No, he's just observant. Historical periods change how culture operates and what parts are relevant. There hasn't been a counterculture for some time, including there not being one when most of us here were young. The last throws were in the 80s.
There are structural and cultural reasons that make it difficult to have one now (the internet's total immediacy and transparency of everything, post-modernism which means nothing is ever really new now, just recombinations).
Disagree. The old version of (largely youth) counterculture died when the Internet happened and sped up the time to propagation and commodification of any given fashion or thought.
I agree that now counterculture sits with the deplorables. The old style stuff has been fully adopted by the mainstream.
Real estate matters. One of the prerequisites of a counterculture seems to be urban areas in which it is possible to live cheaply without working too hard. Those are hard to find in the US right now, but existed in the 1950s through the 1980s.
China now has a "lying flat" counterculture, where young people move to cheap third-tier cities where they can escape the rat race. The government is not happy about this.[1] (The term refers not to people lying down, but to crops flat in fields and not harvestable.)
Half and half. I think its true that old style counter cultures and the avant garde no longer exist but also that the "deplorables" is not counter culture. The global kind (versus but encompassing the USA specific manifestation) is a kind of reaction against progressivism based on tradition. The word "reactionary" might be used more by people hopefully without the 19th century let-them-eat-cake connotations! It's alternative.
Generally there may be some confusion of categories. There is a difference between alternative, sub and counter cultures. There are lots of sub cultures still around, and lots of groups doing their own alternative thing. I think previous counter cultures had sub cultural manifestations. Punk is a classic example with the "punk ethic". The sub culture got recuperated and commodified, and the ethic mostly but not completely died.
I'd say cyberpunk lives on in the critical take of hackers towards AI and technological capitalism for example but even if its not a subculture now and even if there's no real counter culture it still influences many counter cultural ideas. The spirit or ideas of cyberpunk hasn't been fully adopted by mainstream at the same time the aesthetic subculture was.
Interesting response, thanks. The definition of counterculture that I see most frequently is: "A culture whose values and norms of behavior differ substantially from those of mainstream society, sometimes diametrically opposed to mainstream cultural mores."
By that yardstick, I'd say the alt-right or whatever you want to call it is a reactionary counterculture rather than a progressive counterculture, largely as a result of progressive countercultural values from the 1950s-90s having been incorporated into mainstram culture.
A few months ago I asked ChatGPT to use the principal of the Hegelian dialectic to tell me what the synthesis arising from the current progressive culture and the alternative reactionary one would be. Naturally it was useless.
[EDIT: I just reframed the question for it today and the answer was actually reasonable, if a little uninspired, obvs]
Communications barriers slowed the inrush of the sociopaths into whatever was hip at internet speed they arrive on the scene faster than the normies do.
So for communities to form there has to be other barriers. The foundational ideas being distasteful batshit is one option, but it's probably not the only one.
You might be surrounded by interesting countercultures and not even know about it: whatever properties save them from instant commoditization also keep you out.
> Communications barriers slowed the inrush of the sociopaths into whatever was hip at internet speed they arrive on the scene faster than the normies do.
Ah. Crypto.
Relevant new book on crypto and influencers: "Easy Money", by Ben McKenzie and Jacob Silverman.
Rock was just blues recombined and hip hop was just drum solos recombined. Everything "counter culture" a generation comes up with becomes cultural business for the next, when the youth who created it gets mortgages.
But there's always subversive, alternative sub cultures out there. A world of 8 billion, where the Internet has been a thing for over 30 years, with literal hundreds of giant cities. And you think "there's no more counter culture because I ain't seeing any"? Really?
That's the problem: rock wasn't just blues recombined, nor hip hop just drum solos recombined.
And they didn't hit culturally like mere recombinations.
Blues were an "folk" art form from blacks, expressiving everyday problems, heartbreaks, poverty etc, in a speficic expressive and cultural context.
Rock even from its early days operated in a very different context (teen fun and rebellion initially), and developed into very different aesthetic and social spheres, from student protests and civil rights to anti-war and mind-expansion.
Except from understanding that it had blues as part of its musical (and only musical) heritage, it wasn't perceived as a mere recombination of blues, and it didn't serve the same social role as blues did.
>But there's always subversive, alternative sub cultures out there. A world of 8 billion, where the Internet has been a thing for over 30 years, with literal hundreds of giant cities.
The recentness doesn't really change much about how fast something can spread. For example almost everybody of age in those 8 billions has a mobile phone now (even in the poorest African countries) and yet phones have really been a thing for 25 years.
If your point is "we might not see subversive, alternative sub cultures out there" but surely there must be some in some of those "literal hundreds of giant cities" all over the world, I think it makes my point. Countercultures were major impactful movements in the western world for decades. And your answer basically amounts to "just because you can't see them doesn't mean there's not some still going on in Cairo or Okinawa".
It's like saying "shoe cobbling isn't dead, there's some such shops in New York" or "Addis Ababa has quite a few".
You are jumping over a key step in the development from blues to rock. There wasn’t just black blues followed by white rock. There was nascent rock that was still a black art form, but a very sexually expressive one (whence the very name of the genre) – the folk art wasn’t just about expressing Black hardships, but also getting down and getting nasty. Once you consider that interim stage where some rebelliousness was already present, it isn’t hard to see a smooth evolution from one genre to another, albeit early white rock intentionally purged the sexual element.
The sexual element was there in the blues from the beginning, it wasn't something that developed later and became rock. It was there even in pre-1900 century black song, as they were less constrained from the white's puritanism.
In any case, it wasn't the crucial difference between the social function (and the aesthetic development) of blues and rock.
Some counter culture movements from the US had some mainstream impact. If having mainstream impact is your criterion for the existence or relevance of counter culture, you're defining it from the point of view of the establishment. It just reinforces my belief that someone defining counter culture by the mainstream cultural narrative built post hoc around some aspects of it wouldn't be aware of the current streams in the counter cultural depths.
There's a full generation of adults who grew up taking the Internet for granted is my point. There are many orders of magnitude of information flowing there than you can even imagine. Yet you claim to _know_ counter culture isn't a thing anymore because you don't see any mainstream cultural narratives describing any aspects of it. Do you see the problem in this logic?
"Rock" is a post hoc narrative packaging something that came organically from counter cultural movements. Same goes for "blues" or "hip hop". These labels and the packaging of counter cultural (i.e. subversive of the values of the establishment) manifestations for mainstream consumption, are where counter culture goes to die. That's why I said they're just a re-packaging of something that came before and appeared organically.
Once it has a widely known name and a section in the nearest media outlet, it's by definition part of the mainstream.
So if you look around and you can't see any grand narratives about new cultural artifacts from "the youths/the minorities", how impactful they are and where you can buy an album, and conclude there's no more counter culture. I guess you're just telling on yourself at this point.
>There's a full generation of adults who grew up taking the Internet for granted is my point. There are many orders of magnitude of information flowing there than you can even imagine. Yet you claim to _know_ counter culture isn't a thing anymore because you don't see any mainstream cultural narratives describing any aspects of it. Do you see the problem in this logic?
In this logic, yes, meaning your argument :)
Counter-culture doesn't mean obscure and indiscoverable. So "there's so much internet, there's bound to be some counter-culture in there you've missed" is not an answer.
Even if it was, it would be irrelevant. What made counter-culture relevant (as opposed to "what a very small bunch a people do for their own amusement"), was the interplay at the edges of established culture, and the influence it exerted over it. Until the next one came, and so on.
So, "once it has a widely known name and a section in the nearest media outlet, it's by definition part of the mainstream" is precisely what's not been seen happening (with insignificant exceptions).
In any case, it's not like this hasn't been covered a lot. See Mark Fisher's writings for an example.
The political aspect was really small. Except maybe the far right militia incursion in the european rave that made everybody wear kaki pants, get short hair and throw the colored stuff out, oh and the military style insignas of many of the collectives.
the idea of counterculture being gone was a feature of cyberpunk too though. I've heard the core theme of cyberpunk expressed as 'whither bohemia in a hyperconnected world?'.
There's not really a mainstream culture now. Even the biggest consent-manufactories like the 'mainstream media' are actually a minority in an overall fragmented and dissenting pseudoculture that's becoming more like an ecosystem than an expanding monoculture. What would have been 'the dominant culture' in the civil rights era, the domain of the Cronkites of that era, is now just another minority, perhaps the largest single minority but still distrusted or ignored by the majority.
Honey Boo Boo and rednecks with purple hair is over 10 years old [0].
What the counterculture movement of the 70s and 80s presented, at least externally through hair, clothes, tattoos, piercing, etc is now post mainstream.
It’s like this huge portion of society “rebelling” against a Nixon that no longer exists, or is a much smaller portion of the population than it was when it was an oppressive majority.
I remember in middle school I was paddled by the headmaster because my hair was too long. It touched my shirt collar in the back.
Take absurdism, or the deconstruction of gender for example. Or people using mastodon just to show the 12-ish friends that they repaired a their dirt cheap bike. I think also you could also argue that Meta-Irony is some form of counterculture.
I'd argue the trans and gnederfluid movement is counterculture in that it is a major shift in social norms, language and self-presentation and isn't yet sufficiently mainstream to be noncontroversial.
Aside from identity, is there no counterculture, or is everything so interconnected and observable via Internet and social media that nothing is in a "dark corner" anymore? I can see that argument.
> I'd argue the trans and gnederfluid movement is counterculture in that it is a major shift in social norms
Maybe twenty years ago, it’s hit a significant low single digits and had a chunk of prime shelf space to display mass produced merchandise at Target.
I think the change is that things are marketed as if they are cool and novel and rate, because that sells more. But it’s obviously not rare and counterculture if Walmart is ordering a million “Yas queen” t-shirts and selling them in 25k population cities.
Controversial doesn’t mean counter-culture. There’s just different preferences in the mainstream.
Some people liked Michael Jackson, some liked Garth Brooks. Neither were counter-culture. They were both very mainstream.
> But it’s obviously not rare and counterculture if Walmart is ordering a million “Yas queen” t-shirts and selling them in 25k population cities.
So, in a nutshell, counter-culture can't exist because of fast-fashion?
I believe we should separate the ability for commercial brands to provide products to increasingly small market segments, and acceptance of sub-cultures that these products are marketed to.
More likely, counterculture has decoupled itself from clothing fashion. If your counter-cultural uniform is being sold at walmart, then it's a farce. The real counter-cultures have moved on and no longer care about what kinds of clothing you wear. On the internet nobody cares if you have regular jeans and a tshirt, or an elaborate outfit of leather straps and metal chains, face tattoos and 50 nose piercings; such outward expressions of "counter-culture" have all gone mainstream and become corporate products. The real counter-culture, if in fact any still exists, is expressed through words and deeds, not what clothing or music you buy. People who try to buy their way into a counter-culture at a clothing store are simply mainstream posers, usually aping a style their parents' or grandparents' generation innovated with... and then commercialized.
In 2023, somebody dressing like a punk or a prep means nothing, they both buy their clothes from the same stores and probably have the same mainstream ideas and values. Their preference for clothing style is no more meaningful than somebody's preference for vanilla, chocolate or strawberry icecream. These kind of preferences don't indicate any kind of counter-culture.
Furthermore, niche subcultures aren't counter-cultures. Subcultures exist within some greater cultural context, they don't stand apart from and oppose that greater 'mainstream' culture. To be counter-culture, truly, you need to transgress against the mainstream culture. Simply having unusual niche tastes doesn't cut it. There is no average man, everybody is unusual when you consider enough factors[0]. Consider the intersection of all of your personal attributes you can think of, physical, emotional, historical, intellectual.. how many people exist in that set? Probably just you. It is this way with everybody. Possessing a very unique set of attributes isn't counter-cultural, it's the norm. Everybody exists in subcultures, even the counter-culturals have subcultures. Existing in a subculture is not what it means to be counter-cultural.
[0] In the 1950s, USAF researchers measured the physical attributes of their pilots, found the averages of those measurements, then found that not a single pilot was average across the board. Utterly average individuals don't exist.
When your country flies your flag over its embassies around the world, you are not the counterculture. And let's not even get started on how the Fortune 500 has embraced this faux counterculture.
If you get wide ranging corporate support, per cyberpunk traditions you are on the evil side. And actually the grass roots movements that are against that sort of messaging by corporations and big political parties are the counter culture.
Radical feminists are the counterculture here. They're fighting against both the prevailing male-dominated liberal and conservative cultures, on so many fronts, including this. Particularly this, right now, as a matter of urgency, before women are erased and replaced in law and policy.
Their messaging is grassroots - stickering, small-scale protests bringing together a network of like-minded women. They exist on the fringes of the internet, corralled off into their own online spaces after being forcibly removed from the mainstream.
By Radical feminists I assume you mean what the mainstream culture calls TERFs? If so I think that's a good point, and funny how both the DEI enforcement officers in HR and the countercultural elements putting stickers on bus stops call themselves the same thing.
There is a big difference between the association with the flag and actually living the culture. But to be fair you would only really know that if you were actually dipping a toe into the culture, for the rest the trick of companies works.
Is that your sole criterion? Removing all gender roles and minimizing the importance of reproduction and the family unit is a pretty big shakeup in the past 20-30 years.
Must the movement be struggling to be considered? If it is just "what the majority political parties agree is unpalatable" then I guess we could say actual socialism or anti capitalism is there.
Counter-cultures aren't counter to whatever was mainstream 20-30 years ago, they're counter to whatever is mainstream today. Actual socialism is not and will never be well represented by corporate media, but is actually fairly common in the general population. On the other hand, those who are called (but do not call themselves) 'TERFs' seem like the perfect example of a counter-culture.
I hadn’t been to the USA in quite a few years and assumed that transpeople in America were largely limited to loud voices on social media. Then I went and spent three weeks in the USA last year and repeatedly met transpeople, whether the cashiers at a CVS or fast food, or other cyclists I met on a popular bikepacking route I followed. Regardless of what controversy still exists, I concluded that this had already evolved from a counterculture into the general culture.
That's a very amicable framing of what basically amounts to an inability to judge sources and adequately process information, coupled with a taste for consequence-free, amoral behavior and an authoritarian mindset.
It's worth remembering, by definition the majority of people are. Our civilization (and if you're American, your nation) just happens to fetishize successful rebels. It's probably a very unusual attitude, historically speaking.
MAGA/militia/Qanon are conspiracist grifts that simply extend pre-existing societal wedge issues (god, guns, government). What cultural artifacts or innovations has this counterculture created? They appear to be entirely dependent on mainstream media and social platforms to carry their message.
Maybe militia, if you're talking about people who've more or less removed themselves from regular society to live in a compound, likely off the grid, similar to the group who took over the national wildlife preserve in OR several years back.
MAGA is way too mainstream to be a counter culture. QAnon is more like a belief in certain conspiracies than an ethos you live by, no?
The problem of militias in the US is that they are not removed from society. A lot of them were part or are still part of law enforcement and are keeping really close ties. They are a really strong culture and spreading fast. The thing is that they look so much alike and share so much with the "official" law enforcement, that could keep them in check, that not much is done to them or they even get support.
Unfortunately America is just getting ready for a coup (there was one attempt already) and forces are gathering for the next one. Almost half of the population wouldn't be opposed to it. That's the reality, and from my point of view that's a little scary.
Point to a period in time when things were perfect?
Go in semantic circles if you want, these things are displacing old cultural norms; they run counter to established culture
Maybe log off the fucking internet where you spin in circles in vain seeking a perfect solution and tackle those problems you called out? Nah, much easier to be an energy vampire from your armchair
Here’s let’s lean in:
So sad for Hollywood artists who covered for pervs and leches; if it’s about the art they can “slum it” in local theatre; capitalism never owed them glamorous lives as humanity never owed them deflating themselves for a handful of pretty people
Taxes are an option for dealing with corporations but you're keen to propagate mopey whiner on the internet rather than “tax the rich”
steam/proton undermines Windows market share, you know that thing produced by big corporate you so hate
wfh has people talking about QOL more than money and the shitshow that is hustle culture
…you’re crying about your chains, too unimaginative to see the bits and pieces around you that could serve as a lock pick
I never meant to imply Heaven on Earth was around the corner. Was responding to the idea there’s no counter movement to contemporary cultural norms
>Point to a period in time when things were perfect?
Things getting worse is not refuted by things never having been perfect. There are periods of time when things were better and periods of time (including extended for centuries periods of time) that things were crap. Even more pronounced and evident regionally. We, in many countries, are getting on a crap slope.
>Maybe log off the fucking internet where you spin in circles in vain seeking a perfect solution and tackle those problems you called out? Nah, much easier to be an energy vampire from your armchair
Who said I don't "tackle those problems I called out" outside the internet? And who said I'm optimistic about the potential of my interventions, or the preventability of changing the outcomes in general?
Maybe not assume and make it personal with ad hominems?
The rest of the points I find either wrong or irrelevant. I'll give an example instead of bothering to answer to each:
"So sad for Hollywood artists who covered for pervs and leches; if it’s about the art they can “slum it” in local theatre; capitalism never owed them glamorous lives as humanity never owed them deflating themselves for a handful of pretty people"
The point wasn't about Hollywood actors or screenwriters, as if they're the only creatives (or even the ones more) threatened by AI. It was more about the rest of the already squeezed fields, illustrators, graphic designers, musicians, and so on.
But even staying at the "hollywood artists" here (which I didn't even have in mind in my argument), the counter-argument that AI taking their livelihood is fine because they "covered for pervs and leeches" is non seguitur BS.
First, if you work at a company and your boss or some higher executives are scumbags, do you also "cover for pervs and leeches"? Or you just work there, and words like "cover" should be constrained to those actually covering misdeeds?
And would the AI discriminate and only reduce the jobs of those that e.g. covered for Weinstein, and not those who called him out? Or will it only replace highly paid actors, and not eg. lowly VFX artists and other such jobs? This is more bile against "those rich Hollywood actors deserve what's coming at them" than an argument about the impact of AI on the film industry.
>…you’re crying about your chains, too unimaginative to see the bits and pieces around you that could serve as a lock pick
Yeah, let's see how this "AI will liberate us" work our for us. I've seen the same stuff play out when the web arrived and "information wanted to be free".
Those are just reactionary wackos. They want their old abusive status back. They'd love to lynch back the blacks, put women 'back' in the kitchen, beat up homosexuals, exclude Atheists...
Counterculture existes in libre gaming, distros, hackers, underground games such as Nethack, IF games from IF archive, niche electronica/rock/metal/blues from Jamendo (Revolution Void, Proleter, Helfervescent, Nanowar (ok, now is half-mainstream, but still...) and now saved back in archive.org thanks to James Scott...
You're probably just getting old