Yes, all the major counterculture movements of the left in
America (hippies,
anarchists/pacifists, communists,
and hardcore deindustrialization environmentalists
are probably the only groups whose values and basic idea for a new
social order are unrevocably counter to the institutions of
modern society) have been suffering a long decline into irrelevancy
over the last half century and while lame, whimpering remains of the
truly radical left exist, it is not long before they too will die
out. Though there is not one event, one defeat, that pronounced this
prognosis and the radical left was in decline then too, the collapse of the Eastern
bloc was certainly a crucial nail in the coffin.
What happened, I think, is an example of catastrophic success: the
counterculture won so many battles in changing social norms, with
regards to women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc., that
it seems that those subgroups that were concerned with these issues
lost the incentive to associate themselves with the counterculture of
the left. Once they won recognition as legitimate causes and won a
place in the social order, they no longer had a reason to encourage the
toppling of said order. You see, they didn't want to undo American
society, they just wanted a place in that society equal for women,
gays, blacks, etc. equal to that of the white hetro men (plus, often
their acceptence into the mainstream was secured by "buying
into" its institutions; see same-sex marriage). The only movements
that didn't retire from the counterculture were those whose proposed
social order really stood counter to the current one (actually, only
these should be thought really as countercultural in the first place,
but the others are attached because of their sometime alliance with
the counterculture). What remained was too narrow to survive for long.
Therefore, it seems to many people today that American culture is in
a way monolithic. Certainly, it is a diverse monolith, with lots of
internal friction, but it is one big "Yes". There is no voice of "no"
that rejects the basic assumptions of modern society and
replaces its own set, a Thoreau, if you will,
that takes himself out of society and goes to live on Walden pond, or
a Kerouac that goes On the Road, or a Guthrie-like troubadour. Indeed, it looks worse than the
mere disappearance of the counterculture itself, it looks like the
defeat of a certain kind of romantic artistic soul.
And this is my thesis, which I base on Turner's
famous thesis: According to Turner, the
western frontier, between the wilderness and established
society, was a constant source of freedom, essential in "breaking the
bonds of custom (and) offering new experiences", and with its closing,
though some anti-state traditions remained,
most of the living frontier spirit ossified. The same is true for the
counterculture (which if we do take Thoreau to be a precursor of can be
seen to grow, as a spiritual frontier, out of the closing of the
western frontier). The existence of counterculture allowed a very
visible alternative to escape to for those who have been oppressed by
the bonds of custom. And in that alternative space new, fairer, freer
traditions and institutions could be formed to eventually be accepted
into established society. Sadly, it seems, this alternative is by and
large gone now. But just as Thoreau, for whom the frontier closed, went
out in the forest and made his own frontier of one, hopefully those
of us with pioneering spirits can go out and make our own
countercultures of one.
Now, two of the above write ups have been written no later than
2000, when the Millennials (a.k.a. Generation
Y) were just coming of age. While they decry the disappearance of
"real rebellion" in pretty strong terms, I daresay they didn't know the
half of what was coming. Generation X was the last American
generation with its mind set on open rebellion. Eventually, as noded
above, most of their "alternative" (goth, grunge, death metal
et al.) culture got "sold out" and turned into a "consumerist
sham", but the real underlying problem with Generation X wasn't that
they "sold out" but that their philosophy was dreck to begin with:
despair, lack of ambition, downward social mobility, and most
importantly the pursuit of counterculture for the sake of
counterculture. Namely, their inexplicable obsession with not "selling
out", unabashedly denouncing a cause or cultural creation of their own
when it becomes popular. It was perhaps a symptom of the dying
counterculture.
But where Generation X embraced the notion of a counterculture,
nuttily as they did, the Millennials who followed would have
none of it. We have become a monolothic "Yes". We don't even
have the corrupted rebellion to complain about like in 2000. It's not
that Millennials don't have idealism, they have a ton of it and are
excited about a lot of causes (as witnessed in the 2008 US
presidential elections). It's just that a counterculture does not
figure into their plan for achieveing their ideals. They especially
don't want it to play the role it did for Generation X: an entrenched,
stubborn, and counterproductive opposition for the sake opposition.
What they want is productive work and a buy-in in the mainstream to
further their goals. Maybe that's a more reasonable strategy, but if
it did spell the end of the counterculture, and if you buy my thesis,
then that's a sad development.
P.S. I just wanted to note that there is a very alive and prosperous
counterculture still today, but it is not continuation of the
counterculture of the left. I am talking of the sphere of religious
fundamentalism around the world. It is truly the strongest
counterculture movement right now, and it is on the rise. It is also
truly a countercultural phenomenon, with people retiring wholly from
normal society in order to live in a new (or rather old) kind of
society. Even though I believe it does offer an alternative to
oppressed groups and people, I think it's not one that works against the bonds of custom and its trend is not toward freer, fairer institutions.