How would you define a counterculture for the current period?
 

Can it exist in todays social climate? Can the various 'anti-' movements (globalization, capitalism, etc) ever achieve their aims?

Counterculturalism really has no effect on society I believe. If anything, what they're doing is more benefiting society than revolutionizing it. I find that the most prominent example of that is how people make commodities out of che.

Hippie culture....VW Beetle made you a non-conformist and against social norms. However, you're still investing into it and supporting capitalism.

Punk Culture - Need I explain?

The "Adbusters" magazine was thoughrly against the capitalist system, and now they are selling RUNNING SHOES. I don't believe that these anti movements will affect capitalism at all, purely because if it becomes a marketable subculture, it gives companies something new to aim at, before other companies do.

I just picked up a book yesterday about counterculturism, it's called "THE REBEL SELL" by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter. I highly recommend you check it out because it gives well thought-out opinions on a lot of other counterculture literature and media (The Matrix Movie, the book "No Logo", Karl Marx, etc...).



I will rep you if I can for posting such a thread

There's a frozen yogurt place here called Counter Culture. :D

That Rebel Sell book is really interesting. I photocopied it at my uni for free (which is probably the most countercultural thing I could've done).

It certainly seems that capitalism is the great barrier for any counterculture in its ability to sell rebellion right back to the 'rebel'.

Apple are a really interesting corporation in their ability to somehow brand themselves as some kind of anti-establishment lifestyle cult. The same with Virgin.

there is no counterculture as any countercultural gesture is too quickly coopted

the only "counterculture" proper i can think of today are the amish...

btw the no logo or black spot running shoe from adbusters has a point, which i think has been missed in this thread-- the point was to create a "cool" environmental & socially responsible shoe as opposed to sweatshop-manufactured a la nike-- it's been one of the pet projects of the magazine and has been in development for years.

That's interesting about the Amish, Do they self consciously counter mainstream society, or do they just exist outside it?

To be counter-culture, you must go mainstream.

I wholeheartedly agree and I am completely against the idea. If they're counterculture rebels and become amish because they hate how society runs, then they're pretty conceded[/quote]


Neat, I wasn't aware of this. I'm all for fair trade, and it's projects as such that co-operates with the so-called "SYSTEM" as well as contributes to redefining it.

Out of curiosity, why would they want to use the primitive basis of society if they want to jam it? Dennis Lyxzen says "We use the means of capitalism to destroy it". But this shoe campaign seems to be about redefining it to make it better. Is this part of their overall revolutionary strategy?

I'm interested in the Apple portion, and would like to know more about this. I'll wikipedia it after.

About the Rebel Sell book, my friend recommended it to me because she's reading it now, because I believe she met Joseph Heath because he lives in a part of Ottawa. I am not even done it yet, but it's a real page-turner and I've been getting through it really quickly. I plan to read Freud's book on Content and Discont next, and probably re-read the Rebel Sell sooner or later.

I like to be part of the sub-counterculture.

Hardly, tough maybe for a time. Because for the most part, these "counter-cultures" become a stupid trend or a hip fad, and degenerate into something ridiculous. Allow me to bring up the whole "emo" nonsense. Surely, for a time, there must have been an amount of edginess and credibility to being involved with that, but it became something totally overblown and silly.

I think the hippy movement defines swa(y)'s meaning more clearly. I loathe the hippies.

Yes, but just because something gets popularized and an uncovered image- this doesn't neccessarily kill off the people within. Perhaps copies them onto a lot of others who like to wear some thicker skins over theirs... but the originals and true believers remain. Things like hippies and punks were mangled but it doesn't mean that weren't/aren't honest individuals and ideas amongst the rushing of marketing them out. Sometimes it's subtle and indescrpit... perhaps like now. The internet not only poses a new face for counter-culture, it's practically adding a new plane of existence to the human capacity and there's going to be a whole new voice that'll shape this one. And there'll be cyber punx.


Were in a strange transition- modern culture almost seems like a dry well. Entertainment has a tendency to dig back a few decades instead of investing a few new minds-- this goes for movies and music esp- i don't know much about modern books and fashion-- well that's just clothes.
It's also believed, in some circles, that the world's going to end or go through a great change. I myself at least like the mayan theroies in some romantic notion. But mayans be damned, there's going to be a change anyway-- and someone's going to be there to make a buck off it, and for the people buying... well, they could do worse- look at what was popular before them!

Therein lies the incredible irony in most of these so-called "defiant" 'subba-cultcha's'. They are preaching - or rather, trying to themselves have - some kind of edgy, totally original and non-conformist value system, but they all look exactly the same, dress the same, think the exact same, all because that's what it takes to FIT IN. There is no actual originality or substance to it, you just do it to be a part.

hahaha, which I personally find hilarious. They want to escape the constraints of society by letting themself free and portraying rebellious behavior by dressing and acting eccentric, only to realize that they're just trapping themselves in a whole subculture FULL of conventions that defines them as a member of the subculture. So they end up denying it and saing "NO! I'M NOT A GOTH. I JUST LIKE WEARING BLACK" or something along the lines when they deep down know that they're affected by crowd behavior outside of the social norms.

I think a sub-culture movement to happen now would be hard. Because everyone only cares about themselves.

Spot on!

I think a lot of what other people are describing here are "subcultures". A subculture tends to be quite happy to find its space within a given society. It may reject parts of society but has no real interest in overturning the 'system' so long as it can still function within it. A counterculture on the other hand tends to want to transform the very society they're a part of. IE a skateboarder is part of a subculture, an anti-globalization protestor is part of a counterculture, and so on.

If it involves music= NO.

Bands like Amon Duul were difinitely part of Germany's counterculture in the 60s. The Free Festival scene can be countercultural if done right. So I don't see why music has to exclude something from being countercultural.

Both Amon Duul's had links with the Baader-Meinhof group, I believe. Also, there's early Neubauten photos of them doing a copy of the Hans-Martin Schleyer photos taken by the RAF in the 70's (Schleyer was kidnapped and murdered by them). John Sinclair got into some heavy shit with the US authorities. The Sex Pistols were put on an MI5 blacklist. Members of the Czech group Plastic People of the Universe were imprisoned by the ruling Communist regime in the 70's simply for playing "un-socialist" music.

I'm having real problems thinking of modern-day equivalents of the above though.