Rob Skogen
The topic of discussion this week, the counterculture, is difficult for me to fully comprehend. It can be loosely defined as a culture in opposition to the values of the established mainstream – I get that. But, I seem to be getting stuck when trying to put it into a more focused context.
Timothy Miller’s analysis painted the movement in rather broad strokes that seemed to include every possible socio-political issue, even describing it as being apolitical in nature. Donald Costello’s attempt to define the movement was just as ambiguous, claiming that values were “communicated from one to another not by mind and words but by sights and sounds. Sensations, feelings, intuitions, spontaneity reigned” (187). He held up Wadleigh’s Woodstock as the definitive film of the movement. We read a review back in week 7 by Daniel Schowalter that asserted the documentary had a depoliticized nature. Are we onto something here?
According to Sarah Thornton’s article, this does not appear to be the case when she states, “[v]ague opposition is certainly how many members of youth subcultures characterize their own activities. However, we can’t take youthful discourses literally; they are not a transparent window on the world” (201). Wait a minute. Miller’s chapter opened with the statement that “[t]he counterculture never saw itself as just another subculture” (103). Are her comments relevant to our conversation of the more general counterculture? Introducing the complexity of a subculture has me thoroughly confused now.
Confusion aside, the passive main character of our counterculture representative sample Easy Rider embodies the non-judgmental, unassuming, idealism that is central to any discussion on the topic. Is it possible the concept we are dealing with cannot be labeled or confined to a particular point in time? Is it possible that the meaning I am looking for is elusive due to the inherent notions of freedom coursing through everything? Maybe the movement is supposed to be whatever we want it to be? Recalling conversations we had about interpreting film noir in week 3 might prove useful insight here. It might make more sense to consider the counterculture as being a timeless discourse on the possibilities of a different reality than the one we live in now.