...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ir-zFC9nFE&ab_channel=MosDef-Topic

.

.

.

1. What was the counter culture? What were its defining features?

.

Counter culture appears indicative of many of the anti-conformist, beatnik ideals that had taken root in the previous decade (meaning the 1950’s) - in that it was a culture dedicated towards the opposition of the socio-normative constructs that otherwise ‘dictated’, or guided how a person were to live their lives in accordance with the laws and social contracts that governed their societies.  

.

Ironically, the concept appears almost like sociological allegory for the same political conflicts that had defined the earlier 20th century - being that there is an emphasis on liberty and the power of the proletariat (in accordance with left wing, Marxism) against the rigidity and structure of democratic bodies (almost symbolic of a perceived, neo fascism).

. 

What this allegory identifies, is that there seemed to be an internal, sociocultural conflict between libertarian beliefs and forms of structuralism, and governance; and that these two oppositional ‘forces’, you could call them, had potentially been at odds with each other throughout the ‘modern era’ (meaning throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, parallel to the formation of democratic governance and the subsequent modernity crisis that corresponded to this development). 

.

.

2. “This generation [1960s] seemed determined to tear down convention that in 1950s America had defined proper behavior.” In what ways had the 1960s youth turned their backs on 1950s notions of how to live?

.

I think briefly, in almost every way; life goals gravitated more towards experience, and understanding philosophical conceptions of love, in relation to ‘the universe’, rather than the structures of work and family that had otherwise rooted 1950’s culture. This method of alternative thinking, in opposition to social or political normativity, seemed to be inherently applied to the pacifist, and civil rights movements as well - in that, governing bodies, and government, were attributed as the opposition against those who were trying to affect change, or implement ‘social revolution’.

. 

Though they may not have been directly linked, or even associated with one another - counter culture ran parallel to these ideas due to its proclivity to affect rapid change, in its case regarding social normativity, as opposed to the political agendas of pacifist movements and the ethnic-gender equality of the civil rights movements. 

.

Oppositionally, the 1950’s abided by racial and gender secularity and war was viewed as an intrinsic necessity of nations and national goals. In turn, social conformity and social normativity defined 1950’s consensus. And the baby-boomer generation was, perhaps invariably, dedicated towards inverting, or upending all of these constructs, and in seemingly an almost culminative way. 

.

.

3. The counter culture youth of the 1960s believed that they had been lied to by the previous generation. What did they think they had been lied to about?

.

Perhaps about how they were supposed to live their lives - what they were supposed to hold as valuable, and what they were supposed to be dedicated towards accomplishing. In a sense, it seems almost to be counterculture dedicated towards opposing American cultural hegemonies, defined by Antonio Gramsci as unspoken rules of governance, agreed upon without being necessarily understood (I’m paraphrasing, perhaps rather badly). 

.

To speak plainly, it was as if an entire generation decided to look at the stipulations of their own national social contract, and chose rebellion, or rebellious thought and action, as an inadvertent means of re-negotiating the points.

.

.

4. Why would the counter culture’s idea “that happiness could be a goal in itself” be considered as a revolutionary idea?

.

Because prior, the meaning of life had been to survive, or be prosperous and acquire wealth, power and authority; to take on familial responsibilities and have children, to abide one’s life by religiously codified sets of ethics, and to work in accordance with nation, and nationality, or to the socio-political principles that were emerging in the wake of failing monarchies.

.

In that sense, happiness was a measurement of success, and the inability to survive in a hostile world was the measurement of failure. There was no room for happiness as a commodity in that equation, and many people either had the means to be happy, or they didn’t.

. 

Adversely, in post-WW II America, with access to technological advancements and relative economic prosperity, those rules that had prior governed how one was to operate in the world were placed into question. 

.

Another era that one could look at by comparison is the 18th century - where in England, relative prosperity and rapid technological and sociocultural change pervaded romanticism, and romantic writers. And they in turn had their own share of non-conformists and alternative thinkers (Blake, being an obvious one, but the Shelleys, Byron and later, Wilde, all seem to be indicative of some of the same alternativist methods of thinking). 

.

. 

5. It is argued that the Summer of Love was one the most “pivotal and provocative events of the 1960s”. What made it so pivotal and provocative?

.

I think probably the scale, the quantity of like minded people and the magnanimity, or even magnitude of highly idealistically charged, alternativist ways of thinking, against the huge quantity of people that would’ve encompassed that generation (after all it’s called baby boomer for a reason).

.

Perhaps part of why it was so provocative, is because alternativsm had suddenly found itself in a kind of majority - and perhaps pivotal, because many of the people that were there would go on to shape the following decades.   

.

.

6. “The Summer of Love (and the counter culture generally) was shaped by both affluence and anxiety.” Discuss this contention.

.

I think that’s a fair enough of way of looking at it - after all, prosperity than would have been unheard of (between the years of 1910-1950, being that there had been two world wars and a great depression prior).

.

The anxiety, could have reflected the anxieties of a society that had itself, recently undergone massive degrees of change - technological, political, social, psychological, philosophical, economic etc.. I think to any degree, people tend to experience anxiety when uncertain things happen very fast - anxiety, or a sudden exhilarated rush. And though I don’t agree that these things shaped the Summer of Love, I recognize that they’re valid facets and are probably worth examining. 

.

.

7. “It could be argued that Woodstock in 1969, which was meant to be a celebration of the counter culture, instead marks the end of it.” Why?

.

I think, and I could be off here, but many of the romantic concepts, the alternativist ideologies and revolutionary modes of thinking, are all highly indicative of how young people see the world - as if, in their eyes, it’s the first time something like this has happened and everything prior must have, by extension, been concurrently wrong. 

.

And, as is the case with young people, there comes a time when they have to grow up - and are exposed to many of the realities that contradict certain idealisms. Romanticism itself, is kind of confounded by reality - and the relationship between the Romantic era (of previously mentioned 18th century England) and the Victorian Era also reflects that. 

.

There seems to be an oscillation between idealistically charged, revolutionary methods of thinking (leftist, prone to change and advocating for change quickly) and the conservatist mentalities of often older, traditional thinkers (rightist, advocating for traditionalism and opposed to change).

. 

It brings to mind Hegel’s dialecticism - whereby there is a certain relationship of thesis, antithesis and synthesis that occurs between parties of two oppositional beliefs. And in a manner of speaking, it was in 1969 when a lot of young people may have woken up to the realities of their beliefs, and practices, that the pendulum began to swing the other way.

.

Oddly, I have to wonder about the psychology of this, as fundamentally you could boil down the attitudes of either wing into the qualities of either being young, and idealistic, or older, and cautious, after having recognized some of the dangers with the former.

.

.

.

Author's Note

(Change of pace)