by BlisteredWhippet » Sun 28 Jan 2007, 18:59:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hi-fiver', ' ')I truly thought things would be different by now. I know my excuse...What's your's.
'
My excuse is I wasn't born yet. I can only comment on my experience and I have my theories. Heres the clutch parts of it:
Continuity- The 60s generation was not homogenous, it was composed of disparate and contradictory elements. It was also not congruent in that the more radical wing leading the charge did not truly act on the strength of their convictions. Social change meant pain, sacrifice, and conflict. Only a subset of a few joined this effort. The rest got high on their vapors.
Coherence- The ideals emerged in a pressure cooker, but not all kernels were in the pot: many people simply skipped the activist line of thinking. They were sympathetic but conventional thinkers and joined the status quo with its prefeb morality and reward systems.
Bubble idealism- The value systems could only really work in small informal groups, outlaw style, in some sort of metastisized bubble within the larger culture. As such, it was always prone to the antibodies of mass culture, mostly through media pressure and in turn social pressure. Direct contact with majority culture was always a highly reactive situation.
Denial- There were quite a few aspects of modern life and mass culture that radicalism downplayed or ignored in the formation of alternative value systems. These ignored influences were not trivial. As a biologic outgrowth of humanity, mass culture served many, many people in beneficial and positive ways, all of which were filtered out of adversarial social philosophies, leaving the beneficiaries of conventional social transactualism in the lurch as far as their conversion went. In other words, radicalism couldn't mount a compelling argument for itself with people who correctly interpreted its effects as the cessation of the things which validated their psychology: the homes, cars, wives, husbands, jobs, etc. The inequity of the tradeoff from middle class social functionary to "Napoleon in Rags" was too much to ask an essentially utilitarian and capitalist psyche. Many simply took the movement for what it offered gratis: the opportunity to indulge in a little political and social hedonism. But after the "music was over", it was back to basics.
Timing- The movement was loud, exceptional, powerful, artistic, but did not break through a core of American middle-class sensibility in which the dull, conformist values of the 50s carried through to the 70s and 80s. Competitive capitalist societies and especially climax societies like the USA in this period granted substantial benefits to the loyalty and obedience of its subjects, many of which had formed concrete notions of life and purpose in the 40s and 50s. These people were "Great Society" foot soldiers, calm, religious, reserved, and not at all fazed or seduced by radicalism. America was the most powerful nation on Earth, and people's standard of living was increasing exponentially. 60s radicalism was but a pimple on the bosom of a Beauty Queen.
Pop Culture- Consumerism was inescapable as a component of the growth of the philosophy. The 60s was a feedback loop of culture feeding on culture, music, art, but fundamentally, youthful naivety and energy. Capitalism co-opted the alternative structures and neutralized the creative/destructive energy within the philosophical framework. It was OK to dress, talk, and act like the Weather Underground, but its patent illegality was not fashionable and during the course of the 60s the corporate structures, driven by a market for the trappings of radicalism, found a way to bank the profits it promised, co-opting the message and creating legions of false practicioners with no philosophical basis for belief or real advocacy.
Bad Plan- The radicals were not organized for politcal power, and this limited any chance they had at changing culture. The anarchism of belief meant that their group was headed for social ghettoization, again a poor choice of tactic when competing with material capitalism. Revolution didn't make it to the ballot box. The cultural institutions repelled its advances out of hand. I would say it was the failure of idealism which produced the 70s and ascendent yuppie capitalism of the 80s, since acitvism became anathema when rotated out of pop culture favor. Liberal radicalism was bred out of people when they were confronted with physical and deep-seated cultural beliefs.
I think there is alot to learn from these experiences when thinking about the transition from cheap to scarce energy, and the formation of lifestyle and lifeways in personal terms. A lot of pioneering work in the business of turning one's back on civilization in general was accomplished and fleshed out in this period. The struggle of counterculture thinking and acting within consensus culture will always be a primary problem for people who want to "think different". The key is honest and thorough examination of its failures. The positive aspects of radicalism are not problematical and mostly personal in affect.
The simple reason for the fact that the status quo is not dead can be summed up easily: GDP. Too many people have too much investment in this system to abandon it. The market is truly a Frankenstein's monster, the Invisible Hand its manifestation. Revolution requires a recipie of several things, one being discontent and disaffection, so revolution can't be expected by the mass status quo until the whole scheme hits a very low point, and those who find more value in change outnumber those whose vested interests repel attmepts at change.