As the protagonist becomes dissatisfied with "the system," his deviance produces problems. The fascists try to get him to stick with the party line, but fail. Guns start popping up left and right. His "liberation" from the crushing cultural conformity somehow threatens everyone else - and is, in the end, the reason for his death. Got that? He "had" to die because he smoked dope, didn't care about his mortgage payment, and thought his wife shouldn't worry about spilling beer on the $4000 sofa upholstered in Italian silk. Freedom isn't equated with participating in society in any well-adjusted fashion; instead, it is displayed only in connection with freeing one's "inner child" from any moral or ethical constraints "imposed" by society. Society—the "system"—is evil, and there is no escape save the final one.
Given the wide-ranging critique offered by Heath and Potter, it is really difficult to summarize everything they attack. Suffice it to say that they identify some of the fundamental flaws which lurk below the surface of the "counterculture." They point out that far from representing a form of social dissent, "rebel consumerism" only feeds more of the same; there is nothing better for a capitalistic society than a group of consumers obsessed with differentiating themselves from the mainstream. As the authors note, "Most people spend the big money not on things that help them fit in, but on things that allow them to stand out from the crowd. They spend their money on goods that confer distinction." They argue that much of the countercultural rhetoric is simply a justification for people to do what they want, rather on actively working to change society.
From topics such as uniforms, rules, tourism, alternative medicine, and more, Heath and Potter manage to mount a damning argument that the "counterculture" has done more harm than good, that it is based upon fallacious reasoning and causes many people (especially those on the far left) to reject reasonable proposals to resolve the "collective action problems" which face society simply because such solutions aren't "deep" enough for them. It isn't to say that this is a book written by someone on the political right; far from it. Both of the authors appear to embrace some (if not many) of the social and economic perspectives of the left. Rather, they perceive the myth of the "counterculture" as actually working to paralyze the left—to render it impotent, as it were. In their minds, far too many countercultural rebels are wasting their time on deviance rather than dissent, and challenging everything about society rather than working to make the world a "better place."
Article comments
1 - alpha
The book sounds fascinating albeit ludicrous. Who ever equated Dr. Martin Luther King and the Hells Angels?
VWs (the best selling car in the world over 50 years with 2,000,000 sold and the last produced in 2004 from the Mexican assembly plant) were flimsy and dangerous; but were they a countercultural phenomenon? Millions of Central and South Americans did not think so.
Alternative medicine does not always work. Neither does traditional medicine. How did they decide anything but mainstream medicine was harmful to the social fabric?
It does sound like a fascinating if unsound work.
2 - miriam
A very, very good post of what sounds like an interesting and worthwhile book.
3 - Bill Wallo
Who ever equated Martin Luther King and the Hell's Angels? Many counterculture radicals who bought into the notion that outlaws and rebels were automatically fighting the "system," that's who. Philosophers like Herbert Marcuse, whose beliefs still infuse much debate academic debate on America's universities.
No one said that the authors automatically rejected alternative medicine. They point out, however, that virtually any medication which can be proven to work is ultimately pursued not simply by lots of people but by companies which produce products. And they point out that much of the alternative medicine craze is based upon a mistaken perspective of how medicine actually works.
As the authors note, the homeopathic tradition in the West was abandoned because it didn't work. European doctors once believed that the body was composed of fundamental elements such as earth, air, water, or fire (or, in the Galenic tradition, blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile). All homeopathic systems have "broad structural similarities." Why, the authors wonder, is it more acceptable to think that one's qi energy has been disrupted (per traditional Chinese medicine) than to offer leeching as a remedy for cancer (traditional European homeopathic medicine)? They come from the same basic tradition, the same basic pre-molecular biology understanding of human physiology, and are adopted largely as the result of a mistaken effort to escape "the system."
4 - gonzo marx
ko..it does sound interesting..but i think i spotted something here...
*The rebels of the counterculture are not co-opted by the system and they don't sell-out to the system because they're all really part of the system, if one exists at all - namely, society itself.*
according to the Poster, this seems to be a baseline Postulate for the book he is speaking about...
my counter-point, if you will, is that "selling out" is EXACTLY what gets done...
once the entire "hippy" thing was commercialized and became "pop", you got sheep that followed the "herd" and conformed with the Trend...
see the Distinction...Innovators, and Trendoids
Observe it again as "punk" happens
have you looked at the current demographics of Harley riders in the last 10 years?
Marketers and Salesmen..you know, those scions of evil that ride in the forefront of the System, co-opt any new undercurrent in sub-Culture that they can find, then leverage it into consumerism
ask that suburban white kid why he is wearing his pants halfway down his underwear...see if he knows that it comes from South Central kids paying Respect to their friends in jail and not allowed to wear belts...
10 years ago, how many folks did you see with blatant tattoos and multiple piercings?
on and on
you can go back to the Swing Kids of the 20's, bebop in the 40's, the Midnight Ramble, the Beat movement...what will the next counter-Innovation be?
me? no sheep for your humble Narrator...
i may pick up this book to see more of what they say, it seems like they miss the mark by just a skosh, possibly because they missed any Innovation themselves...
i like cultural Innovation...it's what brought those kookie Revolutionairy Founders to thumb their noses at
the System
i'll stay a wolf
nuff said?
Excelsior!
5 - gonzo marx
dreck...missed a tag..sry about that
Excelsior!
6 - M. Simon
Prohibition regimes always foster counter cultures.
Think about speak easies and the alcohol culture of the 1920s. It was called Jazz. Sex, drugs, music. The 60s were not the first time.
In a prohibition regime it has to be deviance. Difference will not do. Breaking the law is important. Felonies are better. Especially if they require no heavy lifting or getting out of your chair.
The guy has found something. I'm not sure it is what he thinks it is.
7 - M. Simon
Bill,
"Alternative medicine" may be just one big placebo effect.
Since placebos are better than nothing then to a certain extent such medicine works.
8 - Bill Wallo
Gonzo:
Oh, you deluded wolf. :)
Here's the way Potter and Heath would respond. The system does not co-opt anything. The system doesn't make sheep nor does it "commercialize" anything. You do.
Nothing is "leveraged" into consumerism. You are already consuming as you strive for "difference." And it has less to do with the system than it does with social interaction between individuals: as all the wolves adopt something "cool" others embrace those things as well. And of course the "wolves" are bothered by the loss of "distinction" or "status" associated with their previously "unique" place in society and so they must seek out something less popularized in order to maintain their place in the pecking order.
It is actually fascinating to juxtapose this book with John Leland's Hip: The History and see the same reflections. Leland (an editor for Rolling Stone) recognizes that "hip" groups are principally based on an "insider-outsider" theory and the bigger the "insider" group becomes the quicker the "hip" are to seek something new simply because otherwise they aren't able to maintain their unique "place" in hip society.
Everything you write factors into Heath and Potter's critique, and in fact supports their argument. It doesn't matter whether the kids with their baggy pants "know" the origin of their attire. The point is that somebody did it first, and somebody started selling more baggy pants because a segment of society wants those things (not because it was "commercialized" by the system), and then they start selling more because others are locked into the same pursuit of "cool." It's about people, not some "system."
The reality is that you've bought into the myth of the counterculture - the illusion that by not being a "sheep" you are somehow better than all the mindless drones, when in fact you're just another person locked into a struggle for cultural status with all the other people out there who would like to think of themselves as "wolves."
Heath and Potter have an answer for you, however, if you really want to disengage from the "consumer culture" rather than continue to feed it in your restless pursuit of the Holy Grail of the counterculture, that which is incapable of being "co-opted." You can go and live in the Unabomber's cabin.
But as you say - Excelsior! And, ah - happy trails.
9 - Bill Wallo
Think about speak easies and the alcohol culture of the 1920s. It was called Jazz. Sex, drugs, music. The 60s were not the first time.
In a prohibition regime it has to be deviance. Difference will not do. Breaking the law is important. Felonies are better. Especially if they require no heavy lifting or getting out of your chair.
Not quite sure what you're saying here - if you are, in fact, suggesting that outlaws are somehow "good." Dissent can be good under certain circumstances; mere deviance rarely is. The assumption seems to be that Heath and Potter are only focused on the recent "counterculture," but they're not. They track over 200 years of cultural history in the context of their argument.
The point is not that there is deviance or outlaws, because they have always existed. The point is the assumptions being made about the value of such things. Neither prohibition nor its abolition made society a noticeably better place; thus, having a drink in a speakeasy is having a drink, not a form of cultural rebellion that is worth much of anything at all. The same is true of drugs today: if someone smokes dope thinking he's rebelling against "the system" and doing his part to transform society, he's an idiot smoking a joint.
The counterculture views self-gratification as somehow inherently subversive. Consider Heath and Potter's exploration of the film Pleasantville, which they conclude by saying:
10 - Bill Wallo
"Alternative medicine" may be just one big placebo effect.
Since placebos are better than nothing then to a certain extent such medicine works.
Let's conduct a little experiment. Let's say that the manufacturer of Tylenol adopted this perspective, that "placebos are better than nothing," and decided to cut costs by making 1/2 of the pills in each bottle of pain reliever just placebos. Better than nothing, right?
But people would be outraged to learn of this, would they not? It would be a public relations nightmare, one would think. And yet the company could rightly argue basically what you're saying: hey, #1, nobody is harmed by this, and #2, placebos are "better than nothing."
Why the outrage in one example, and tacit acceptance in the context of "alternative medicine?" Shouldn't "alternative medicine" be held to the very same standard?
And one final point: in many instances, "placebos" are not any more effective than nothing at all. There are cases in which in the context of say, pain relievers or nasal decongestants, studies suggest that people may sense relief even when taking only a placebo. That is far less likely in the face of truly serious diseases.
11 - gonzo marx
well hello Bill, you poor deluded sheep
let me try and help you to understand..
you have a good point when you say "you do" in reference to the Responsibility belonging to the Imdividual..ALL Responsibility rests in the Individual, one of the things that differentiates between sheep and wolves...a wolf KNOWS he is Responsible for himself
that being said, i recognize that what i wrote does support part of the postulates spoken of in your review of this Book, my Point is that it does not adequately describe ALL of the Variables involved, and thus gives a less than complete picture of the situation.
let me assure you, i am many things, deluded is NOT one of them
i spent from '83 to '96 "outside" of the System...no drivers license, all cash, nothing in my name officially
i did this, not in the wilds of some unpopulated rural area but in the most populated state in our nation, down on the Jersey shore...let me assure you, i was not alone
i tell this bit to show that i am somewhat experienced with what we speak about from both sides of the Equation, before my "outlaw" days i was in the military, since '96 i have moved to Maine and am a regular Citizen, following all the Rules of Society
what you miss is obvious when you used the woprd "adopt" instead of Innovate, when you think of it as "cool" instead of conscious statement expressed in Style
i do Agree that is is People that make "culture", but i put it to you that unless you understand where it comes from and why you do it, you are not an Innovator, but a Trendoid
you use phrases like "status" within the "culture" and mention some type of "struggle" within it...that all depends on the Tribe in Question, doesn't it? each has it's own societal customs...most all are considered outside of the mainstream or "pop" culture and definately variations of "normal" culture
a "wolf", in these circumstances, cares not about "status" or "distinctions"...it is not about "fashion" or "cool" or "acceptance" with the exceptions of those in a substrata or "Tribe"...it is about Individuality as opposed to homogeneity
but your mileage may vary
as for the "placebo" bit...
Bill sez..
* Let's say that the manufacturer of Tylenol adopted this perspective, that "placebos are better than nothing," and decided to cut costs by making 1/2 of the pills in each bottle of pain reliever just placebos. Better than nothing, right?*
fallacious Postulate there Bill, what you are describing is outright Fraud, by marking the bottles as "tylenol" and putting ANYTHING else in the bottle, you have lied to the purchaser...far different than selling "Darnitol" as an unsubstantiated pallative...
the whole "medicine" thing is another Argument for another day, and my lunch time is about done...
just shout if you have any more you Wish to discuss on the Topic...always glad to help in a reasonable Discussion...but i still feel that you and the book's Authors have missed some pertinent data
Excelsior!
12 - Pat Cummings
This book review has been selected for Advance.net. You’ll be able to find this and other Blog Critics reviews at such places as Cleveland.com’s Book Reviews column.
13 - mike hollihan
Forgive me, gonzo....
"ALL Responsibility rests in the Individual, one of the things that differentiates between sheep and wolves...a wolf KNOWS he is Responsible for himself"
Wolves need sheep; sheep only need grass. Without sheep, wolves do not exist. Without wolves, sheep do fine. Too well, in fact. Wolves are entirely dependent on the sheep.
Then there's the fact that all are part of the larger "society" of the biosphere... which gets back to the book's point.
14 - Bill Wallo
Hey Gonzo:
Will the sheep and the wolves ever lie down together?
I'm not "missing" your argument at all. I understand your perspective but think you're overstating your point. If, as you suggest, you do something because you want to, as an individual, that's great. Nobody - neither myself or the authors of this book - would doubt that that each of us has urges for things and might like X instead of Y.
For example, I love spicy Thai curry and my son doesn't. I like hard rock and somebody else likes rap. Personal taste or "style" isn't the issue. Neither, in this regard, is "innovation" or improvement in something, or trying something "new." In point of fact, genuine "dissent" isn't wrong either.
But the problem arises in a misconception about what we're doing. It's not the idea of doing something we like, but rather that what we like must change because it's been "co-opted" by the system or the "sheep." The question that must be asked is, "Why?" Why if we like a particular band and they get "popular" should we decide that we need to find a new sound? Is it simply because we no longer like the sound or because by becoming popular they no longer afford us the same hip cachet?
The distinction between what you call "innovators" and "trendoids" is the exact faultline described in the book. Often, innovators fall into the trap of assuming that change is mandated because the "sheep" are following too closely. "Individuality versus homegeneity" is precisely the question: do you do something because you like it (no matter who else does) or because you want to be "an individual?"
Stick with your perspective if you want, but the reality is that much of the countercultural "revolution" is all bark and no bite, all talk and no fundamental change, all sitting on a beach dropping out from society and not doing anything that would actually alter something.
15 - Bill Wallo
Oh, and Gonzo:
As to the "fallacious postulate" raised regarding alternative medicine and Tylenol: the example is not predicated upon fraud at all. If the makers of Tylenol told consumers that the bottle contained 1/2 placebos and 1/2 real Tylenol but made it impossible to tell which is which (much like is done in most clinical trials) the debate would be the same. People would know that the real Tylenol worked better than the placebo, and would object to such a practice.
"Alternative medicine," which is generally given a culturally based pass, ought to be held to the same standards of rationality. Anybody who would question a chiropractor's belief that fevers and earaches can be cured by a spinal adjustment ought to be willing to question Eastern-based "alternative medicines" as well, because they all stem from the same homeopathic tradition.
16 - gonzo marx
ok..we'll do these in order for the sake of Clarity..
mike h.
nothing to Forgive...no worries
there is far more for "wolves" than just sheep..not all wolves prey upon the sheep, and in no way are they completely dependant upon them...tho the convenient "herd" is quite useful
the biosphere is NOT the same as Society, do you mean the wealthy Society on the upper east side of Manhattan?, or the genteel Society of Atlanta? or the underground Society in Crenshaw? etc... do NOT confuse the woprld we live in with the artificial tribal boundaries we observe
and without the wolves the sheep overpopulate, eat all the grass and then go extinct...
perhaps the Analogy is too confusing for our purposes...shall we put Metaphor aside and stay with Innovators(wolves), Trendoids(sheep) and Mainstream (regular folks)
i think you may find that it is the Innovators who are truly needed, the Revolutionairy is the one that initiates Progress and at least envisions Change to culture and Society
the Trendoids then follow, seeing that at least something different from the "norm" is here and feeling some closeness to some facet of the Innovation, even if not completely embracing or even understanding it...wait long enough, and viable Innovation then becomes the Mainstream
more on that in a bit...
Bill sez...
*I understand your perspective but think you're overstating your point.*
not overstating at all...to continue from above and one of my previous Comments on this Topic...
our Founders were counter-culture Innovators, were they not? they "rebelled" against their Society, their Church and their King to do what they believed was Correct... they Innovated
along came the Trendoids that liked what they were doing and understood at least part of the Inovation to the point where they devoted "life, fortune and sacred honor" and proceeded to win the War....this Innovation then eventuallyt became part of the Mainstream culture and thus a Thread in the Fabric of Society
yes, the wolves and the sheep easily live side by side, it's when the "shepards" try and extirminate the wolves, or worse...domesticate them, that there are difficulties
the rest of your Thoughts in comment #14 show that you are talking about the Trendoids, NOT the Innovators...a Trendoid moves on to the next Thing, keeping little bits and tossing aside the rest...for the sake of "cool" or "conformity" or factors of maturity, social position and a myriad of other Variables...
the Innovator does what they do for their own Reasons, not anyone elses
Bill closes with saying..
*Stick with your perspective if you want, but the reality is that much of the countercultural "revolution" is all bark and no bite, all talk and no fundamental change, all sitting on a beach dropping out from society and not doing anything that would actually alter something.*
scroll up a bit, and check out what i said about the Founders...again...there are many other Examples of this self same Principle in action over the course of human History...do not make the error of equating the Trendoids with the actual Innovators...a "dog" is NOT a "wolf"
as for comment #15...eastern Medicine eh? ok..i can only speak for chinese medicine here, and will tell you that it comes from 5000 years of empirical data, they don't care HOW something works, just that it does, the chinese had a very fascinating system of healthcare for most of their History, you paid your Doctor a little bit every year, and stop paying him when you got sick...until he made you well again
a Doctor that lost too many patients wound up very dead for being a charlatan
i do hold any form of medicine up to a high standard...sadly much of western medicine is sorely lacking in the same way that many of the "alternatives" are
not all mind you, some stuff on both "sides" works great...interesting that the "East" is learning "Western" medicine (many chinese doctors in the gung fu world are now western doctors as well) but we see very little of the reverse...
hope that helps explain my Viewpoint a bit
as always, your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
17 - A. Yippie
The authors seem to miss the point of the Yippies' protests and "proposals." It was pure satire â€" humor and bravado were the Yippies stock in trade. No one in the movemnet took the Yippies' proposals seriously. It would have taken several tractor -trailers of LSD to make a dent in the water supply. "Flake," the spray-on LSD that would make delegates and their wives into degenerate horndogs, was a classic Yippie prank. Sure the Yippies were rebels, but were they "dviants"? Of course not! They were poking fun at the deviant mainstream culture that dropped Napalm on babies and sicced police dogs on people trying to vote.
And the Yippies were leveraging their humor for an angle that the Left could never figure out how to play: the Media. Their stunts were audacious or humorous enought to spark reaction and nab a few minutes at the end of the national and NY local newscasts. Before cable and the Internet, that was huge exposure.
The Yippies lost most of their edge after they engaged in the same sectarian splits the Left did, at the conventions in Miami in 1972. They lost some of their humor, and the media their tolerance for the Yippie! antics.
On occasion, the Yippies have pulled off something in recent years that has broken through the media blackout. The War Chest Tour in Dallas, at the Republican Convention in 1984. That march ended in the celebrated flag-burning that went to the Supreme Court. The "JUMP" campaign with the bulls-eye banner on Wall Street, before the crash(es) n 1987 and the Internet bubble. The rash of pie-throwings by Yippies in the 1970s is being referenced in the recent spate of pie-throwing incidents.
We never went away. Yippie! is still a philosophy. Check out http://yippie.mindvox.com.
Yippie!
18 - andrew
Hey everyone,
Andrew Potter here, co-author of the book under discussion. Bill is right -- there is an interesting comparison to be made with Leland's book. What I like about Hip is that for Leland, hip is almost entirely about race. In contrast, neither Joe nor I have much to say about race and its relation to the counterculture.
Partly, that is because we're Canadians, and race just isn't a part of our political consciousness the way it is for Americans. But also, it is because we think that the civil rights movement had the success it did precisely because it avoided getting taken over by countercultural elements.
Anyway, thanks for the review, and for everyone who is taking the time to comment. For those who are interested, there is a Q&A on the website for the Canadian edition of the book (which was called "The Rebel Sell"). Go to www.rebelsell.com
Cheers.
19 - Lizard-Man
Yippie:
You just admited what Andrew and Ron explained in their book. The Yippie movement...WAS A JOKE!!!
It was nothing more then an attempt to be as out there and as extreme as possible. The Yippie movement was less about changing anything and just about having fun. Tell me, how is smoking LSD, crashin conventions and coming up with joke campaigns to sponser pigs for president going to change anything about the system? The answer, it won't!
The yippie movement was all about fun not about work, and that the problem. You can't expect that just having fun will change anything! People like Martin Luther King and civil rights activists organized change through negotiation and debate and hard work. He spent his days orating and holding marches, spreading his gospel of equality to the masses, going to Black and White communities and organizing branches of the movement everywhere. IT WAS HARD WORK! He did not sit around and defy the system of oppression by smoking dope and playing loud music to blot out the polic sirens. He worked with the law...to change the law! THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BOOK! You can implement more change if you try to limit what advertisers and corporations can do. Heavier taxes on ads would decreases ads! Uniforms in schools would decrease the fashion race in school and force students to not dress in Nike and Adiba and Roots clothing.
As for Gonzo:
You're comparison with the founding Fathers is simplistic and an overused arguement. How many organizations have tried to use the founding fathers as their mouth piece to show themselves right and others wrong?
You cannot see the difference between justifiable disobidence and just plain social deviance. Deviance is basically vandalism and a disregard for rules. If someone is to throw a brick through a window or decides to graffiti a building with an obscene gesture, does that mean he is standing up to an oppressive government? No he's just being a jerk. If you saw a police officer brutally beating up a woman and attempting to rape her and you took a gun out and shot him that would be justifiable disobedience. You defied a man of law who was so obviously going against the law. The founding fathers were like the latter example. They saw a government brutally taxing them without representation and treating them poorly and unfairly. They decided they did not want Tea anymore and threw it into the Boston River as an act of Civil disobidence towards what was in their minds an oppressive rule. Revolution should come when you see your government or members of it so obviously break the laws of civil liberties, not because you're ticked off at them for putting up billboards and trying to sell you new cars. It why the american Revolution was believed to have been caused by the Red Coats firing on a peaceful protest group, and some historians apparently dispute whether or not the protest was peaceful.
Even then, what did the founding fathers do? Did they decide to lay around and take opium in hopes the British would go away? No. Did they decide that were gonna throw off their wigs and start letting their hair grow out while listening to music that was loud and contained rude sometime lurid comments like Breast and Humbugs? Did they get their women to flash their legs as a sign of their independence? No. They did not waste their time acting like drunken morons and hoping the problems would go away by acting out of the mainstream. They took charge, they tried negotiating with the British, tried to make them see reason. In the end it didn't work and they believed themselves forced to rebel against the British government. But they did not try and rebel by being "Different" and "Cool" and becoming "Wolves" in your term. If anything they Founding fathers could be seen as the other kinds of Sheep, the Black Sheep. The sheep who decided to stray from the herd and make their own rules, but nevertheless they were sheep following an ideal. While the British loyalists remained with the previous herd and got themselves ridiculed for it.
I think most of the people who Criticise this book either miss the point of what its trying to say or they are blinded by their own bias interpretation of society. It all comes back to the first example cited in the book, Blackspot sneakers. If a magazine like Adbusters, so ferverently anti-corporation, decides to market its own brand of shoes (And yes that white spot is still a logo no matter what you say) then how can anyone possibly think that the mainstream and the alternative are sperate entities?