What do you think?
Rate this book
Истоки контркультуры
Теодор Рошак - профессор университета Беркли, автор пятнадцати книг, удостоенных нескольких национальных премий. Однако обессмертила его имя написанная им в 1969 году работа, в которой он впервые попытался осмыслить и классифицировать различные аспекты молодежной контркультуры. Критики писали об этой книге: "Если хотите понять, что происходит с вашими детьми, что заставляет их бунтовать против вашего образа жизни - читайте Рошака".
"Бурные шестидесятые".
Эра небывалого расцвета молодежной протестной культуры.
Время хиппи, рок-н-ролла, новой философии, экзотических восточных религий, антивоенного движения, психоделических экспериментов, сексуальной революции, взлета феминизма и борьбы за расовое равноправие.
Эпоха, навсегда изменившая образ жизни и образ мысли, литературу и искусство.
Но что сделало "бурные шестидесятые" возможными? Почему время вдруг внезапно сорвалось с винта и породило небывалое количество бунтующих гениев, которые хотели изменить мир и изменили его, пусть и не совсем так, как мечтали?
Именно в этом и пытался разобраться Теодор Рошак - "самый мудрый и гуманный среди историков"
"Бурные шестидесятые".
Эра небывалого расцвета молодежной протестной культуры.
Время хиппи, рок-н-ролла, новой философии, экзотических восточных религий, антивоенного движения, психоделических экспериментов, сексуальной революции, взлета феминизма и борьбы за расовое равноправие.
Эпоха, навсегда изменившая образ жизни и образ мысли, литературу и искусство.
Но что сделало "бурные шестидесятые" возможными? Почему время вдруг внезапно сорвалось с винта и породило небывалое количество бунтующих гениев, которые хотели изменить мир и изменили его, пусть и не совсем так, как мечтали?
Именно в этом и пытался разобраться Теодор Рошак - "самый мудрый и гуманный среди историков"
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1969
48 people are currently reading
1448 people want to read
About the author
Theodore Roszak
63 books147 followersTheodore Roszak was Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay. He is best known for his 1969 text, The Making of a Counter Culture.
Roszak first came to public prominence in 1969, with the publication of his The Making of a Counter Culture[5] which chronicled and gave explanation to the European and North American counterculture of the 1960s. He is generally credited with the first use of the term "counterculture".
Roszak first came to public prominence in 1969, with the publication of his The Making of a Counter Culture[5] which chronicled and gave explanation to the European and North American counterculture of the 1960s. He is generally credited with the first use of the term "counterculture".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
March 17, 2021
This is hippie garbage of the worst kind. I'm an anarcho-communist. I get the idea of the commune and anarchy. I get collective consensus. I get throwing off the shackles of what is to find a new way. But this...this is something else. Some highlights:
Anti-Depressants: Evil
LSD/Acid/Narcotics: Good
Priests and Scientists: Evil
Shamans and Medicine Men: Good
An "Expert" Giving You Information: Evil
A Shaman Tell You About His Vision: Good
There are so many other examples of how the all-encompassing, nameless, faceless "Technocracy" is trying to control you (just like the "Corporations" or the "Deep State" or the "Liberal Media" or the "Insert Name Here"). This is an aged hippie, sitting on a street corner, blazed out of his mind, talking about how colors are more real than cars, man: "What if D-O-G really spells God, man?" "What if the atoms in my fingers are all little universes, man?" "Let's all get high!"
Anti-Depressants: Evil
LSD/Acid/Narcotics: Good
Priests and Scientists: Evil
Shamans and Medicine Men: Good
An "Expert" Giving You Information: Evil
A Shaman Tell You About His Vision: Good
There are so many other examples of how the all-encompassing, nameless, faceless "Technocracy" is trying to control you (just like the "Corporations" or the "Deep State" or the "Liberal Media" or the "Insert Name Here"). This is an aged hippie, sitting on a street corner, blazed out of his mind, talking about how colors are more real than cars, man: "What if D-O-G really spells God, man?" "What if the atoms in my fingers are all little universes, man?" "Let's all get high!"
April 18, 2023
Ah, for the days of believing that changing our minds transforms the world.
June 20, 2022
I first read this book in the spring of 1972 for a course entitled "Introduction to Political Philosophy" (or "Theory" or "Thinking"). The line-up of reading was what you'd expect: Plato's Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince, Marx (Basic Writings, Feuer), Mill's On Liberty, and one that didn't fit the mold: Roszak's The Making of a Counter Culture. All the readings were stimulating and enlightening, but it was Roszak's book that most intrigued me. I was a freshman in college (University of Iowa) from a small town in Iowa. I grew up with parents active in Republican politics, and I'd been to two Republican national conventions by the time I was 16 years old. I knew a lot about American politics and current events, but I'd never thought deeply about the underpinnings of politics and political thought, nor about the roots of what I was beginning to see around me at the University of Iowa. Most of what I knew of the wider world--and the disruption going on within the U.S. and elsewhere--had come to me via television. Roszak's book gave some shape to the hippies, the counter culture, and the politics going on around me. However, Roszak doesn't spend much time addressing politics in his book; Richard Nixon gets little (if any) notice, but neither does Tom Hayden, the SDS, or the Port Huron statement. Instead, it focused upon "technocracy," the "myth of objective consciousness," and thinkers that were critical of the American main stream in which we lived. Heady stuff.
Earlier this spring I happened upon a copy of the Anchor mass-market paperback and decided to pop for it at the princely sum of $4. Now I've read it, and I now have a sense, reaching back exactly 50 years ago, of why it captured my attention. Roszak doesn't spend much time on the sociology of hippiedom or youth culture. He concentrates on the intellectual foundations upon which this counter-culture was based. Thus, I was introduced to the work of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown and the "dialectics of liberation;" Allen Ginsberg and Alan Watts and the "journey to the East . . . and points beyond;" Timothy Leary (and others; but no Ram Dass) regarding "the counterfeit infinity and the use and abuse of psychedelic experience;" and Paul Goodman and the "visionary sociology" of "exploring utopia." In addition, in briefer considerations and notes, I was introduced to Jacques Ellul and Lewis Mumford, among others. In discussing all of these thinkers and others, Roszak deals an even hand: he provides a careful and considered exposition of their thinking before undertaking any critique. His eye is at once appreciative and critical.
In his final two chapters, "The Myth of Objective Consciousness" and "Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire," Roszak lays out his underlying critique of "technocracy" and "the myth of objective consciousness." In a nutshell, the culture that puts an emphasis on efficiency, nuclear deterrence (and thus armament), objectivity, rationality, bureaucracy, and technology is one that stunts the human personality, the complete human. Thus, Roszak's critique points to those who seek to escape this one-sided and ill-formed culture: starting with his quote of Blake and then considering others. But the final two chapters are mostly Roszak's essay that riffs on the thinkers listed above and others like them.
Does this book still resonate with me? Yes, indeed it does. Early this year I embarked upon Iain McGilchrist's masterwork, The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World, and as you may discern from the title, it deals with many of the same issues as does Roszaks book: how we perceive the world, interact with it, and mold it. Indeed, when Roszak wrote this first book our greatest threat was that of instantaneous nuclear annihilation. Of course, we still experience that threat, but now we've added the threat of slow civilizational death from climate change and other degradations of the environment. And politically, we've gone from having a man in the White House who had the grace to attempt to hide his crimes that attempted to undermine democracy, unlike the recent one who blatantly trumpeted his crimes. Thus, we live in world where authoritarianism isn't a threat that emanates from a monolithic communist block but is one that arises in the U.S. and elsewhere from indigenous sources. And because all politics lies downstream from culture, we may deduce that our technocratic culture has failed us. We appear as deer in the headlights: frozen, unable to move as multiple threats bear down upon us. The call went out back in the 1970s from Roszak to William Irwin Thompson and others and continues with the likes of William Ophuls and Iain McGilchrist, among the many who have critiqued and warned--indeed, prophesied--as to where we we're headed. Going back to this source of my journey has proven worthwhile. It reminds me that so much remains to be accomplished.
Earlier this spring I happened upon a copy of the Anchor mass-market paperback and decided to pop for it at the princely sum of $4. Now I've read it, and I now have a sense, reaching back exactly 50 years ago, of why it captured my attention. Roszak doesn't spend much time on the sociology of hippiedom or youth culture. He concentrates on the intellectual foundations upon which this counter-culture was based. Thus, I was introduced to the work of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown and the "dialectics of liberation;" Allen Ginsberg and Alan Watts and the "journey to the East . . . and points beyond;" Timothy Leary (and others; but no Ram Dass) regarding "the counterfeit infinity and the use and abuse of psychedelic experience;" and Paul Goodman and the "visionary sociology" of "exploring utopia." In addition, in briefer considerations and notes, I was introduced to Jacques Ellul and Lewis Mumford, among others. In discussing all of these thinkers and others, Roszak deals an even hand: he provides a careful and considered exposition of their thinking before undertaking any critique. His eye is at once appreciative and critical.
In his final two chapters, "The Myth of Objective Consciousness" and "Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire," Roszak lays out his underlying critique of "technocracy" and "the myth of objective consciousness." In a nutshell, the culture that puts an emphasis on efficiency, nuclear deterrence (and thus armament), objectivity, rationality, bureaucracy, and technology is one that stunts the human personality, the complete human. Thus, Roszak's critique points to those who seek to escape this one-sided and ill-formed culture: starting with his quote of Blake and then considering others. But the final two chapters are mostly Roszak's essay that riffs on the thinkers listed above and others like them.
Does this book still resonate with me? Yes, indeed it does. Early this year I embarked upon Iain McGilchrist's masterwork, The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World, and as you may discern from the title, it deals with many of the same issues as does Roszaks book: how we perceive the world, interact with it, and mold it. Indeed, when Roszak wrote this first book our greatest threat was that of instantaneous nuclear annihilation. Of course, we still experience that threat, but now we've added the threat of slow civilizational death from climate change and other degradations of the environment. And politically, we've gone from having a man in the White House who had the grace to attempt to hide his crimes that attempted to undermine democracy, unlike the recent one who blatantly trumpeted his crimes. Thus, we live in world where authoritarianism isn't a threat that emanates from a monolithic communist block but is one that arises in the U.S. and elsewhere from indigenous sources. And because all politics lies downstream from culture, we may deduce that our technocratic culture has failed us. We appear as deer in the headlights: frozen, unable to move as multiple threats bear down upon us. The call went out back in the 1970s from Roszak to William Irwin Thompson and others and continues with the likes of William Ophuls and Iain McGilchrist, among the many who have critiqued and warned--indeed, prophesied--as to where we we're headed. Going back to this source of my journey has proven worthwhile. It reminds me that so much remains to be accomplished.
April 26, 2021
Невероятно брюзгливый текст о 1968ом и о том, что молодежь плохо образована и не может конвертировать свой протест в перемены или культуру. Это было бы жестко и - будучи оформленным не так скептически, скупо, нарочито поучительно и разглагольствующе - могло бы потянуть на левую критику, но, черт... Читать это физически невыносимо. Опасения Рошака на счет того, что молодняк - это кентавры, разрушающие культуру, так же смехотворны, как, скажем, опасения Хейзинги, что культура Средневековья никому не нужна и забудется (он писал об этом в корпусе статей).
Сетования на бескультурие "молодежи" - первый знак импотентности текста. Создание культуры и полноценное ее восприятие всегда удел немногих, при этом как культура Средневековья не потеряла своих фанатов, так и бесполезные по мнению Рошака хиппи и бунтующие сынки среднего класса породили огромный музыкальный, философский, пр. пласт культуры. Культура не была разрушена молодняком, как испугался уже довольно взрослый в то время Рошак, как боялся Хейзинга, как кричал в "Закате Европы" Шпенглер, как негодовали сатанисты в произведениях Гюисманса, и как брюзжали бесконечные поколения отцов.
Особенно книга Рошака нелепа потому, что он писал ее в 1969, даже не представляя себе, какой культурный взры породили события 1968-го. Он там даже с плохо скрытым страхом цитирует разнузданное описание сексуальной музыки Моррисона, называя их какой-то "кислотной группой Doors". Лишний урок не писать "анализ", когда масштаб событий еще не очевиден. Короче, полный шлак, со временем утративший крупицы полезных наблюдений, что изначально в нем были.
Фикшн удался Рошаку не в пример мощнее.
Сетования на бескультурие "молодежи" - первый знак импотентности текста. Создание культуры и полноценное ее восприятие всегда удел немногих, при этом как культура Средневековья не потеряла своих фанатов, так и бесполезные по мнению Рошака хиппи и бунтующие сынки среднего класса породили огромный музыкальный, философский, пр. пласт культуры. Культура не была разрушена молодняком, как испугался уже довольно взрослый в то время Рошак, как боялся Хейзинга, как кричал в "Закате Европы" Шпенглер, как негодовали сатанисты в произведениях Гюисманса, и как брюзжали бесконечные поколения отцов.
Особенно книга Рошака нелепа потому, что он писал ее в 1969, даже не представляя себе, какой культурный взры породили события 1968-го. Он там даже с плохо скрытым страхом цитирует разнузданное описание сексуальной музыки Моррисона, называя их какой-то "кислотной группой Doors". Лишний урок не писать "анализ", когда масштаб событий еще не очевиден. Короче, полный шлак, со временем утративший крупицы полезных наблюдений, что изначально в нем были.
Фикшн удался Рошаку не в пример мощнее.
January 13, 2013
This book was really interesting - especially because I was simultaneously reading a book that discussed how people of my generation want too much, work too hard to get it and are too dependent on technology. Apparently my grandparents' generation thought the same thing about my parents' generation! The lesson: "These kids today!" has always been said. I read the version with the 1995 update, so that was especially interesting. Apparently my parents' generation was a major shift in cultural values, and this has continued for all the subsequent generations. Will be fascinating to see how the Baby Boomers' grandchildren turn out. Also, my parents' generation's cultural angst music was SO MUCH BETTER than what we got! I will take one Jim Morrison over all artists from the 90s and Pop2K years. Glad I listen more to their music than my own!
September 27, 2018
Half way between primary source and secondary source -- written in the 1960s, but by a professor.
About the conflict between how they were raised and how they were expected to act in technocracy's jobs (all designed for efficiency), the use of psychedelic drugs, Zen and its use and abuse and the willful misudnerstanding of it, the clash with Marxism and more. Interesting stuff. The lack of insight from the knowledge of how it turned out means, of course, that he presents what it really looked like at the time.
About the conflict between how they were raised and how they were expected to act in technocracy's jobs (all designed for efficiency), the use of psychedelic drugs, Zen and its use and abuse and the willful misudnerstanding of it, the clash with Marxism and more. Interesting stuff. The lack of insight from the knowledge of how it turned out means, of course, that he presents what it really looked like at the time.
June 2, 2008
The subtitle, "Reflections on the technocratic society and its youthful opposition," sums up Rozak's central premise. Technocracy may be defined as "...that social form in which an industrial society reaches the peak of its organizational integration. [...] In a technocracy,nothing is any longer small or simple or readily apparent to the non-technical man. Instead, the scale and intricacy of all human activities - political, economic, cultural - transcends the competence of the amateurish citizen and inexorably demands the attention of specially trained experts."
Rozak explores the youthful opposition by taking a look at the philosophies of Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown, followed by the Eastern influence, Alan Ginsburg, and Alan Watts. He also investigates the uses and abuses of the psychedelic experience, the sociology of Paul Goodman, and the myth of objective conciousness. In the final chapter, entitled, "Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire," the author addresses the challenge facing the youth, to bring all of the varieties of human experience into the forefront of society, so that technocracy is sublimated, and technology is the servant of humankind, and not the other way around.
When this book first appeared, it was enormously influential on college campuses across the country. Rozak urged a unified vision of life, where making art is as important as a good job at IBM. Read from the modern perspective, it is interesting to see that in many ways, Rozak's worst nightmare happened. Although he did not envision laptops and iPods, technolcracy has taken over present life to a previously unimaginable degree.
The sixties generation took some of Rozak's advice to heart, but the better world he advocated has yet to see the light of day.
Rozak explores the youthful opposition by taking a look at the philosophies of Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown, followed by the Eastern influence, Alan Ginsburg, and Alan Watts. He also investigates the uses and abuses of the psychedelic experience, the sociology of Paul Goodman, and the myth of objective conciousness. In the final chapter, entitled, "Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire," the author addresses the challenge facing the youth, to bring all of the varieties of human experience into the forefront of society, so that technocracy is sublimated, and technology is the servant of humankind, and not the other way around.
When this book first appeared, it was enormously influential on college campuses across the country. Rozak urged a unified vision of life, where making art is as important as a good job at IBM. Read from the modern perspective, it is interesting to see that in many ways, Rozak's worst nightmare happened. Although he did not envision laptops and iPods, technolcracy has taken over present life to a previously unimaginable degree.
The sixties generation took some of Rozak's advice to heart, but the better world he advocated has yet to see the light of day.
July 8, 2010
The thesis of Roszak's book (which was published in 1969) is that the 60's counterculture is best understood as an attempt to solve the problem of 'technocracy'. Roszak's understanding of technocracy is derivative of Ellul's problematic in "Technological Society." Time is better spent with Ellul.
Ellul's position is that nothing can be done about the problem of technocracy *except* to understand it as clearly and distinctly as possible. This is an idea that does not sit well with post-WW2 American optimism. Roszak in particular shares the optimism : he feels (as he indicates in a footnote) Ellul is far too pessimistic and even fatalistic in his estimation of the situation. He points to the youthful countercultural revolution as evidence that there may be some solution to the problem. But Roszak overlooks the difficulty that the counterculture simply offered alternative techniques - e.g. sex, drugs, (one might as well say it) rock and roll, and meditation - to those of technological society. Is it any wonder, then, that the counterculture had been so effectively co-opted into mainstream technocratic society? To his credit, Roszak notes this process had already begun, but he sees it dimly on account of temporal proximity.
I don't agree with Rozsak's estimation of Ellul's thesis. If Ellul believed the contemporary situation is thoroughly irrational and inscrutable, then I wouldn't hesitate to regard his thesis as pessimistic. But it seems to me quite realistic.
Ellul's position is that nothing can be done about the problem of technocracy *except* to understand it as clearly and distinctly as possible. This is an idea that does not sit well with post-WW2 American optimism. Roszak in particular shares the optimism : he feels (as he indicates in a footnote) Ellul is far too pessimistic and even fatalistic in his estimation of the situation. He points to the youthful countercultural revolution as evidence that there may be some solution to the problem. But Roszak overlooks the difficulty that the counterculture simply offered alternative techniques - e.g. sex, drugs, (one might as well say it) rock and roll, and meditation - to those of technological society. Is it any wonder, then, that the counterculture had been so effectively co-opted into mainstream technocratic society? To his credit, Roszak notes this process had already begun, but he sees it dimly on account of temporal proximity.
I don't agree with Rozsak's estimation of Ellul's thesis. If Ellul believed the contemporary situation is thoroughly irrational and inscrutable, then I wouldn't hesitate to regard his thesis as pessimistic. But it seems to me quite realistic.
May 4, 2020
An informed discussion of the first round of popular rebellion in the 1960s and their influences. As relevant today as when it was written.
July 7, 2022
Roszak analyzes the emerging youth culture of the 1960s in terms of the ideas of its intellectual leaders—the radical Freudian politics of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown, for example, or the traditional Eastern philosophical teachings popularized by writer Alan Watts and Beat poet Allen Ginsberg.
Acquired Mar 17, 2006
City Lights Book Shop, London, Ontario
Acquired Mar 17, 2006
City Lights Book Shop, London, Ontario
April 14, 2017
I read this book in 1975 and it had then an enormous influence on my thinking. I should read it again now, more than 40 years later to see if any of the 'dark sides' of the counterculture wave was mentioned.
March 23, 2008
another important book from college days
April 8, 2008
Had a class from him in college. He'll tell you why hippies believed what they did.
February 20, 2009
Certainly helped me understand the beat generation, hippy movement and some of the things we are experiencing now.
Read
February 28, 2023this was a fun one to mull over. it sort of teetered back and forth between seeming insightful and seeming hokey at parts, but also i felt the entire time like i was reading from the "other side" of a transformative cultural wave. roszak is identifying a technocracy that is on the rise, that completely re-organizes thought and value, that can be resisted by more subliminal acts like drugs and shamanism and intuition and the subconscious; and i as a reader am on the other side where technocracy has completely consumed and completed its re-organization so it was hard to try to get back into his mindset i think. in addition i feel resistance/reaction went a slightly different way in terms of theory (or maybe just in terms of my theory-reading) -- of cyborg manifesto shit instead of full repudiation of technology/data/objectification. again it was just like squinting to try to see his worldview i think. this book still feels /relevant/ in terms of its critique of technocracy and its solutions, but in that way where it's like a cousin to maybe to the solutions/frameworks that won out.
specifically his ideas defo have staying power; and i definitely felt that thing where i was reading something perhaps mindblowing in the 60s that is obvious now; like how scientific objectivity is going to leave out what we cannot measure; like how subject-object cartesian ways of thinking about the world are going to create objectified dehumanized beings and natures; like how capitalism is creating a consuming body where one isn't needed (take this pill for hair, that pill for fertility, etc.). so i guess it's just future thinkers are more specific about integrating(?) using(?) other forms of knowing than his like, just sort of pointing at indigenous people and shamans i guess?
the thing i felt the most resistance against was what roszak probably expected me to feel weird about; which is this sense that science itself, with its form of measurement and Knowing, and with its unavoidable use of expertise (ie, undemocratic) knowledge, is part of the problem. i guess because of haraway, and lewontin and levins, i feel like there are ways to know and discover about the world that do require intellect and rigor and aren't inherently oppressive or alienating. their approach is the same as roszak's but keeps science intact i feel; just more subject-object breakdown, more intersectionality, more understanding that maybe indigenous medicines etc. had something worth investigating, more understanding of humans as ecological citizens and not just "InHere" scientists working on "OutThere" nature. i guess i've seen visions post-roszak of science that can integrate subjectivity so his whole thing where objectivity sucks and science is objectivity so it is also untenable feels old school. i also am curious about the "undemocratic"ness of technologized knowledge; like this was written before the internet and before hacker culture specifically; the dissemination of not folk knowledge in the traditional sense but of /folk information/ including scientific information via the internet, the empowerment of the everyman to use-a da computer (though that era is gone too) ... again i am just speaking from an era where the time to tear down the structures of informatics and technology seems to have passed, we've found other adaptations of sorts, so parts of this book leaning towards reversion just feel quaint. and maybe i think adaptation is unavoidable or already too embedded compared to repudiation; roszak is talking about a newer trend of technocracy digitizing and making manipulable all parts of human body and life; but the experience of there being an objective InHere vs a passive OutThere to be measured and turned into technologized labor is older, it's just colonialism and slavery; it was just newer for white collar workers in America i guess.
okay hot takes aside i liked how nuanced this book was. i like how he was careful to talk about how important youth culture is to analyze, but did note the movement was white and in college, and that they were inaccurately appropriately orientalism; he was careful to say their actual material politics /religions was underdeveloped and aimless, but their vibe of wanting subconscious answers instead of objective scientific ones was a good point of resistance. i like how he was also careful to separate the scientist class from experts; scientific work bolsters the illusion of experts and expertise, but not every scientist is doing the spin job.
that being said i feel like he had outright racist opinions about the black panthers? just very dismissive of their "violent" answers and just seemed kinda hurt that they were "unfriendly" to white people or someshit.
also the writing style was just /so so fun/. he is very purple in this super entertaining way, and that's v enjoyable. the middle maybe slogs a bit w close readings of ginsburg but when he's ranting about the evils of technocracy and bureaucracy and stuff it rules.
specifically his ideas defo have staying power; and i definitely felt that thing where i was reading something perhaps mindblowing in the 60s that is obvious now; like how scientific objectivity is going to leave out what we cannot measure; like how subject-object cartesian ways of thinking about the world are going to create objectified dehumanized beings and natures; like how capitalism is creating a consuming body where one isn't needed (take this pill for hair, that pill for fertility, etc.). so i guess it's just future thinkers are more specific about integrating(?) using(?) other forms of knowing than his like, just sort of pointing at indigenous people and shamans i guess?
the thing i felt the most resistance against was what roszak probably expected me to feel weird about; which is this sense that science itself, with its form of measurement and Knowing, and with its unavoidable use of expertise (ie, undemocratic) knowledge, is part of the problem. i guess because of haraway, and lewontin and levins, i feel like there are ways to know and discover about the world that do require intellect and rigor and aren't inherently oppressive or alienating. their approach is the same as roszak's but keeps science intact i feel; just more subject-object breakdown, more intersectionality, more understanding that maybe indigenous medicines etc. had something worth investigating, more understanding of humans as ecological citizens and not just "InHere" scientists working on "OutThere" nature. i guess i've seen visions post-roszak of science that can integrate subjectivity so his whole thing where objectivity sucks and science is objectivity so it is also untenable feels old school. i also am curious about the "undemocratic"ness of technologized knowledge; like this was written before the internet and before hacker culture specifically; the dissemination of not folk knowledge in the traditional sense but of /folk information/ including scientific information via the internet, the empowerment of the everyman to use-a da computer (though that era is gone too) ... again i am just speaking from an era where the time to tear down the structures of informatics and technology seems to have passed, we've found other adaptations of sorts, so parts of this book leaning towards reversion just feel quaint. and maybe i think adaptation is unavoidable or already too embedded compared to repudiation; roszak is talking about a newer trend of technocracy digitizing and making manipulable all parts of human body and life; but the experience of there being an objective InHere vs a passive OutThere to be measured and turned into technologized labor is older, it's just colonialism and slavery; it was just newer for white collar workers in America i guess.
okay hot takes aside i liked how nuanced this book was. i like how he was careful to talk about how important youth culture is to analyze, but did note the movement was white and in college, and that they were inaccurately appropriately orientalism; he was careful to say their actual material politics /religions was underdeveloped and aimless, but their vibe of wanting subconscious answers instead of objective scientific ones was a good point of resistance. i like how he was also careful to separate the scientist class from experts; scientific work bolsters the illusion of experts and expertise, but not every scientist is doing the spin job.
that being said i feel like he had outright racist opinions about the black panthers? just very dismissive of their "violent" answers and just seemed kinda hurt that they were "unfriendly" to white people or someshit.
also the writing style was just /so so fun/. he is very purple in this super entertaining way, and that's v enjoyable. the middle maybe slogs a bit w close readings of ginsburg but when he's ranting about the evils of technocracy and bureaucracy and stuff it rules.
September 27, 2022
Un capolavoro. Un testo di analisi storico-sociologica che analizza le forme, i contenuti e gli esponenti di quel movimento che è andato (va) sotto il nome di ‘controcultura’ e che ha divampato negli anni Sessanta negli Stati Uniti – di cui noi però continuiamo a viverne gli strascichi, o meglio, stiamo ancora adattando alcune proposte. Un elemento che mi ha particolarmente colpito è stato quello del ‘permissivismo’ portato avanti dal dottor Spock (quanto l’hanno letto e citato i miei genitori!) e che ha generato una prolungata adolescenza, ben oltre l’età adulta biologica, scontrandosi però con un mondo di adulti che sebbene praticasse il permissivismo, in realtà però si aspettava una maturità raggiunta con gli stessi ritmi loro. Questo non solo non è successo, ma è degenerato in una fascia sociale (la nostra e quella dei nostri figli!) che è scivolata poi nell’infantilismo che pretende ma non produce né dà. Il mondo degli adulti, piagato dalla psicoanalisi che, anche lei nel filone della ‘controcultura’ incitava alla collera nei confronti dei genitori, si è genuflesso con grandi sensi di colpa davanti ai nostri figli, facendone (con le migliori intenzioni) dei grandi irrisolti – che non capiscono poi perché ad un certo punto debbano crescere, quando gli è sempre stato detto in realtà che potevano fare quello che volevano e crescere, ovvero assumersi le responsabilità non è qualcosa che ai bambini/ragazzini piaccia molto.
Roszak mi è anche piaciuto moltissimo perché riesce a trovare una linea di equilibrio molto intelligente – e molto difficile da individuare – in cui sebbene approvi questa nouvelle vague di pensiero, allo stesso tempo non teme indicare tutti gli sbandamenti che ci sono stati, a partire da vari esponenti idolatrati dalle masse, fossero essi poeti, cantanti, psicologi o filosofi.
Tallone di Achille del suo pensiero, che appunto è estremamente a favore della scoperta del sé, dello studio delle aree umanistiche, del consolidamento dell’uomo vis à vis della tecnologia, non tiene però conto che la gran corsa americana alla scienza degli anni Sessanta (che lui combatte, come luogo mentale dell’aridità nonché come germe delle corporations) era scaturita anche perché si era all’apice della guerra fredda, con la minaccia di armi molto potenti a lunga gittata. Oggi questo aspetto della diplomazia mondiale forse non è più così accentuato, tuttavia la tecnologia è ben presente, molto presente nelle nostre vite, tramite tutti i vari social che attanagliano la mente dei giovani – e le plasma tramite algoritmi.
Ciò detto, un CAPOLAVORO.
Roszak mi è anche piaciuto moltissimo perché riesce a trovare una linea di equilibrio molto intelligente – e molto difficile da individuare – in cui sebbene approvi questa nouvelle vague di pensiero, allo stesso tempo non teme indicare tutti gli sbandamenti che ci sono stati, a partire da vari esponenti idolatrati dalle masse, fossero essi poeti, cantanti, psicologi o filosofi.
Tallone di Achille del suo pensiero, che appunto è estremamente a favore della scoperta del sé, dello studio delle aree umanistiche, del consolidamento dell’uomo vis à vis della tecnologia, non tiene però conto che la gran corsa americana alla scienza degli anni Sessanta (che lui combatte, come luogo mentale dell’aridità nonché come germe delle corporations) era scaturita anche perché si era all’apice della guerra fredda, con la minaccia di armi molto potenti a lunga gittata. Oggi questo aspetto della diplomazia mondiale forse non è più così accentuato, tuttavia la tecnologia è ben presente, molto presente nelle nostre vite, tramite tutti i vari social che attanagliano la mente dei giovani – e le plasma tramite algoritmi.
Ciò detto, un CAPOLAVORO.
February 9, 2019
Roszak's book, published in 1969 is as a sort of review of what was going on among the youth at the time. Roszak explains and gives his thoughts on what exact the counter-culture is counter to, why they are opposed to it, how they are doing it, and who the youth's influences are. Some chapters are better than others, with the best ones still being near essential reading even today, in my opinion
The first chapter which explains what Roszak calls the Technocracy, is fantastic. His analysis is clear and does a great job of portraying it as something that is most definitely worth rebelling against without losing any depth in his analysis. The middle chapters explain in depth the counter culture movement in the context of the technocracy. Some of these are probably skippable if you're not interested in learning about the philosophy of Herbert Marcuse, Norman Brown, Allen Ginsberg, Paul Goodman, or psychedelic drugs in a counter-cultural context. The Brown and Marcuse chapter is pretty dense, but the one on psychedelic use is pretty interesting, and contains Roszak's harshest criticisms of the counter culture movement.
The first chapter (technocracy's children) and the last two (The Myth of Objective Consciousness, Eyes of Flesh Eyes of Fire) are the best parts of the book and contain the most relevant. Roszak's analysis and critiques of today's technocratic and science oriented society is fascinating, and paints the counter culture movement's ideals in a unique and sympathetic light that it does not get too much of nowadays. I recommend picking up the 1992 reissue if you can, as it contains an updated essay written by Roszak that reflects on the movement as a whole twenty years after it died officially. The book does a good job explaining what exactly the counter culture was, which is great if it's something you want to learn more about.
If nothing else, read chapters 1, 7, and 8 as they are pretty easy to read, and provide some truly insightful analysis into the culture that we live in now, and why it is the way it is, especially now that technology has only become increasingly prevalent.
The first chapter which explains what Roszak calls the Technocracy, is fantastic. His analysis is clear and does a great job of portraying it as something that is most definitely worth rebelling against without losing any depth in his analysis. The middle chapters explain in depth the counter culture movement in the context of the technocracy. Some of these are probably skippable if you're not interested in learning about the philosophy of Herbert Marcuse, Norman Brown, Allen Ginsberg, Paul Goodman, or psychedelic drugs in a counter-cultural context. The Brown and Marcuse chapter is pretty dense, but the one on psychedelic use is pretty interesting, and contains Roszak's harshest criticisms of the counter culture movement.
The first chapter (technocracy's children) and the last two (The Myth of Objective Consciousness, Eyes of Flesh Eyes of Fire) are the best parts of the book and contain the most relevant. Roszak's analysis and critiques of today's technocratic and science oriented society is fascinating, and paints the counter culture movement's ideals in a unique and sympathetic light that it does not get too much of nowadays. I recommend picking up the 1992 reissue if you can, as it contains an updated essay written by Roszak that reflects on the movement as a whole twenty years after it died officially. The book does a good job explaining what exactly the counter culture was, which is great if it's something you want to learn more about.
If nothing else, read chapters 1, 7, and 8 as they are pretty easy to read, and provide some truly insightful analysis into the culture that we live in now, and why it is the way it is, especially now that technology has only become increasingly prevalent.
April 12, 2018
I was constantly impressed by how relevant to contemporary issues this book is, as I was reading it. Not only is it an interesting historic testimony, by its description of some of the major cultural influences and social upheavals of the 60s, it also provides an insight into the roots of the current ecological crisis and debate around science ethics, especially regarding artificial intelligence and biotechnology. The language can be heavily academic in some chapters and the references to American "pop culture" are not necessarily accessible to a non-native like me, so it took me a long time to read it. I am very glad I did, however, and I would recommend it to anyone concerned with social and personal improvement. The reason I am not giving it five stars is because I find that in the last few chapters that deal with "objective consciousness", the author seems to conflate several definitions of science and technology. The result is a sort of generalized, unconvincing, criticism of "science" that mixes valid concerns about experimental abuses and a paradoxically dogmatic exaltation of alternative ways of seeing the world, which contrasts with the nuanced approaches found elsewhere in this great piece of work.
September 9, 2021
I greatly admire scholars like Theodore Roszak who are greatly knowledgeable in many different areas including history, politics, philosophy, ecology and psychology and who can link ALL these areas of information in one great vision. I learned a lot from Theodore Roszak’s book even if I often did not agree with him nor often understood what he was talking about.
Looking back on the book -having read it in the 1970’s, I realise now how much intellectual justification he gave to the hippie movement. However his lauding of youth’s anti-technological stance proved totally wrong. Nor was he was much of a visionary as he did not see the rise of the personal computer. More importantly he did not foresee youth EMBRACING TECHNOLOGY RATHER THAN REJECTING IT.
On the other hand: his anti-industrial pro-ecology stance was proven exactly right. He was the hippies’ philosopher giving intellectual credence to the freedom movement and early ecology and feminism whilst rejecting the values of governments who somewhat needlessly fought the war in Vietnam. For that he is an important writer: Johnnie Kovacevich in Auckland New Zealand - a land so far away it's tomorrow.
Looking back on the book -having read it in the 1970’s, I realise now how much intellectual justification he gave to the hippie movement. However his lauding of youth’s anti-technological stance proved totally wrong. Nor was he was much of a visionary as he did not see the rise of the personal computer. More importantly he did not foresee youth EMBRACING TECHNOLOGY RATHER THAN REJECTING IT.
On the other hand: his anti-industrial pro-ecology stance was proven exactly right. He was the hippies’ philosopher giving intellectual credence to the freedom movement and early ecology and feminism whilst rejecting the values of governments who somewhat needlessly fought the war in Vietnam. For that he is an important writer: Johnnie Kovacevich in Auckland New Zealand - a land so far away it's tomorrow.
June 19, 2025
This is an excellent distillation of influences and analysis of the counter-culture movements of the 60s, with shrewd insight Roszak performs the work of an archaeologist (perhaps a comparison he would object to) on his subject of contemporary dissent. You will learn through his work how the popular youth movements of the day came about, their influences, positive and negative and the emotional charge that unites such a varied group of subcultures. The book not only analyses but understands, and I felt my eyes opened to the ideas of technocracy even more rampant in the modern day than today. Some of his predictions, over half a century ago, are startling prescient. That isn’t to say that I agreed with everything he wrote, but this work is certainly full of wisdom for the inquisitive mind to grapple with. To understand the fundamental antagonisms in the social and individual psyches of today, I believe this should be required reading.
February 13, 2021
Nejvíce zajímavé na této knize je její stálá aktuálnost, pojednávající o problémech tehdejší (ale vlastně i dnešní) doby, a to i přesto, že byla vydaná poprvé před 60 lety. Texty pojednávající o Marcusem, jako jednom z intelektuálních vůdců kontrakultury, mi přišly místy až moc akademické. Na druhou stranu úvahy o technokratické společnosti táhnoucí se celou knihou a Gestalt terapie Paula Goodmana byly podány úžasně srozumitelně. Doporučuji všem, kteří chtějí proniknout hlouběji do mentality 60. - 70. let a poznat jak myšlení kontrakultury prosáklo i do myšlení dnešní generace.
"Primárním smyslem lidské existence není vymýšlet způsoby jak vršit čím dál větší hromady vědomostí, ale objevovat různé způsoby jak žít podle nároků ušlechtilého jednání, upřímného společenství a radosti."
"Primárním smyslem lidské existence není vymýšlet způsoby jak vršit čím dál větší hromady vědomostí, ale objevovat různé způsoby jak žít podle nároků ušlechtilého jednání, upřímného společenství a radosti."
July 6, 2024
Forgotten most of what I wanted to say as I never updated my progress. Highlights the general shift towards blind trust in "experts" that lead the technocratic society, that by leaving everything up to these figureheads then the general populace becomes complicit in a sense of brain rot? Meaning you distrust yourself and always have the urge to ask someone of a perceived higher standing than you for confirmation instead of trial and error. Author hated hippies which was really funny, book was written in late 70s so author compared the respectability of the beat generation to that of the lazy dirty stupid hippies that lie to themselves they're somehow above condemnation on the basis of "free and pure love'
February 14, 2022
Overall an interesting and insightful look into the real-time analysis of an incredibly transformative period in social history. Roszak brings an interdisciplinary approach throughout the book weaving in anthropological, sociological, religious, economic, political, and psychoanalytical perspectives.
The book successfully takes a big step back to analyze the drive of the "drop out" generation to become completely disaffiliated with the dominant western technocratic evolution. Roszak leans heavily into the general critique of the circularly propped-up system of sanctioned technocratic expertise to highlight the need for a distancing of traditional revolutionary techniques. The overall plea and passion for a world driven by humanist goodwill, communitarian principles, and absorption of environmental wisdom comes off as genuine and well placed within the larger argument.
There are moments where I wish there was a deeper exploration of the individual desires of people to succumb to an overall system that places decision-making power out of individual control in exchange for a highly specialized alienated socio-economic world and "modernly comfortable" lifestyle. I also find there to be confusing moments where Roszak's critique of the youth movement places emphasis on the shortsightedness of their vision but also praises the natural and engrained wisdom of their practices.
Also, since my understanding of the psychoanalytical discipline is elementary at best and embarrassingly absent at worst, I will definitely be diving deeper into the thoughts expressed around Objective Consciousness, the works of Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown. All in all - the book was an interesting read and it was funny to hear a 1969 perspective on The Doors.
The book successfully takes a big step back to analyze the drive of the "drop out" generation to become completely disaffiliated with the dominant western technocratic evolution. Roszak leans heavily into the general critique of the circularly propped-up system of sanctioned technocratic expertise to highlight the need for a distancing of traditional revolutionary techniques. The overall plea and passion for a world driven by humanist goodwill, communitarian principles, and absorption of environmental wisdom comes off as genuine and well placed within the larger argument.
There are moments where I wish there was a deeper exploration of the individual desires of people to succumb to an overall system that places decision-making power out of individual control in exchange for a highly specialized alienated socio-economic world and "modernly comfortable" lifestyle. I also find there to be confusing moments where Roszak's critique of the youth movement places emphasis on the shortsightedness of their vision but also praises the natural and engrained wisdom of their practices.
Also, since my understanding of the psychoanalytical discipline is elementary at best and embarrassingly absent at worst, I will definitely be diving deeper into the thoughts expressed around Objective Consciousness, the works of Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown. All in all - the book was an interesting read and it was funny to hear a 1969 perspective on The Doors.
January 29, 2025
I think you have to take this one with a grain of salt. It has some extremely interesting ideas but the author is quite opinionated, and doesn’t seem to consider potential ill-effects of his world view (ie I couldn’t help but see the parallels between a lack of objective consciousness and fake news social movements like anti-vaxxers). Still, this is something I wouldn’t typically read and it definitely inspired a lot more investigation into the topic.
July 13, 2025
One of the best things I’ve ever read! Roszak left a lasting legacy with this work. I deeply admire both his writing and the clarity of his thinking. What stands out is also his balanced, thoughtful approach as a researcher. He presents the topic of American counterculture with true intellectual integrity.
July 30, 2020
A very dense and dry read that often drifts from its subject to fall into wordy tangents. It does stand as a good look into 1960s counterculture and its influence, but I find a lot of "nothing" wedged between the pages. In all, ehh.
June 25, 2022
bring postmodernism supremacy back
Read
July 25, 2011I see a glimmer of hope in today's "Maker" culture of overthrowing the technocratic culture that Roszak critiques.
His critique of science and scientists seems somewhat one-dimensional, but does touch on some points that h ave and continue to bother me re: the scientific-industrial-military complex.
I would be hesitant to recommend this to a student, for fear of "corrupting" them away from pursuing science/technical prowess and instead becoming a "hippie" of sorts. This is a compliment, as the perception of "danger" tends to indicate some element of truth. (The universe is having a good laugh: I started to read this book on the way back from a scientific conference...)
Shelley, "The Defence of Poetry"
p.235 - "It is my own conviction that those who open themselves in this way and who allow what is Out-There to enter them and to shake them to their foundations are not apt to finish by placing a high value on scientific or technical progress. I believe they will finish by subordinating such pursuits to a distinctly marginal place in their lives, because they will realize that the objective mode of consciousness, useful as it is on occasion, cuts them off from too much that is valuable. They will therefore come to see the myth of objective consciousness as a poor mythology, one which diminishes life rather than expands it; and they will want to spend little of their time with it."
p. 238- "And we should reject the small souls who know only how to be correct, and cleave to the great who know how to be wise."
His critique of science and scientists seems somewhat one-dimensional, but does touch on some points that h ave and continue to bother me re: the scientific-industrial-military complex.
I would be hesitant to recommend this to a student, for fear of "corrupting" them away from pursuing science/technical prowess and instead becoming a "hippie" of sorts. This is a compliment, as the perception of "danger" tends to indicate some element of truth. (The universe is having a good laugh: I started to read this book on the way back from a scientific conference...)
Shelley, "The Defence of Poetry"
p.235 - "It is my own conviction that those who open themselves in this way and who allow what is Out-There to enter them and to shake them to their foundations are not apt to finish by placing a high value on scientific or technical progress. I believe they will finish by subordinating such pursuits to a distinctly marginal place in their lives, because they will realize that the objective mode of consciousness, useful as it is on occasion, cuts them off from too much that is valuable. They will therefore come to see the myth of objective consciousness as a poor mythology, one which diminishes life rather than expands it; and they will want to spend little of their time with it."
p. 238- "And we should reject the small souls who know only how to be correct, and cleave to the great who know how to be wise."
March 1, 2025
When Roszak wrote "The Making of a Counter Culture" in 1969, the very title of which coined the expression “counter culture”, two decades of the arms race and a decade of the space race led him to describe American society as a technocracy overly focussed on organisational and technological progress and efficiency. He questioned what he saw as a relentless quest, an expansive evolution of the industrial dehumanisation portrayed by Fritz Lang in "Metropolis" and Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times". He saw this creating a "myth of objective consciousness," a technocratic ideology promoting efficiency, order and rational control, ultimately leading to societal domination. He went on to interpret the protests of the 1960s, particularly those in 1968 as the youth movement’s rejection of the technocratic society but saw the youth of the time who could be the only significant opposition to this technocracy as being largely irresponsible, overly focussed on drugs and incapable of original ideas.
At the time of its writing, his observations were not unreasonable although perhaps overly influenced by neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse’s 1964 ʺOne-dimensional Manʺ, who described capitalist societies as welfare/warfare states. However, viewed from the early 2000s when I read the book, his perception of the youth of the day has not been supported by what that generation achieved in subsequent decades. I found this a useful read for those wanting to understand the 1960s, but not a great read.
At the time of its writing, his observations were not unreasonable although perhaps overly influenced by neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse’s 1964 ʺOne-dimensional Manʺ, who described capitalist societies as welfare/warfare states. However, viewed from the early 2000s when I read the book, his perception of the youth of the day has not been supported by what that generation achieved in subsequent decades. I found this a useful read for those wanting to understand the 1960s, but not a great read.
August 10, 2013
The analysis of the origins and aims of the 60's counter culture is excellent. However, I found Roszak's blatant anti-scientific bias that appears most strongly in the last few chapters disappointing and poorly argued. Still, the characterization of the hippie/New Left movement and its key players is really well done. I guess one shouldn't expect non-biased examination of a sociological movement from a book that dedicates its entire latter half to explaining how the scientific aim for objectivity is eroding the human soul and contributing to the alienation of the individual. I'm even sympathetic to some of those arguments (and even find myself agreeing in many places), but Roszak's apparent refusal to allow for any middle-ground is quite frustrating, especially for one who can appreciate the beauty and elegance of an efficiently solved puzzle without considering that "beauty" to be a word inaccurately appropriated from the Romantic sensibility of transcendent aesthetics.
Still a worthwhile read.
Still a worthwhile read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews