The counter-culture refers to a new set of norms and beliefs that are radically different from conventional patterns of thinking, thereby making it difficult to conceptualize it as an acceptable lifestyle in the first place. People have associated the origin of the counter culture movement with groups of rebellious young people in different parts of the world, including the United States (US), Russia, Australia, and Great Britain (Greene, 2016; Markarian, Zolov and Carrara, 2016). Their activities are perceived as a rebellion against mainstream culture and their lifestyles are defined by a revolt against conventional norms, attitudes and beliefs about life (Markarian, Zolov and Carrara, 2016). In this paper, it is argued that the counter culture movement is centered on the need to oppose mainstream beliefs and not the quest for money. Money is presented as an aftermath of the growth and spread of the culture and not its cause or motivation.
One of the founding principles of the counterculture movement is the need to have an alternative lifestyle that is free from societal prejudices and systems of control. In this regard, the foundations of this movement are characterized by a strong conviction to oppose mainstream culture and not a blind desire for profit (Heath and Potter, 2004). Relative to this school of thought, most pioneers in this movement present mass culture as a form of mindless conformance to behaviors that is often detrimental to people’s wellbeing (Platt, 2017; Greene, 2016; Markarian, Zolov and Carrara, 2016). Unbeknown to them, the end product has been the “contamination” of the mass audience with mainstream beliefs and practices, which force them to act in a predetermined manner (Rorabaugh, 2015). In this regard, the counter culture movement has been predicated on showing people alternative lifestyles and ways of thinking that question the norm.
Profit has never been a significant driver of the counter culture movement because the main goal of its proponents has been to appeal to the unique needs and desires of minority groups who dare to think differently. In support of this statement, Markarian, Zolov and Carrara (2016) say that counter culture does not align with profit-making objectives because it is aimed at reaching a niche group of clients who are mostly interested in the content of a product as opposed to its price. This is why artistic expressions from the counter culture movement were often distributed through localized and small-scale networks. Individuality is a key driver of the counterculture movement, which stems from people’s quest to pursue actions that fulfil their selfish desires. Critical to this idea is the belief that everyone can create (Rosemont and Roediger, 2015). The counterculture movement has been predicated on this concept because it encourages people to express their individuality away from the limitations of society (Cortois and Laermans, 2018). The personal nature of this movement means that artists look at counterculture as an expression of their autonomy and authenticity. These attributes enable them to create “pure” versions of themselves through their artistic expressions. Artists of this kind are motivated by an underlying philosophy that it is better to struggle serving an audience that understands them as opposed to spending many resources appealing to the larger mass market – a process, which may force them to lose their integrity (Platt, 2017; Greene, 2016). From this perspective of analysis, advocates of the counterculture movement share a commonly perceived hostility towards the mainstream culture.
Although the counterculture crusade was originally conceptualised as a form of opposition to the mainstream culture, it has been associated with lucrative products and events that have greatly improved its commercial appeal. In this regard, money has been a product of its commercial success and not a cause. However, the commercial success of some counterculture products has been questioned for failing to adhere to the principles of uniqueness and individuality, which defines the lifestyle (Bartkowiak and Kiuchi, 2015). Therefore, there are concerns regarding the potential for mass-produced products from the counter culture movement being a “sell out” (Heath and Potter, 2004). This concern was highlighted in the suicide note of one band member in a music group – Cobain, who said that their rock band could not gain commercial success without losing its uniqueness (Greene, 2016). In other words, the permeation of the counterculture movement in mainstream society has come with a significant sacrifice of identity for creators of cultural products who have to balance commercial and individual interests always.
The counterculture movement has been wrongly criticised for being profit-oriented. However, the relationship between art and commerce stems from the understanding that there is no real separation between counter and mainstream cultures because they are all integrated through production and consumption processes (Bartkowiak and Kiuchi, 2015; Phillips, 2018). Therefore, the high demand of counterculture products is the real reason why its proponents have gained commercial success and immense wealth. This growth in financial resources has wrongfully created the perception that counterculture is associated with making money. However, rebellion is at the root cause of its development and not profit. Financial resources also distort the mainstream view of the counterculture movement, which presupposes that uniqueness should be maintained at the expense of commercial exploits (Lingel, 2017; Rosemont and Roediger, 2015). Therefore, some artists from the counterculture crusade may be respected in their niche communities but still enjoy the benefits of commercial success if they do not lose their authenticity in the process.
Broadly, the growing popularity of the counterculture movement may make it seem like its proponents are seeking popularity but this is not the case; they are living their “unique” lives. In fact, most individual artists are often worried that too much popularity may undermine their credibility. The belief in the distinctiveness of an individual has been a key driving force for many of them and their products are designed to appeal to a niche as opposed to mass market. Relative to this assertion, when a movie becomes too popular in a film festival, it becomes less appealing to proponents of the counterculture movement because there is an inherent underlying belief that when too many people understand something, it may be time to consider a change. Overall, these insights show that money is not the key driver of the counterculture movement; instead, it is rebellion.
Reference List
- Bartkowiak, M. J. and Kiuchi, Y. (2015) The music of counterculture cinema: a critical study of 1960s and 1970s soundtracks. London: McFarland.
- Cortois, L. and Laermans, R. (2018) ‘Rethinking individualization: the basic script and the three variants of institutionalized individualism’, European Journal of Social Theory, 21(1), pp. 60-78.
- Global Education and Skills Forum (2018) Is celebrity culture harming young people?Web.
- Greene, D. (2016) Rock, counterculture and the avant-garde, 1966-1970: how the Beatles, Frank Zappa and the velvet underground defined an era. London: McFarland.
- Heath, J. and Potter, A. (2004) Nation of rebels: why counterculture became consumer culture. London, Harper Business.
- Lingel, J. (2017) Digital countercultures and the struggle for community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Markarian, V., Zolov, E. and Carrara, L. P. (2016) Uruguay 1968: student activism from global counterculture to Molotov cocktails. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
- Phillips, J. M. (2018) Gale researcher guide for counterculture. London: Cengage Learning.
- Platt, D. (2017) Counter culture: following Christ in an anti-Christian age. New York, NY: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
- Rorabaugh, W. J. (2015) American hippies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rosemont, F. and Roediger, D. (2015) Joe Hill: the IWW and the making of a revolutionary working-class counterculture. London: PM Press.