Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jonathan Evelegh's avatar

Following the hippies, it is arguable that punk was a continuation of counterculture (without the “the”). To some degree, it may still be although somewhat difficult to discern because so much of it is truly underground and, just as the hippies, has to some extent been coopted by fashionability. And I remember long ago saying punk would not be exploited by fashion interests because it was so extreme. I was wrong. However, it has had a surprisingly long half-life as a vision of how much change is needed.

From my personal point of view and participation, following my relatively early rejection of punk style although not philosophy, I believed that the next step of counterculture was the so-called world music or world beat movement of the early ‘80s. The thinking was to embrace of the core concept of the Whole Earth idea and extend it to the cultural realm of music. We would hear and dance to the contemporary music of cultures around the world and develop a deeper understanding of their societies, cultures and politics as well as to some extent raise an early flag for the movement against colonialism and imperialism. The use of various media techniques developed by the punks was key. I'm thinking here of independent recording and distribution, cassette culture, fanzines, and generally get on and do it yourself. Depending on your viewpoint and thinking about time scales, it was either an outstanding success that continues to reverberate or a rather squalid rip-off of other cultures. I’m inclined to the former, quite strongly in fact, and only note that much of the music from non-American or European sources seems to have become more influenced by the West than being able to stand on its own stylistic feet. I don’t think the game is over.

However, what I also saw up close and personal in the early ‘80s was the emergence of digital culture from some of the stalwarts of ‘60s counterculture. Surely, you know that I refer to Stewart Brand (sometime publisher of Gregory Bateson and definite enthusiast for his concepts), his cohorts from Whole Earth days, some of them anyway, and such figures as Kevin Kelly, first editor of Wired, and Howard Rheingold, general gadfly. Undoubtedly, the long-term implications of Moore’s Law were not entirely appreciated - and perhaps are still only just coming into view. The story has essentially been told any number of times and has at least semi-legendary status. I was always very ambivalent about computers, partially because I saw that they tended to make those “into” them rather monomaniacal, holding themselves separate and superior to those who had not seen the light - and, also because I liked the “real” world, the physical and social and sweaty and uncertain relationships with other humans and the ways we chose to have fun in that real world. You know, sex ‘n’ drugs ‘n’ rock-and-roll.

On the other hand, what I also remember of those early days of techy digital culture was an intense commitment to how we would make everything better with these new tools. We’d be able to combine words, graphics, music with hyperlinks and all in one package. Education and art museums and entertainment would all explode with new and exciting forms of media. Well, we’ve seen what has come to pass. I hesitant to make much of a value judgement beyond it was over-hyped and a lot of the results have been disappointing.

However, another interpretation that I think is supported by some of what I saw is that this dawning brand new day also had something of an idea of replacing the old power structure. It was a bottom-up process of developing these new technologies. Obviously, that did not last for long and was pretty naive anyway, both about human nature and the role of corporations. Soon enough, there was a lot of money being made and sloshing about and plenty of hands trying to grab the cash. A decade or so later, social media came on the scene. Just like the early days of bulletin boards and conferencing systems such as the WELL, there was much jubilation about how now the people could talk directly to one another without regard to the man. Once again we’ve seen how that has worked, although there are some noticeable indications (as Ted himself has pointed out) that the wheel is turning once again. We’ll see.

When it comes to reviving a counterculture, I’ll admit to being a bit flummoxed. It seems that the colt has left the barn, so what’s the point of locking the door? Our consumerist, profligate society appears to want to burn the whole thing down. A viable counterculture has to whole heartedly reject that, not just play around with head dresses, drugs, and whacky behaviour. Perhaps those concentrating on the climate change issue, its many issues really, constitute such a thing - but we’re back to where the power lies, who can use it and what for. As Ted said, we fooled ourselves the first time. I believe we need very deep, radical, and innovative thinking on a wide scale not to make the same mistakes. I’m not sure I see the pre-conditions at this time necessary for such a development much as I wish for it and attempt to live my personal life in accordance with such a goal. I hope I’m wrong once again.

Expand full comment
Mike Laursen's avatar

One insight I got from Bateson that is very applicable to the modern world is (in my own words) is it is difficult to be much saner individually than the collective sanity level of your social environment.

Expand full comment
125 more comments...

No posts