Counterculture of the 1960's

The 1960’s and 1970’s are commonly known as an era of change. The civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr are often referred to in the public sphere as defining of the era. As a result, this era is often classified by this monumental change in society. While this era is remembered as an era of counter culture, the true legacy of the 1960s and 1970s is the creation of subcultures, and the war on poverty. The early 1970s certainly sits in the perception era of counterculture change. But the early 70s was in fact far more associated with “identity politics.” Rather than necessarily challenging the status quo (counterculture), this period was far more associated with expressing viewpoints that could actually be more closely associated with the “Me Generation” of identity and self meaning, rather than communal or social advancement, and thus were more closely tied to individualistic goals rather than real social change. This “identity culture and politics” can be observed in several, albeit diverse, movements. 

The 1960’s and 1970’s era of “hippie” culture has been given credit for many of the subculture seen in America today and one group that has always been associated with the “hippie culture” is skateboarding. Skateboarding was known as being limited to “surf” culture and only coastal towns. Stacy Peralta, Tony Alva, and Jay Adams emerged as three figures who changed the landscape of skateboarding in the 1970s. Peralta, Alva and Adams led the forefront of skateboarding into the media. This “rebellion” is significant because it was able to create a subculture. A subculture that many in the industry, as well as the coastal communities have followed. Furthermore, the rise in skateboarding allowed this subculture to create a rebellious brand, yet simultaneously a legitimate economical basis. Intrinsic to this movement was rebellion. Whether it be tied to “illegal” skating in emptied pools (due to the drought restrictions) or the perception of the ‘stars’ of the movement, skating existed on the peripheries of society. Thus, the attraction of ‘counterculture’ appearance. But skateboarding entailed apparel companies, shoe brands, skateboard brands, wheel brands, and much more. As the industry grew, the talented individuals like Alva and Peralta began to feature more and more in national advertising. This “rebellion” created a subculture economy that was able to thrive and continue to grow and become economically sufficient. The growth of skateboarding that occurred during the time of “counter culture” set the foundations for the sport of skateboarding to grow from “counter culture” that was done by hippies and into a national sport. The perception of rebellion was thus more important than the reality.

Counterculture movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s allowed people to find a new found sense of belonging and identity. This is evident in the civil rights movement, but can also be seen across different minority populations. The sense of identity too can be found in a multitude of ways. Yet, this awareness of rights often dovetailed with concepts of self identity, which is inherently more about SELF expression and identity than legislative equity. One such example is the Latino and African American communities' ties with the “low riders.” The ‘low riders’ are significant for a number of reasons. The vehicle itself allowed the Latino and Black populations the mobility to claim their space. The low rider vehicle also allowed for a sense of creative expression, that is American. This allowed for the “American dream” to be achieved. While many viewed the low rider as a form of counter culture, the low riders actually allowed Latino businesses to thrive especially in the auto industry, and find their own version of the American dream (that includes the vehicle). The car furthermore allowed escapes from segregated neighborhoods and created a sense of community. Additionally, lowrider culture had emerged by circumventing the laws. Hydraulics basically skirted conventional laws on cars and height coverage. Thus, the roots of “lowrider” culture were tied to evasion of conventional law enforcement (by very definition, counterculture.) And ultimately groups, like the Dukes formed based on these vehicles, became active in their communities. The Dukes even became political and fought for social causes in their communities. As a result this counterculture created a greater sense of belonging and a larger American identity in the Latino and Black communities. Thus, what was rooted in rebellion was more closely tied to individual expression, rather than civil rights.

In many ways, counterculture movements allowed communities to find a new found sense of identity. This even holds true in law enforcement and the war on poverty. The policies shifted in response to the counterculture movements of the 1960’s. A new identity of the police in the community shifted to “law and order”. Cities invested higher in their law enforcement to keep their community safe. Cities were highly supportive of this because safer communities would increase home prices, and that would in turn keep money flowing within the city. Economically the law enforcement could itself be a source of revenue for the cities. While this all benefited the city, the new policies of law and order, and war on poverty led to cultural assumptions of people. These assumptions included that Black people were poor, and in turn that meant that they were criminals. This leads to high rates of black criminality as people of color go to jail far more frequently than their white counterparts. This is a cultural assumption that has become increasingly problematic in modern America as police targeting, and brutality of African Americans in America has become far too frequent and unwarranted. The 1960’s law enforcement shift as a result of the counterculture set a precedent that has race in its very core. 

Thus, the basis of change in the late 60s and 70s was not so much based in grassroots protest but in “identity politics.” Nietzsche often wrote of change stemming from the extraordinary individual, rather than Marxist social fomentation. In the late 1960s and 1970s, political and social changes came not from mass mobilization but by the fusion of individualistic goals of self-identity and cause, that were rooted in rebellion against the status quo, but were in fact based on individualistic expression. Change thus evolved from “Me” politics, a very conservative approach rooted in American celebration of the individual, rather than the “We” class movements that Marx envisioned. 

Citations

Bailey, Beth L., and David R. Farber. America in the Seventies . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004.

Hinton, Elizabeth Kai. From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America. Harvard University Press, 2017.

Kun, Josh, and Laura Pulido, eds. Black and Brown in Los Angeles: Beyond Conflict and Coalition. 1st ed. University of California Press, 2014.