I always think it’s so interesting that on the threads about counterculture, nobody brings up the obvious counterculture that is a huge topic of conversation in America: Homeless people.
A large group of individuals who live their life very differently from the mainstream (countercultures do not have to be opt-in), who have completely different goals/morals/motivations than the mainstream, and are fully and violently rejected by the mainstream.
I think the 1960’s mythology confused a lot of people into thinking that counterculture is what young white people choose to do to seem cool, but homeless people are actually probably the most prominent counterculture America has ever had.
In practice, it’s hard to think of something more core to American culture than private property ownership and we have an increasing large group of people who are not participants in that.
> A large group of individuals who live their life very differently from the mainstream (countercultures do not have to be opt-in)
Yes, it does, and it has to have aspirational elements, distinct from those of the mainstrram it is defined against. Otherwise, while it is a a distinct (possibly sub-)culture, it isn’t a counterculture.
When you have to alter the widely understood meaning of a term to argue everyone else is overlooking an example, its a pretty good clue that its not an example.
> I think the 1960’s mythology confused a lot of people into thinking that counterculture is what young white people choose to do to seem cool,
Well, yes, “counterculture” was largely a label of the 1960s version of the boomer/millenial fight, but for “Greatest" vs Boomers, and without the adoption of marketing generational terms, and then as now it mainly applied to whites, because if it wasn’t intergenerational cultural conflict within White America, it got other labels.
I agree homeless people aren’t a political movement that’s trying to abolish homes, but they are completely rejecting mainstream culture (by choice or not).
> Countercultures are often described as radical groups of people who reject established social values and practices and who embrace a mode of life opposed to the mainstream. Countercultures emerge in the wake of dramatic economic and social developments. They are reactions to social dislocation and alienation from society. Countercultures share many similarities with subcultures, but rather than modifying dominant values and norms, they seek to reconstruct an alternative social order that rejects or subverts those values and norms.
>they are completely rejecting mainstream culture (by choice or not).
Choice is fundamental to rejection, and rejection is fundamental to counter culture.
The Roma are an interesting example, but not all homeless are Roma, so you can't generalize the idea. It's also interesting to question if Roma constitute a counterculture, and if so what culture they are in juxtaposition with given the fact that Roma culture predates contemporary culture
>Choice is fundamental to rejection, and rejection is fundamental to counter culture.
Most Westerners 'reject' Marxism, but that's not because we choose not to live in Marxist societies, it's because none exist that would take a Westerner in.
"Choice" is very often an expression of circumstance, and I would again argue the emphasis on wealthy white people choosing to become hippies in the 1960s has really skewed peoples idea of what a counterculture is.
I heartily disagree. Choice is central to rejection. Someone born blind by circumstance is not rejecting vision. Some who blinds themselves or refuses restorative treatment is rejecting vision.
Re Marxism, Most people reject Marxism by not desiring it or desiring to implement it. They have the choice to advocate for it or vote for Marxists, but in general do not. However, some do choose it and there is a small US communist party.
I dont think that constitutes rejection of Marxism. If you do everything within your power to bring about communism, are you not rejecting it.
If there is more in your power to do and you choose not to, then that is rejection.
This comes back to rejection being a matter of choice.
Does a slave reject freedom, because they dont have it and cant obtain it? Is a cancer patient who cant afford treatment rejecting treatment? Of course we wouldnt say these things because rejection implies option and choice.
Romani culture developed and maintained a nomadic lifestyle in areas where non-nomadic people already lived. To the point of choice, most Romani people are born into it.
If that's not a counter-culture, then what is a counterculture exactly?
Counterculture was very specifically people NOT borned into it, but instead choosing it as young adults. When they rejected valies of society they grew up with.
Romas are having their own lifestyle and values. If they are counterculture, every minority is counterculture. Would you say that Asians or orthodox Jews are counterculture?
I have given a fair amount of thought to the "homeless" lifestyle. I live in south Florida in what till fairly recently has been a quite little "just outside the main tourist zone" village. When I ran an art gallery/pottery shop I got to know quite a few of the local homeless, a few quite well. I realize that a fair amount of homeless folks, almost for sure the great majority, are not choosing this lifestyle. The ones that do choose this lifestyle though, I figure that they have the opportunity to "live" way more than those of us who work 30-50 years to secure a retirement. Hell, even if they die younger due to missing out on some of the healthcare that I purchase, each year they have 2000 hours more time to read, reflect, fish. Well, It is a bit to late for me to consider this option, but I cannot say that the one I chose is the better one.
> nobody brings up the obvious counterculture that is a huge topic of conversation in America: Homeless people.
Oh, this is such an excellent point. I talk with a lot of homeless people regularly, and they've even begun to adopt a more overt tone of counterculture: I've been increasingly hearing fantasies from them about a "homeless uprising/revolution".
> I always think it’s so interesting that on the threads about counterculture, nobody brings up the obvious counterculture that is a huge topic of conversation in America: Homeless people.
I don't think homelessness is a counterculture, unless it's been adopted as a conscious choice/preference. My understanding is the vast majority of homeless are such because of involuntary mental health/substance abuse issues or poverty. It might be a subculture, but not all subcultures are countercultures.
That's irrelevant. IMHO, making the conscious choice to rebel against mainstream culture is the defining characteristic of a counterculture. Not all cultural affiliations typically have so much "choice" but countercultures do.
I’ve thought this about “Free People” or w/e the term is. The homeless kids with backpacks. I think they are different slightly than most homeless in that they ~chose that life, and then ya sounds like a counterculture.
The vagabond/train hopping/squatting culture is a better fit for the subculture label, I think. Similar motivations but more obviously “chosen” as a lifestyle.
A large group of individuals who live their life very differently from the mainstream (countercultures do not have to be opt-in), who have completely different goals/morals/motivations than the mainstream, and are fully and violently rejected by the mainstream.
I think the 1960’s mythology confused a lot of people into thinking that counterculture is what young white people choose to do to seem cool, but homeless people are actually probably the most prominent counterculture America has ever had.
In practice, it’s hard to think of something more core to American culture than private property ownership and we have an increasing large group of people who are not participants in that.