know. Which is why you see truer counterculture move closer to popular culture when those assets are (usually temporarily) democratized during technological shifts (e.g. the 1960s and 1990s). But hey, maybe I just miss zines...

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
That's an interesting theory, but what means of cultural promotion were newly democratized in the 60s?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  In the 60s, mass media liberalized pretty quickly in all mediums as decreases in production costs broadened access and led to more experimentation and less ability for a limited set of gatekeepers to police content against historical norms. F.ex. Motown Records was literally founded in the back of a house. [0] It's more difficult to say "There's no market for African American music, so we're not going to make any" when someone is technically able to demonstrate otherwise on their own. Without technical disruption (mostly, in the falling cost and footprint of capable equipment), it could have been business as usual and a lot of ideas would have remained uncirculated. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motown#West_Grand_Boulevard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motown#West_Grand_Boulevard

DeathArrow 3y ago

Counterculture of today is the culture of yesterday,when no one called you a nazi bigot for doing things that were normal in the day.

atlas_hugged 3y ago
There’s nothing counterculture to conservatism my good man. Hell, it’s in the name. The left moves society forward, the right holds society back. I don’t like everything the young kids are doing but I know I will eventually be wrong, so I try to understand them and learn to embrace the change they bring. The young left will always, eventually, move society forward. Whether we like it or not. What you’re witnessing is people beginning to understand the paradox of tolerance. Complete tolerance towards all views will always fail because the intolerant will exploit the tolerant. Now that people understand that things are always, or even often, that simple. In order to maintain tolerance, you must also practice intolerance of intolerance. I see the whole “calling people a Nazi bigot” for saying things like “go woke or go broke” or things in that vein, is a part of that realization. I’ve always of the mind of “free speech absolutism” as Elon calls it. Then I read about how Germany handled things post ww2 and concluded that they could no longer allow fully free speech if they were going to stop another Hitler from rising to power. They had to be intolerant to intolerance. It’s a dangerous precedent that requires great care to avoid a more dangerous outcome. In general, being an angry hateful bigot of any kind has progressively been moved to the fringe of the right, instead of being smack dab in the middle of the mainstream. Interracial marriage. Slavery. Voting rights for minorities and women. Jim Crow. Civil Rights. Protection of Voting rights Self ownership / Reproductive rights Acceptance of LGBT+/GSRM communities. Acceptance of minorities. Same sex marriage. Healthcare for all. The right has met all of these with protest and violence. They eventually always lose, but not before killing a bunch of people on the left in the process. You’re on the wrong side of history. I’ve been there. Figure out why you’re so resistant to change/progress. Figure out why you’re so angry all the time. Figure out why you’re so filled with hate. If you’re surrounded by hateful people, figure out how to leave those people behind. Don’t announce your intentions. Don’t evangelize your views. Just start your path to change. The people in your orbit will either move towards you or move away from you. Expect this. Most will move away, but some will see your example and follow it. That’s the approach a friend of mine took when he decided he didn’t want to be a violent alcoholic anymore. He just decided to change. He didn’t ask me to change with him. He just did it. He never left my side so I never left his. Eventually, I followed in his example. Eventually, so did a couple of his other friends. His approach helped me become a much happier person. I hope it helps you.

yunwal 3y ago

My take is that “counterculture” is the wrong thing to look for when talking about changing the system. What’s actually going to do that is an entire generation that basically has decided to not try at their jobs and careers. Previous generations had a substantial number of people who thought that either their jobs could be their passions, or at the very least that doing well at their jobs could lead to a better life. I think Gen-z and below have internalized that trying at your job doesn’t lead to better outcomes, and that’s the real thing that will lead to change.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think that is a very interesting perspective, but think it will not lead to real or positive change. In my opinion (dont take this personally), I think it is a victim mentality, that if someone self sabotages enough, someone else will fix things or improve their situation. I think a closer model of reality is that most people are disposable. I dont think that people becoming more disposable less important increases leverage. A lot of historic change has come from organized striking, but only when the strikers have coherent demands and productivity to leverage.
- yunwal 3y ago
  I think the key here is “at their jobs and careers”. New generations just don’t see their careers as the center of their livelihood. Their goals have nothing to do with climbing the ladder. It’s not a victim mentality to just refuse to participate in a rigged game, especially when there are other games to play. A job is a thing you do so you can live, that’s it.

tsylba 3y ago

80's Punks were the Tricksters of ancient mythology (eg. Coyote in amerindians culture), it always been the role of those at the margins of Society dealing with uncomfortable other realities, bringing liminal space into our collective consciousness. Punks are not dead, they (or more precisely their archetypal essence) have just shape shifted into another form we fail to recognize as we age while their prior shell have been consumed by mass media and commodification. Chances are the future generation Punks are either that itch we can't quite name or out of our generational perception altogether.

obscurette 3y ago
If you want a nerdy sci-fi take on it, then "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke is the one to read.
- anthk 3y ago
  Nice, as I've already read "Childhood's End".

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>At the extremes, it can seem like the only 'genuine' counterculture is self-sacrificing civil disobedience (e.g. self-immolation, not blocking traffic) or truly destructive (terrorism), because these are not scalable within mainstream culture. There should be a middle ground... The middle ground is productive disengagement. It is deciding to abandon the system and build real alternatives outside of it. You see this with hippy communes, some punk scenes, and homesteaders, ect. It isnt as common because it takes a lot more work and hardship than simply "laying flat", and doesnt provide much social currency in the mainstream culture. There are also barriers in the mainstream that provide headwinds, but I think these are less of a challenge. For example, it isnt impossible for people to check out and build an eco-friendly socialist commune in the wilderness. However, it is a lot of work and few are willing to sacrifice the comforts of mainstream life, as unhappy as they may be with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping