I don't always agree with Ted Gioia, but he is always coming out with thought-provoking ideas. His latest: 14 Warning Signs That You Are Living in a Society Without a Counterculture
These are the key indicators that you might be living in a society without a counterculture:
A sense of sameness pervades the creative world
The dominant themes feel static and repetitive, not dynamic and impactful
Imitation of the conventional is rewarded
Movies, music, and other creative pursuits are increasingly evaluated on financial and corporate metrics, with all other considerations having little influence
Alternative voices exist—in fact, they are everywhere—but are rarely heard, and their cultural impact is negligible
Every year the same stories are retold, and this sameness is considered a plus
Creative work is increasingly embedded in genres that feel rigid, not flexible
Even avant-garde work often feels like a rehash of 50-60 years ago
Etc. etc. etc.
Go read the whole thing. He offers a persuasive list of examples. My favorite: "All those nasty, rebellious songs that defy authorities are now owned by hedge funds." Oh yeah!
But let's take a step back. Is having a dynamic, influential counterculture normal? I grew up in the sixties so to me it was a norm. In high school there were the dorky guys going to grow up to be accountants and the other guys with long hair smoking marijuana out behind the gym. We sat at the back of the gym and booed every time there was an assembly. This extended to university. At one of the first assemblies in the music department my theory professor (who was a composer), stood at the back with me and booed the dean of the school (also a composer, but of dorky electronic music). It was pretty much common that every established institution and cultural figure was opposed by independent voices. Of course, over time these independent voices ended up AS the cultural leaders, but their experience seems to have given them the yen to suppress all voices that contradict their dictates.
But back to the question: did most historic cultures have countervailing forces? Perhaps not. There are always disputes, but the free-wheeling rebellious culture of the sixties was not, I suspect, typical in human history. Usually the ruling establishment finds it fairly easy to suppress or simply wipe out opposing cultural forces. Example: the Albigensian Crusade.
The Albigensian Crusade or the Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc, in southern France. The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French crown and promptly took on a political aspect, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practising Cathars, but also a realignment of the County of Toulouse in Languedoc, bringing it into the sphere of the French crown, and diminishing both Languedoc's distinct regional culture and the influence of the counts of Barcelona.
Another example comes from the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Before the war there were roughly a million members of the Communist Party in Spain. After the war there were zero members.
If we look at cultural history, perhaps the creative ferment associated with the popular and political culture of the sixties was the exception rather than the rule. We don't have much of a sense of the history of popular culture before the 20th century as it suffers from not having been written down, but we can certainly see that the level of creative discovery waxes and wanes through history. The tiny municipality of Athens in the fifth and fourth century BC was responsible for a nearly incredible amount of the cultural capital we are still living off today. From a city of perhaps 100,000 people came tragedy and comedy, the writing of history, poetics, logic, moral philosophy, metaphysics, democracy and a host of other things. Similar, though lesser, flourishings occurred in Florence in the 14th through 16th centuries, London in the 16th and 17th centuries, Paris in the 17th and 18th centuries, Vienna in the 18th and 19th centuries and so on.
But you could argue that the norm in human history is not creative ferment but dull mediocrity.
So what sets off these periods of creative brilliance? I'm not sure anyone really knows. We might keep an eye out. There are some brilliant creators around, even today. What sorts of things are they doing? And what others might come along? If we look at the history of ancient Greece, we can see that the mighty forces that emerged in the fifth and fourth century BC actually had their roots in the two previous centuries...
Your thoughts?