Whenever the majority of the population is opposed to the existing government policies and programs, a significant reaction is inevitable. While I don't think that extreme sexual freedom as well as extreme drug abuse could be repeated, I do believe that if similar conditions that began the events of the sixties were repeated, a version of the decade could occur.
Not to the extent that it did back in the 60's. A significant part of the reason why the 60's happened can be traced to the cultural developments in the 50's, which seem fairly unique to the time. So I agree with Lauren in that if the conditions came about, we could have another 60's; but I doubt those conditions will happen.
50's and 60's in a nutshell:
The fifties came at the conclusion of World War II, when a lot of soldiers were coming home to continue their domestic lives and raise families. They came home in a manner, however, that is unique to the period because of the social dynamics of the time. The women's rights movement hadn't happened yet, so women largely deferred to men socially. Young people at the time were often trained by society to view their #1 goal in life to be settling down and raising a happy family, and so with the influx of men returning from the war came an explosion in marriages, suburban growth, and the baby boom. Out of that came a level of social conditioning where people continued in their belief that raising a happy family and rising in the newly-exploded, dominant corporate structure was the ideal way to live. And out of that came a wave of youth doubting the way they had been brought up for all their lifetimes. They then became rebellious and idealistic in that they thought that by rebelling they could actually enact meaningful change to the social institutions. Because the 60's were more or less unprecedented, the youth did not have any prior experiences to base their idealism on, so they ultimately learned the "hard lessons" of society: that you can't make the system (government and society) how you want it to be when the system itself resists against you.
A lot of these social conditions, I think, were both necessary for the Movement to happen, and just don't really exist anymore. First, people have become both more idealistic and more pessimistic in their outlook on life. By that, I mean that they are more pessimistic since people have become extremely cynical and doubtful of governmental intentions. You can't get through a day on the news without hearing suspicions of political shenanigans and constant doubt over government and corporate interests, reflecting a mistrust of the government that probably was amplified back in the Vietnam War. But they are more idealistic since people now often take their lives as involving more than what happens to them in their immediate surroundings. We don't get taught Home Ec classes all that much en masse anymore, nor is raising a family portrayed as the greatest social end; in fact, having a family at all has declined as the number of single people has risen dramatically. Rather, we are taught that our generation will shape the future and the communities around us, and all sorts of vague idealisms like that. So, the insulated social environment of the 50's seems much less likely to happen in the future, making the 60's unlikely.
Second, as I explained earlier, there was no precedent for the 60's. Well, now there is. And everyone can learn all about it from the meticulous annals of the internet. The cynicism I explained in the last paragraph is something that would probably last for a long time. In addition, the social divides that existed during the time that drove the Movement--like black vs. white, men vs. women, etc.--have more or less been largely resolved in the US. There are still social inequities today, I agree, but none to the deep extent that they embodied back in the 60's.
I can think of more stuff that would preclude another 60's, but I've gotta go for now, so carry on.
Well, first, it wouldn't be anywhere near as widespread. Second, it would probably be much more publicized than even before because of the prevalence of the media, which would in turn be a damper to the spread of this movement. Third, it probably wouldn't be viewed as radically, because I honestly don't see that vast social divides happening in American society right now than what existed before.
You can make a plausible argument, though, that the internet revolution may have been a sort of 60's of its own. With the onset of the internet set off a cultural revolution that has shaped our society today. It's changed the aesthetics of society into an obsession with sleekness. It's spawned inside jokes and unbridled liberalism that's only found on the internet, and it's widened the cultural divide between the last generation and the current one with the technological advantages we have grown up with.
The tricks that made it unique were twofold: first, the anonymity of the internet. When you make statements online, you make those statements with screen names and you establish electronic identities that are completely defined by your own whims. That reduces the ability for any one group to identify a certain group as being responsible for any cultural developments, and thus it becomes hard for any group to be demonized or alienated, allowing for unrestrained spread of information.
Second, there is a special situation where the internet is both universally accessible and impressively cult-like. Anybody can see the messages people post on the internet, letting its influence be boundless; but the conditions under which those influences incubate can be quite secluded and have profound effects. Take 4chan, for example. If you go to 4chan.org's random imageboard, you will be met with shock and horror at the images posted (ranging from pornography to sadism to cute pictures of small animals). 4chan has been labeled "the asshole of the internet" for good reason--it is a community that probably nobody in the general population can understand culturally upon quick inspection beyond indictments of extremely perverse and immature humor. But nonetheless, it has had probably the most profound impact on society globally than any other development on the internet. Ever notice the spread of Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL-hNMJvcyI)? Thank 4chan. Ever hear the internet as causing children to commit suicide? Thank the relentless insensitivity that's characteristic of 4chan. See Sarah Palin's email get hacked? Or Oprah reporting on a child pornography ring (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAPms8Tvs) consisting of over 9000 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI) rapists? You get my point. It was so pervasive that a head guy at 4chan, moot, was rated the #1 most influential man in the world in Time magazine's top 100 (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1893837_1894180,00.html). Eat it and weep.
An interesting point, Omar, although I can see some profound differences between the "trash" to which you refer (despite its influence) and the sixites (at least its beginnings in terms of what it "stood for")
Whenever the majority of the population is opposed to the existing government policies and programs, a significant reaction is inevitable. While I don't think that extreme sexual freedom as well as extreme drug abuse could be repeated, I do believe that if similar conditions that began the events of the sixties were repeated, a version of the decade could occur.
ReplyDeleteNot to the extent that it did back in the 60's. A significant part of the reason why the 60's happened can be traced to the cultural developments in the 50's, which seem fairly unique to the time. So I agree with Lauren in that if the conditions came about, we could have another 60's; but I doubt those conditions will happen.
ReplyDelete50's and 60's in a nutshell:
The fifties came at the conclusion of World War II, when a lot of soldiers were coming home to continue their domestic lives and raise families. They came home in a manner, however, that is unique to the period because of the social dynamics of the time. The women's rights movement hadn't happened yet, so women largely deferred to men socially. Young people at the time were often trained by society to view their #1 goal in life to be settling down and raising a happy family, and so with the influx of men returning from the war came an explosion in marriages, suburban growth, and the baby boom. Out of that came a level of social conditioning where people continued in their belief that raising a happy family and rising in the newly-exploded, dominant corporate structure was the ideal way to live. And out of that came a wave of youth doubting the way they had been brought up for all their lifetimes. They then became rebellious and idealistic in that they thought that by rebelling they could actually enact meaningful change to the social institutions. Because the 60's were more or less unprecedented, the youth did not have any prior experiences to base their idealism on, so they ultimately learned the "hard lessons" of society: that you can't make the system (government and society) how you want it to be when the system itself resists against you.
A lot of these social conditions, I think, were both necessary for the Movement to happen, and just don't really exist anymore. First, people have become both more idealistic and more pessimistic in their outlook on life. By that, I mean that they are more pessimistic since people have become extremely cynical and doubtful of governmental intentions. You can't get through a day on the news without hearing suspicions of political shenanigans and constant doubt over government and corporate interests, reflecting a mistrust of the government that probably was amplified back in the Vietnam War. But they are more idealistic since people now often take their lives as involving more than what happens to them in their immediate surroundings. We don't get taught Home Ec classes all that much en masse anymore, nor is raising a family portrayed as the greatest social end; in fact, having a family at all has declined as the number of single people has risen dramatically. Rather, we are taught that our generation will shape the future and the communities around us, and all sorts of vague idealisms like that. So, the insulated social environment of the 50's seems much less likely to happen in the future, making the 60's unlikely.
Second, as I explained earlier, there was no precedent for the 60's. Well, now there is. And everyone can learn all about it from the meticulous annals of the internet. The cynicism I explained in the last paragraph is something that would probably last for a long time. In addition, the social divides that existed during the time that drove the Movement--like black vs. white, men vs. women, etc.--have more or less been largely resolved in the US. There are still social inequities today, I agree, but none to the deep extent that they embodied back in the 60's.
I can think of more stuff that would preclude another 60's, but I've gotta go for now, so carry on.
So if another 60's-like era were to occur, what would it look like? That is, how would it be different from the real 60's without the 50's?
ReplyDeleteWell, first, it wouldn't be anywhere near as widespread. Second, it would probably be much more publicized than even before because of the prevalence of the media, which would in turn be a damper to the spread of this movement. Third, it probably wouldn't be viewed as radically, because I honestly don't see that vast social divides happening in American society right now than what existed before.
ReplyDeleteYou can make a plausible argument, though, that the internet revolution may have been a sort of 60's of its own. With the onset of the internet set off a cultural revolution that has shaped our society today. It's changed the aesthetics of society into an obsession with sleekness. It's spawned inside jokes and unbridled liberalism that's only found on the internet, and it's widened the cultural divide between the last generation and the current one with the technological advantages we have grown up with.
The tricks that made it unique were twofold: first, the anonymity of the internet. When you make statements online, you make those statements with screen names and you establish electronic identities that are completely defined by your own whims. That reduces the ability for any one group to identify a certain group as being responsible for any cultural developments, and thus it becomes hard for any group to be demonized or alienated, allowing for unrestrained spread of information.
Second, there is a special situation where the internet is both universally accessible and impressively cult-like. Anybody can see the messages people post on the internet, letting its influence be boundless; but the conditions under which those influences incubate can be quite secluded and have profound effects. Take 4chan, for example. If you go to 4chan.org's random imageboard, you will be met with shock and horror at the images posted (ranging from pornography to sadism to cute pictures of small animals). 4chan has been labeled "the asshole of the internet" for good reason--it is a community that probably nobody in the general population can understand culturally upon quick inspection beyond indictments of extremely perverse and immature humor. But nonetheless, it has had probably the most profound impact on society globally than any other development on the internet. Ever notice the spread of Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL-hNMJvcyI)? Thank 4chan. Ever hear the internet as causing children to commit suicide? Thank the relentless insensitivity that's characteristic of 4chan. See Sarah Palin's email get hacked? Or Oprah reporting on a child pornography ring (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAPms8Tvs) consisting of over 9000 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI) rapists? You get my point. It was so pervasive that a head guy at 4chan, moot, was rated the #1 most influential man in the world in Time magazine's top 100 (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1893837_1894180,00.html). Eat it and weep.
An interesting point, Omar, although I can see some profound differences between the "trash" to which you refer (despite its influence) and the sixites (at least its beginnings in terms of what it "stood for")
ReplyDelete