a beautiful politics: theodore roszak’s romantic ... · for theodore roszak. it was a vibrant,...
TRANSCRIPT
ABeautifulPolitics:TheodoreRoszak’sRomanticRadicalismandthe
Counterculture
ChristopherPartridge
Uglywillnotbemadebeautifulbytheincreaseofugliness.Andbeauty—thebeauty
ofhumansoulsreclaimedandilluminated—isthebannerandpowerofour
revolution.Abeautifulpolitics.Despitethebastards.Thetechnocracywillnotbe
overthrown.Itwillbedisplaced—inchbyinch—byalternativerealities
imaginativelyembodied.1
Itisnowalmostfiftyyearssincethepublicationofoneofthemostinfluentialstudiesof
1960syouthculture,TheMakingofaCounterCulture:ReflectionsontheTechnocratic
SocietyandItsYouthfulOppositionbyTheodoreRoszak.Publishedin1969,itdeveloped
anumberofideasintroducedthepreviousyearinaseriesofwell-receivedarticlesfor
TheNation,aweeklyAmericanjournalofprogressiveopinion.2Ofcourse,an
anniversaryisnotinitselfagoodenoughreasontorevisitabook.However,the
significanceofthiswork,notonlyinpopularizingtheword“counterculture”3andin
contributingtoourunderstandingofprotestpoliticsduringthe1960s,but,asIwill
argue,indevelopingadistinctivecounterculturalphilosophymakeitworthyof
re/considerationbythoseinterestedindiscoursesofdissent.
InareviewofTheMakingofaCounterCulturefortheSanFranciscoChronicle,Alan
Wattsencouragedthoseofhiscontemporarieswho“wanttoknowwhatishappening
among[their]intelligentandmysteriouslyrebelliouschildren”tobuythebook.“The
generationgap,thestudentuproar,theNewLeft,thebeatsandhippies,thepsychedelic
movement,rockmusic,therevivalofoccultismandmysticism,theprotestagainstour
involvementinVietnam,andtheseeminglyoddreluctanceoftheyoungtobuythe
affluenttechnologicalsociety—allthesemattersareherediscussed,withsympathyand
constructivecriticism,byamostarticulate,wise,andhumanehistorian.”4Ofcourse,not
everyonewhotookWatts’sadviceandpickedupthebookagreedwithhisassessment.
Some,suchasLindaHerbst,foundhistreatment“naïve”5or,likeAndrewGreeley,
consideredhimtobe“preachinganewirrationality.”6Others,suchasCliveJames,while
disagreeingthathisanalysisbetrayednaïvetéandirrationality,nevertheless,concluded
that,overall,itwas“notverygood.”Roszakcan,heargued,“drawuponsufficient
intellectualresourcestoknowaproblemwhenheseesit.Havingseenit,heraisesit;
andhavingraisedit,skatesaroundit.SoTheMakingofaCounterCultureisshallow
withoutbeingnaïve,whichisalotworsethan[previousbooksontheunderground]
whichwereshallowbecausetheywerenaïve.”7WhileJameswasarguablyrighttodraw
attentiontoRoszak’senthusiasticsupportforthecounterculturewithoutfully
interrogatingtheimplicationsofhispositionorcogentlyarticulatingaviablealternative
(whichhewouldgoontodoinsubsequentbooks),generallyspeaking,manydisagreed
thatthebookwas“notverygood.”Indeed,likeWatts,manyatthetimelaudeditas“a
brilliantbook,”8whileothershavesincecometoconsideritasperhaps“themost
insightfulanalysisofthesocialtrendsofthesixties”9andarguably“themostinfluential
contemporaryaccountofthecounterculture.”10Certainly,asJamesconceded,itisnota
naïvebook.
Roszakunderstoodthecounterculturebetterthanmostacademicobserversatthetime
and,forallitsyouthfulexuberanceandexcess,hesawthatitwas,asthesociologist
BerniceMartinlatercommented,“anindextoawholenewculturalstyle,asetofvalues,
assumptionsandwaysofliving.”Moreparticularly,drawingonRoszak’sanalysis,she
agreedthatpostwarculturalchangescouldbeunderstoodintermsofthe“workingout
oftheprinciplesofRomanticism”thathadbecomeembeddedinwesterncultureatthe
dawnofthemodernage.11AsthecurrentsofRomanticismandantistructuregained
groundduringthe1960s,hediscerned“atransformationintheassumptionsandthe
habitualpracticeswhichformtheculturalbedrockofthedailylivesofordinarypeople,”
openingWesternsocietiesupto“theexpressiverevolution.”12Hence,ithasalways
seemedratheroddtomethatotherwiseexcellentanalysesoftheperiod,suchasthose
ofChristopherGairandColinCampbell,mentionRoszakonlyinpassing,13or,inthecase
ofsomestudies,suchasthoseofHarveyCox,DannyGoldberg,andHughMcLeod,14fail
eventoacknowledgehiswork.
TheMakingofaCounterCultureis,however,morethansimplyaperceptivediscussion
ofyouthrebellionanditsprincipalintellectualresources(whichishowithastendedto
beread).Rather,IarguethatRoszakbegantheconstructionofasystematic
counterculturalphilosophythatIwanttocall“Romanticradicalism,”whichhethen
unpackedmorefullyinsubsequentworks,especiallyWheretheWastelandEnds:Politics
andTranscendenceinPostindustrialSocietyandPerson/Planet:TheCreative
DisintegrationofIndustrialSociety.Indeed,inmanyrespects,muchofhissubsequent
scholarlyoutputdevelopedideasthatwereembryonicinTheMakingofaCounter
Culture.Assuch,hedeservessignificantlymoreattentionthanhehassofarreceivedas
animportantcounterculturalthinker.KevinFaganwasquitecorrectwhenhe
commentedinhisobituarythat“thecounterculturewasneveradimrelicofthe1960s
forTheodoreRoszak.Itwasavibrant,ever-evolvingzeitgeistofthinkingbeyondevery
boxinsight,ofendlesslyexploringtheessenceofhumankindanditsrelationshipwith
theEarth.”15FocusingonTheMakingofaCounterCulture,thefollowingdiscussion
arguesthathewasindeedaperceptiveRomanticvisionary.Whilethecounterculture
wasnotalwaysascounterculturalasmanyofitsadherentsbelievedand,wittinglyor
unwittingly,wastamedbyconsumptivecapitalism,16unlikemanyatthetime,Roszak
wassensitivetosuchpressures,unmaskedthem,andresistedthem.Indeed,upuntilhis
deathin2011,17histhoughtwasimbuedwithanunwaveringoptimismaboutthe
subversiveenergyofthecounterculture.18
Technocracyandthemythofobjectiveconsciousness
AtthebeginningofTheMakingofaCounterCultureheobservedthat“theinterestsof
ourcollege-ageandadolescentyounginthepsychologyofalienation,oriental
mysticism,psychedelicdrugs,andcommunitarianexperimentscompriseacultural
constellationthatradicallydivergesfromthevaluesandassumptionsthathavebeenin
themainstreamofoursocietyatleastsincetheScientificRevolutionoftheseventeenth
century.”19Thisgavehimhopethat“thisdisorientingcivilizationofours”mightbe
transformed“intosomethingahumanbeingcanidentifyashome.”20Butwhatwasit
aboutthemodernworldthattroubledhimandwhatwasitaboutthecounterculture’s
resistancetoitthatgavehimhope?
UnderstandingwhatRoszakmeantby“thisdisorientingcivilizationofours”iscentralto
understandinghisthought,hiscelebrationofthecounterculture,andindeedthereason
whyhisworkoftengeneratedcriticalopprobriumwithinacademia.Putsuccinctly,the
focusofhisirewas“technocracy”—“thematureproductoftechnologicalprogressand
thescientificethos.”Inatechnocraticsociety“thosewhogovernjustifythemselvesby
appealtotechnicalexpertswho,inturn,justifythemselvesbyappealtoscientificforms
ofknowledge.Andbeyondtheauthorityofsciencethereisnoappeal.”21Thisengenders
amyopic“singlevision”ofreality.Assuch,theentiresocioeconomicsystemofa
technocraticsocietyisorganizedaroundtheviewsofahierarchyof“experts”who
subscribetothatvision:“ifthetechnocracyisdependentonpublicdeferencetothe
experts,itmuststandorfallbytherealityofexpertise.”But,heasks,“whatisexpertise?
Whatarethecriteriawhichcertifysomeoneasanexpert?”Hecontinues,“ifweare
foolishlytoagreethatexpertsarethosewhoseroleislegitimizedbythefactthatthe
technocraticsystemneedstheminordertoavoidfallingapartattheseams,thenof
coursethetechnocraticstatusquogeneratesitsowninternaljustification:the
technocracyislegitimizedbecauseitenjoystheapprovalofexperts;theexpertsare
legitimizedbecausetherecouldbenotechnocracywithoutthem.”22
Moreover,becausetechnocracyrendersitself“ideologicallyinvisible,”its“assumptions
aboutrealityanditsvaluesbecomeasunobtrusivelypervasiveastheairwebreathe.”23
Technocraticvaluesarehegemonic.Membersofsocietyareeasilyandunwittingly
coercedtoacceptthetechnocraticstatusquoascommonsense.Roszakreferstothis
corrosiveculturalphenomenonas“themythofobjectiveconsciousness.”Again,
membersoftechnocraticsocietieserroneouslybelievethattheonly“reliable
knowledge”availableisthatpeddledbyexpertswhocanbetrustedsimplybecause
theiranalysisis“scientificallysound,sincescienceisthattowhichmodernmanrefers
forthedefinitiveexplanationofreality.”24Thisisproblematicbecauseitisamyththat
blindsustootherwaysofgainingaccesstoreality.Ifitcannotbeverifiedbyscientific
expertise,“cleansedofallsubjectivedistortion,allpersonalinvolvement,”itcannotbe
considered“knowledge.”25However,aswewillsee,hearguedthattherejectionof
affectiveandpoeticresponsestotheworldandtheimpositionofthemythofobjective
consciousnessleadstoadangerousdistortionofourrelationshipwithreality.
Thecounterculturewassignificantbecauseitrejectedthemythofobjective
consciousness.Inturningtodrugs,mysticism,andoccultism,itsubvertedtechnocracy
andchampionedtheepistemologicalimportanceofsubjectiveexperience.Youngpeople
“turnedfromobjectiveconsciousnessasiffromaplaceinhabitedbyplague”and,
Roszakargued,“inthemomentofthatturning,onecanjustbegintoseeanentire
episodeofourculturalhistory,thegreatageofscienceandtechnologywhichbegan
withtheEnlightenment,standingrevealedinallitsquaintlyarbitrary,oftenabsurd,and
alltoopainfullyunbalancedaspects.”26Youthculturecounteredcoretechnocratic
assumptionsandvalues.
ForRoszak,however,thiscounterculturalrevolutionwasonlyabeginning.Inturning
awayfromtechnocracy,therewassomeuncertaintyastowhatthecounterculturewas
turningto.Whilesomeofferedthoughtful,humanealternatives,othersimmersed
themselvesinsuperficial,hedonisticandultimatelydestructivebeliefsandpractices.
Concerningtheuseofdrugs,forexample,whileheacceptedthattheymighthave
revolutionarypotential,hecouldalsobescathingabouttheiruseinyouthculture:
“thereisnothingwhateverincommonbetweenamanofHuxley’sexperienceand
intellectualdisciplinesamplingmescaline,andafifteen-year-oldtripperwhiffing
airplaneglueuntilhisbrainturnstooatmeal.Intheonecase,wehaveagiftedmind
movingsophisticatedlytowardculturalsynthesis;intheother,wehaveagiddychild
outto‘blowhismind’andbemusedtoseealltheprettyballoonsgoup.”27Thatisnotto
saythatwatchingalltheprettyballoonsgouplackedsignificanceasachallengeto
technocracy,onlythatitwasoftenanill-advisedandnaïvebyproductofthe
counterculture.Despiteits“hallucinogenicobsessionandsheer,infantilemake-believe,”
whathereferredtoas“thecallowdaysofLSDandTolkien’shobbits”28stillrepresented
animportantchallengetotheconformityandconservatismoftechnocracy.Whatitdid
indicatewasthat,importantthoughsuchideasandpracticescouldbe,the
counterculturelackedacoherentphilosophythatcouldreplacethe“reductive
rationalism”thatdominatedeverydaylifeintechnocraticsocieties.
Therewere,however,severalworthwhile“mentorsofouryouthfulcounterculture”
thatpointedthewayforwardforyoungpeople.Inparticular,hediscussesHerbert
Marcuse,NormanBrown,andPaulGoodman,and,toalesserextent,themysticaland
psychedelicapproachesofAllenGinsberg,AlanWattsandTimothyLeary,allofwhom,
invariousways,“calledintoquestionthevalidityoftheconventionalscientificworld
view,andinsodoing…setaboutunderminingthefoundationsofthetechnocracy.”29
Still,hefoundthemwantingincertainrespects.Hence,inthefinalanalysis,Roszak
turnedtothethoughtofWilliamBlakeandsuggestedaformofRomanticradicalismas
awayofbringingtogetheranumberofcurrentswithinthecounterculture.
Whilethereare,ofcourse,manymoreradicalthinkersinthepastthathecouldhave
drawnupon,suchasthosewithinthehistoryofMarxism,hisconcernwasthatthey
oftenfailedtoofferthenecessarycomprehensivecritiqueofscience.Inotherwords,
theyhadn’tfullyunderstoodthecorrosivepoweroftechnocracy.Theproblemisthat
previousgenerationstendedtoviewscience“asanundisputedsocialgood,”largely
becauseitwas“sointimatelyrelatedinthepopularmind…tothetechnological
progressthatpromisedsecurityandaffluence.”30Theywereblindtothefactthat“the
impersonal,large-scalesocialprocessestowhichtechnologicalprogressgivesrise—in
economics,inpolitics,ineducation,ineveryaspectoflife—generatetheirown
characteristicproblems.”Consequently,“whenthegeneralpublicfindsitselfenmeshed
inagargantuanindustrialapparatuswhichitadmirestothepointofidolizationandyet
cannotcomprehend,itmustofnecessitydefertothosewhoareexpertsortothosewho
owntheexperts.”31Technocracycontinuesandotherwaysofunderstandingrealityand
humanwellbeingaretrivialized.Blakeunderstoodthisandchallengedtechnocratic
progresswithalternativevisionsofreality:
ToseeaWorldinaGrainofSand,
AndaHeaveninaWildFlower,
HoldInfinityinthepalmofyourhand,
AndEternityinanhour.32
Realityispenetrated,butnotinawaythatmakessenseinatechnocraticsociety.
Hence,centraltoRoszak’sRomanticradicalismwasthedevelopmentofanalternative
“politicsofconsciousness.”33Thewholehumanpersonality,heargued,“body,soul,and
spirit,mustbebroughtintothearenaofdissentasacriticalcounterpoisetothe
diminishedrangeofexperiencetowhichurban-industrialismlimitsourawareness.”34
Inotherwords,likemanyinthecounterculture,heprioritizedseekingachangein
consciousnessinordertoeffectpoliticalchange.Changingthewaypeopleexperience
andthinkaboutthemselves,eachother,andtheplanetwasthekeytosociopolitical
change.Onceconsciousnessischanged,hebelieved,therewillnaturallyfollowa
revolutioninourapproachtounderstandingreality,aswellasasignificantshiftinthe
developmentofpolicies,socialstructures,institutions,andeconomicsystems.Hewas
convincedthatcounterculturalmusic,literature,art,communalism,protests,and,a
wholerangeof“non-intellectivemodesofconsciousness”(e.g.psychedelics,occultism,
“freakingout”)notonlyrepresentedthecridecœurofagenerationdesperatetothrow
offtheshacklesoftechnocracy,butthattheywouldgenerateanadjustmentin
consciousness.BobDylanwasright35—“thetimestheyarea-changin’.”36
Hence,whileitisclearthatRoszak’s“neo-luddism,”37ashelatercametorefertohis
thought,wastosomeextentaproductofhisengagementwiththecounterculture,we
willseethatthebroadcontourshadalreadytakenshapepriortothe1960s.Notonly
washeacounterculturalRomanticbynature,but,Iwanttosuggest,hisupbringing
significantlycontributedtohisradicalism.
Theformationofacounterculturalmind
WhileRoszakwasa“fiercepolemicist,”hewasalso“shy,gentle,intense…[and]
articulatewithoutbeingrhetorical…”Hewas,asoneearlyinterviewerseemed
surprisedtodiscover,“very,veryfarfromthedarkangelleadingtheevilforcesof
mindlessirrationalitythatmanyofhiscriticsfear.”38Likewise,hisobituariesportraya
generousscholarwhowas“somethingofaleftist,thoughnoadmirerofdogmaor
orthodoxy”and“amanofgoodhopewhosought,inawritingcareerthatlastedmore
thanfourdecades,toridethenewwavesofsocialpossibility.”39
BorninChicagoon15November1933,intoaworkingclass,RomanCatholicfamily,his
parents,AntonandBlanche,eventuallymovedtoLosAngeles,whereheattended
DorseyHighSchoolandmetBettyGreenwald,whowouldbecomehiswife,museand
coeditorin1969ofMasculine/Feminine:ReadingsInSexualMythologyandthe
LiberationofWomen.40AftergraduatingwithadegreeinhistoryfromtheUniversityof
California,LosAngelesin1955,hereceivedhisPh.D.in1959fromPrincetonUniversity.
Hisdissertationfocussedon“ThomasCromwellandtheHenricanReformation.”41His
firstteachingpostwasatStanfordUniversity,followingwhich,in1963,hebecame
ProfessorofHistoryatCaliforniaStateUniversity,Hayward(nowEastBay).Although
heremainedherefortherestofhiscareer,havinggainedtenurein1968,heenjoyeda
numberofsabbaticalsandperiodicallytaughtatotherinstitutions,notablythe
UniversityofBritishColumbiaandtheSchumacherCollegeintheUK,theethosofwhich
reflectedRoszak’sowncounterculturalradicalism.
Hisupbringinginaworkingclass,RomanCatholicfamilyhadaformativeinfluenceon
thedevelopmentofthisradicalism.Indeed,itispossibletopiecetogetherabasic
biographyfromhisscatteredcomments.Forexample,welearnthathisfather,whowas
acarpenter,diedattheageof47havingbeentypicalofmanyworkingclassmenthat
“grindtheirsubstanceawayathardanddirtyworkfortoolittlepayand
appreciation.”42ThereislittledoubtthatthisexperiencemadehimreceptivetoMarxian
analysis,whichinturnledtoanearlyappreciationoftheNewLeft(whichemergedin
WesternEuropeandtheUnitedStatesinthelate-1950s).Likewise,itisnotdifficultto
tracetherootsofhisstridentcritiquesofreligion,dogmatism,andpatriarchybackto
his“mind-murderingstruggles”withCatholicism.Hedescribeslearningthecatechism
as“ajackbootedparadeoflifelessverbalformulas…everyoneofthemtobeliterally
believedunderthreatofcorporalpunishment.Dogmaanddoctrineweremarched
throughmybrainlikestormtroopsflatteningeverynaturalbarrierchildish
inquisitivenessmightraise.”Likemanyinthecounterculture,heviewedthe
institutionalreligionwithinwhichhewasraisedas“openwarfareonayoung
imagination.”Moreparticularly,heasked,“cantherebeanyquestionwhatdamagehas
beendonetothevisionarypowersinourculturebygenerationaftergenerationofsuch
ruthlesscreedmongering?”43Assuch,fromfairlyearlyinhiscareerheseemstohave
concludedthatinstitutionalreligionoftenfunctionedasatooloftechnocracy.Certainly,
suchexperienceswereofformativeimportanceof.AsRoszakputit,“thehopesI
investedintheprotestof[the1960s]hadmuchtodowithmyownsituation.”44Again,
hebemoanedthefactthat,unfortunately,“whatourcultureknowsoftheartof
introspectionitinheritsfromreligioustraditionsthathaveaheavyinvestmentinfear
andtrembling.”Indeed,hesuggestedthat“themajorformsofdeepself-analysisthat
havebeendevelopedintheWesternworldareallrelatedtotheexperienceofsinand
thefearofdivinedispleasure:theCatholicconfession,thePuritandiary,thecamp-
meetingtestimonial.”45Thisinfluenceof“ruthlesscreedmongering”inmodernculture
neededtobeexposedandresisted.Whilehisvoiceofdissentcanbeheardinmuchof
hiswork,itisparticularlyevidentinhissatiricalnovelTheDevilandDanielSilverman,
whichrelatesthestoryofastruggling,gay,JewishnovelistfromSanFranciscowho
takesupaninvitationtolectureonhumanismatafundamentalistcollegeinMinnesota
runbytheFreeReformedEvangelicalBrethreninChrist.Trappedinthecollegebya
snowstorm,theprotagonistisforcedtoengagewiththeinsularandill-informed
discoursesofconservativereligion.Whilethebookoffersahumorouscaricatureofthe
religiousright,italsoprovidesacogentcritiqueofunthinkingreligiousirrationalism,
sadism,andbigotry:“believinginGodisn’tnearlyenough,notatall;it’snoteventhe
beginning.Itdoesn’tbringrepentanceandtrueconversion—notunlessonedreads
thepainsofhell.Iffaithisgoingtotouchtheheart,therehastobefear,fearof
damnation,fearofeverlastinganguish,fearofthedevil’scunning.”46Again,Roszak
almostcertainlyhashisownexperiencesmind.Ashenoteselsewhere,his“first
deliberateeffortatself-examinationtookplaceasachildofnineintheCatholic
confessional.”What,heasks,“hadIbeentrainedtodointhatintervalofsolitude?To
thinkofmysins,toweighandpondereachone,togrievefortheoffenseIhadcausedto
God,andtotrembleattheprospectofeternaldamnation.”47Itislittlesurprise,
therefore,thathefoundtheideasofthehumanpotentialmovementand
counterculturalexperimentationliberating.
Havingsaidthat,it’simportanttonotethatRoszakdidnotcompletelyrejectreligion.
Whileithadalwaystroubledhim,heeventuallycametorecogniseitsrevolutionary
potential,itbeingcentraltothevisionaryandemotionallifeofmanyofthosehe
admired,notleasttheRomantics.
I,whodonotshareanyofTolstoy’sreligionorthatoftheprophetsofIsrael,and
whodonotbelievethatasinglejotofDante’sorBlake’sworldviewis“true”in
anyscientificsense,neverthelessrealizethatanycarpingImightdoaboutthe
correctnessoftheirconvictionswouldbepreposterouslypetty.Theirwordsare
theconduitofapowerthatonelongstoshare.Onereadstheirwordsonlywith
humilityandremorseforhavinglivedonalesserscalethanthey,forhavingatany
pointforegonetheopportunitytoachievethedimensionsoftheirvision.48
Hence,unlikemanywhoweresympathetictothethinkingoftheNewLeft,hewas
convincedthat“itistheenergyofreligiousrenewalthatwillgeneratethenextpolitics,
andperhapsthefinalradicalismofoursociety.”49Indeed,buildingontheanalysisin
TheMakingofaCounterCulture,hisnextbook,WheretheWastelandEnds,was,he
argued,“aboutthereligiousdimensionofpoliticallife.”Ofcourse,hewaskeentopoint
outthat“thereligionIrefertoisnotthatofthechurches;notthereligionofBeliefor
Doctrine.”Rather,hisinterestwasin“religioninitsperennialsense.TheOldGnosis.
Visionbornoftranscendentknowledge.Mysticismifyouwill.”50Itwasthecelebration
ofvisionaryenergies,conspicuouslyevidentintheworkofBlake,thatinterestedhim.
Theseenergiesofreenchantment,whichresistedtheprogressofsecularizationand
whichhewitnessedinthecounterculture,were,heinsisted,“neithertrivialnor
irresponsible,neitheruncivilnorindecent.”Onthecontrary,thecounterculture’s
fascinationwithmysticism,theoccult,andhumanpotentialideaswas“aprofoundly
serioussignofthetimes,anecessaryphaseofourculturalevolution,and—
potentially—alife-enhancinginfluenceofincalculablevalue.Ibelieveitmeanswehave
arrived,afterlongjourneying,atanhistoricalvantagepointfromwhichwecanatlast
seewherethewastelandendsandwhereacultureofhumanwholenessandfulfillment
begins.”51
Turningtohispacifistcritiqueoftechnocracy,ofparticularsignificancefortheearly
developmentofhisthoughtwasacivildefenseissue,whichbecameamatterofpublic
debateinthelate-1950sandearly1960s:“quitesimplywhatwasbeingproposed,with
alltheauthorityofthestate,andallthepoliticalandscientificexpertisethestatecould
muster,wastotakethewholeofAmericansocietyandburyitinconcretevaults
undergroundforthesakeofaneffective,credible,nucleardeterrentsystem.Itwaslike
ahorrorstory;anightmare.”52Becauseitwasproposedthatthis“deepsheltersystem”
wastobefinancedfromlocalcommunityfunds,itsplitbothpublicopinionand
scientificopinion.Roszakbecameinterestedandwasinvitedtodebatetheissueatlocal
meetingswherehewasfrequentlyopposedbyaphalanxof“experts”whowere,he
recalled,“allmarshaledtodefendthegreatestinsanityI’veevercontemplated.”53His
ownarguments,whichwererootedina“sicknausea”inducedbytheprospectof
mutuallyassureddestruction,weredismissedasirrationalandunscientific.Why?
Because,hisopponentsargued,theyweresimplytheresultofanemotionalresponseto
thepossibilityofannihilation.“Ifyouintroducedanythingemotionalorevaluative[into
thedebates],youwereimmediatelycautionedfortryingtoarousefeelings.”54This
experienceforcedhimtotheconclusionthattechnocracynotonlyignoreswhoweare
asthinking,feelinghumanbeings,butitposesathreattocivilizationand,indeed,the
futureoftheplanet.ThisbringsustotheheartofthedevelopmentofRoszak’s
Romanticradicalismandtothereasonwhyhewelcomedtheemergenceofthe
counterculture.“Myresponsewasthatfeelingswerepartofthediscussion:human
beingsarewholethings,andthefeelingsofdreadandhorroranddisgustandmoral
distresswerepartoftheissue—infact,theheartoftheissue.”55Tosimplydismisssuch
responsesasirrelevantandtofocusinsteadon“thethicknessofconcrete”requiredfor
anuclearshelter“tookaheavytollonmyappreciationforreasonandrealismin
Americansociety.”56Such“technocraticmanipulation”ofthemodernmindreduced
reasontoa“patheticallysmallandvicious”toolthatalienatedpeoplefromthemselves.
Membersofsocietywere“systematicallyencouragedtobelievethatcertainkindsof
strongmoralfeelingsshouldberepressedandhidden.”57Again,hesawinthevarious
spiritual,psychological,andculturalcurrentsthatemergedduringthe1960sadirect
challengetothistypeofthinking.
Alsoofformativesignificanceforthedevelopmentofhisradicalismwerethree
relativelylongperiodsthathespentinLondonbetweenthemid-1960sandtheearly
1970s.Thefirstofthese,in1964,wasparticularlyimportantforhim,inthathe
succeededHughBrockastheeditoroftheradicalpacifistjournal,PeaceNews(founded
bytheQuakerHumphreyMoore),whichwascloselylinkedtotheinfluentialanti-
nuclearAldermastondisarmamentmarchesofthe1950sand1960s.Havingsaidthat,
asGrahamCheddreportedin1971,Roszak“hadstrongpacifistinclinationsforaslong
ashe[could]remember,andwasamemberofthattinyandridiculedminorityinthe
Stateswhich,inthedecayingyearsoftheEisenhowerera,constitutedtheearlypeace
movement—andwhichusedtolookwithaweandrespectatthemassiveproteststhe
CNDwerethenmanaginginBritain.”58Consequently,itwasinevitablethathewould
becomeactivelyinvolvedintheBritishpeacemovementand,moreover,thatthis
involvementwouldcontributetothedevelopmentofhis“beautifulpolitics.”
HavingreturnedtoteachhistoryatCaliforniaStateUniversityforacoupleofyearsin
themid-1960s,hefoundthathewasstrugglingtoresearchtheculturesofdissentinthe
UnitedStatesandEuropewithwhichhehadbecomeinvolved.Hence,inanattempt“to
escape”inorder“togetsomebook-writingdone”59hereturnedtoLondonin1967and
immersedhimselfintheburgeoningBritishcounterculture.Ofparticularnoteduring
thisperiodwashisinvolvementinthefoundingofthe“turbulent,short-lived
‘AntiuniversityofLondon’wheretransientstudentsarrivedwithlittlemoretotheir
namesthanguitars,beggingbowls,andastashofmagicmushroomstostudythe
teachingsofTimothyLeary,anarchistpolitics,andTantricsex.”60Thisinvolvement,as
wellashisworkwithinthepeacemovement,ledtoadeeper,moresympathetic
understandingofthecountercultureasaforceforgoodinWesternsocieties.Indeed,it
isnosurprisethatitwaswhilehewaslivinginLondon,immersedinthe
counterculture,thatheproducedaseriesoffourarticlesforTheNation,theresearchfor
whicheventuallyledtoTheMakingofaCounterCulture—muchofwhichwasalso
writteninLondon.61Thetermitself,“counterculture,”wasinitiallyintroducedinthe
firstofthesearticles,“TheCounterCulture:Part1.YouthandtheGreatRefusal,”on25
March1968.62However,thekeypointIwanttomakehereisthathisleft-wingthought,
distrustofauthority,resistancetodogma,andpacifistsympathies,allofwhichemerged
asaresultofhisupbringingandearlychildhoodexperiences,weresystematizedintoa
Romanticradicalistphilosophyduringthe1950sand1960slargelyasaresultofhis
directinvolvementinthepeacemovementandthecounterculture.
Concerningtheconceptofa“counterculture,”it’sworthnotingherethatatroughlythe
sametimethatRoszakwaswritinghisarticles,anotherAmerican,thepsychotherapist
JosephBerke,whohadalsomovedtoLondonin1965(toworkwithR.D.Laing63),was
compilingacompendiumofrevolutionaryresourcesentitledCounterCulture:The
CreationofanAlternativeSociety,asummaryofwhichwaspublishedintheBritish
undergroundmagazineInternationalTimesinDecember1968.64Whilethebookswere
publishedthesameyear,neithermentionstheother.Berke’swork,whichisnowlargely
forgotten,65istypicallycountercultural,comprisingphotographs,illustrations,comic
strips(byRobertCrumbandothers),reprintednewspapercuttings,articlesby
influentialthinkerssuchasAllenGinsbergandStokelyCarmichaelonthecorethemes
ofpsychedelics,sex,andrevolutionarypolitics,aswellasdiscussionsbythoseinvolved
insocialandeducationalexperimentssuchasGermany’sKommune1andDenmark’s
NewExperimentalCollege.FundedbytheUndergroundPressSyndicate,itwas
designedtoappealtoreadersofcounterculturalmagazinessuchasInternationalTimes,
Oz,BerkeleyBarb,TheEastVillageOther,andActuel.Moreover,itwasintended“tobe
usedasahandbookfordirectaction”andamanifestoforthe“revolutionary
reconstructionofsociety.”66AlthoughitdidnothavethepoliticalimpactBerkehad
hopedfor,itdoesdemonstratethattheterm“counterculture”wasbecomingcommon
currencyintheclosingyearsofthe1960s.Indeed,it’simportanttonotethatneither
BerkenorRoszakcoinedtheterm.“Counter-culture”hadalreadybeenusedonceby
TalcottParsonsin1951withreferencetothe“counter-ideologies”of“deviant
groups.”67Then,withreferencetoParsons’work,J.MiltonYinger,inanimportant
discussionin1960,suggestedtheuseoftheterm“contraculture”wherever“the
normativesystemofagroupcontains,asaprimaryelement,athemeofconflictwiththe
valuesofthetotalsociety,wherepersonalityvariablesaredirectlyinvolvedinthe
developmentandmaintenanceofthegroup’svalues,andwhereveritsnormscanbe
understoodonlybyreferencetotherelationshipsofthegrouptoasurrounding
dominantculture.”68Whilefocussingprimarilyonthoseheconsideredtobe
“delinquents,”Yinger’sunderstandingofthe“contraculture”overlappedsignificantly
withthelaternotionofa“counterculture,”whichhad,bythecloseofthe1960s,thanks
toRoszak’swork,becometheprincipaltermformodern,largelyyouthoriented,
socioculturalradicalism.69
Afterafruitful,butchallengingperiodexploringLondon’sunderground,Roszak
returnedtoCaliforniaattheendofthe1960s.Finally,in1970,heandhisyoungfamily
madeathirdjourneybacktoLondon,wheretheyrented“aratherinadequatelyheated
upstairsmaisonetteofashabbybijouhouseinthenorthernpartofEarlsCourtRoad.”70
Thistime,heconcentratedonwritinghisnextbook,WheretheWastelandEnds,which
providedamorerigorousarticulationofhisRomanticradicalism.Init,aswehaveseen,
hetheorizedareturntothe“OldGnosis”(“themagicalandsacramentalvisionof
nature”)andtheestablishmentofa“visionarycommonwealth”thatwillreplacethe
sterile“singlevision”oftechnocracy.71Indeed,theyearitwaspublished,1972,Roszak
alsoproducedanaccompanyingpoliticalreader:Sources:AnAnthologyofContemporary
MaterialsUsefulforPreservingPersonalSanityWhileBravingtheGreatTechnological
Wilderness.Bringingtogetherexcerptsfromthewritingsofarangethinkers,from
HerbertMarcuseandPaulGoodmantoCarlosCastanedaandGarySnyder,heintended
thevolumetocontributetoapoliticsofconsciousness.“Imaginewhatyoureadhereis
arrangedinfiveconcentriccircles,buteachcircledefinedbynomorethantheemphasis
oftheauthor’sthoughtsandflowingintothenext.Thus,fiveexpandingstagesof
liberation:person,body,community,wholeearth,transcendence.”72Bythispointhe
understoodhisworkintermsoftheconstructionofaradicalalternativetotheviolence
ofbothtechnocracyandalsomuchoftheneo-Marxistprotestpoliticsthathehad
witnessedinEuropeandAmerica.
Finally,Roszak’sradicalismwasfurtherstimulatedbyhisexperienceofuniversitylife.
FromearlyinhiscareerhehadsympathizedwiththeindignationofthesociologistC.
WrightMills,73whohadarguedthatscholarshavearesponsibilitytoanalysecultural
hegemonies.Likewise,heagreedwithNoamChomsky’sthesisinhisessay“The
ResponsibilityofIntellectuals,”whichRoszakrepublishedin1969inaprovocative
volumeentitledTheDissentingAcademy.“Itistheresponsibilityofintellectuals,”
insistedChomsky,“tospeakthetruthandtoexposelies.This,atleast,mayseemenough
ofatruismtopasswithoutcomment.Notso,however.Forthemodernintellectual,itis
notatallobvious.”74Likewise,Roszaklambasted“theAmericanuniversity”foroffering
itsacademics“littleopportunitytodisconnectfromthisdismaltraditionofofficial
conformity.”75ParticularlycriticalofthemethodologicalneutralityofGerman
scholarship,whichheunderstoodtobeaconspicuousinfluenceonAmericanacademic
lifeinthe1960s,helaudedthephilosophesoftheFrenchEnlightenment.Indeed,strictly
speaking,theywere“notacademics,becausetobeanacademicintheiragerequired
thatonebeapettyandirrelevantmind,thusa‘safe’mindfromtheviewpointofthe
authorities.”76Thephilosophes,however,spoketruthtopower.Similarly,Roszak,
angeredbytheself-servingpoliticalquietismofsomeofhiscolleagues,railedagainst
thesafemind.“Therewasatimewhenmenofintellectdescribedthepurposeoftheir
livesinwaysthatstirredthesoulsofthenobleandchilledthebloodofthebase.”77Ina
decadethatwaswitnessingtheVietnamwaranddeepsocialinjustices,careerist
colleagueshadretreatedintotheirivorytowers:“whataretheimperativesourstudents
wouldfindinscribeduponourteachers’lives?‘Securethegrant!’‘Updatethe
bibliography!’‘Publishorperish!’Theacademiclifemaybebusyandanxious,butitis
thebusinessandanxietyofcareeristcompetitionthatfillsit,notthatofadangerous
venture.”78Furthermore,thesecolleagueshadtheaudacitytodismissthe
countercultureastrivial,profane,andnotworthyofseriousanalysis.Theywereeither
blindtoitspoliticalimportanceordisturbedbyitsruderadicalism.Hence,TheMaking
ofaCounterCultureneedstobeunderstoodonanumberoflevels.Itisanapologetic
analysisofyouthprotest,anexerciseinconsciousraising,aninitialcontributiontothe
constructionofa“beautifulpolitics,”andadirectchallengetotheacademic
establishment.
InhisthoughtfulessaypublishedthesameyearasTheMakingofaCounterCulture,“On
AcademicDelinquency”79—whichisstillworthreading—RoszakcommendedThomas
Jefferson’splansfortheUniversityofVirginia,whichimaginedaninstitutionthatwould
“exerciseanindependentcriticismofthoseforcesofchurchandstatewhich‘fearevery
change,asendangeringthecomfortstheynowhold.’”80Hisoverallpointisthat
understanding(inthesenseofverstehen)wasopposedbythoseacademicscommitted
tothetechnocratic“singlevision”whowereresponsibleforthefundingofhigher
education.Hence,asinthe1960s,thoseyoungpeoplehungryforacountercultural
alternativehadtolookbeyondtheconfinesoftheuniversityfor“thedefiantmindsof
thetime.”81Asaresult,theycreatedextracurricularliterarysocietiesandinvited
speakerssuchasRalphWaldoEmerson—who,ontheirarrival,werefrequentlybarred
fromspeakingintheuniversitybuildings.Roszak’sargumentwassimplythat,because
universitiestendtobebastionsoftechnocracy,thingshavenotchangedmuch.
While,inthefinalanalysis,the1960scounterculturefailedtoproduceeverythingthat
hehadhopeditmight,nevertheless,laterinlife—notablyinhisbooksAmericatheWise
(1998)andTheMakingofanElderCulture(2001)82—hereturnedtosomeofthecore
themesexploredinTheMakingofaCounterCulture,arguingthatitsradicalvaluescould
stillbearfruitandtransformsocietyinpositiveways.Heurgedbabyboomers,who
werelivinglongerandinbetterhealththanpreviousgenerations,todrawonthe
cardinalvaluesofthecountercultureinordertopromoteself-actualization,social
justice,andaltruism.Indeed,whileRoszakcouldbeforgivenforbecomingdisheartened
duringthe1970sand1980s,ashewitnessedtheprogressoftechnocracyand
neoliberalism,this,infact,wasnotthecase.Whiletherewasstillmuchworktobedone,
ashisdaughterrecalledfollowinghisdeath,“Often,peoplewouldsay,‘Whatever
happenedtothecounterculture?’Andhe’dsay,‘Lookaroundyou;it’sallaroundus…It’s
inourclothing,inorganicfood,inthewaysfamilieshaverearrangedthemselves.It’s
partofourlivingnow—andhealwayshadgreathopeforthefuture.”83
BlakeandGinsberg
“Historyisnotsensiblymeasuredoutindecades.Theperiodofupheavalwe
conventionallycall‘thesixties’ismoreappropriatelyseenwithinabroadersettingthat
stretchesfrom1942to1972.”84ThesethreedecadesidentifywhatRoszakreferredto
as“theAgeofAffluence,”1942being“thepointatwhichtheUnitedStatesfinally
emergedfromtheGreatDepression.”85(Thatsaid,hewouldalmostcertainlyhave
agreedwithArthurMarwick’sidentificationoftheprimaryyearsofrevolutionasthe
“longsixties,”1958-1974.86)Hence,heargued,paradoxically(fromtheperspectiveof
Marxiananalysis),therootsofthecounterculturecouldbefound,“notinthefailure,but
inthesuccessofahighindustrialeconomy.Itarosenotoutofmisery,butoutofplenty;
itsrolewastoexploreanewrangeofissuesraisedbyanunprecedentedincreaseinthe
standardofliving.”87Thiswas,wehaveseen,importantforRoszak,because,contraryto
muchMarxiananalysis,ithighlightedthesignificanceoftechnocracy.Westernyouth
culture,initsprotestsagainsttheVietnamwar,initsdistrustofmainstreampolitics,in
itssuspicionof“science,”initsrejectionof“theestablishment,”initsabandonmentof
thevaluesofthepreviousgeneration,andinitscelebrationofsubjectiveexperience,
wasrespondingtolifeintechnocraticsocieties.
Nowadays,thereislittlescholarlyconsensusastowhat“thecounterculture”specifically
referstobeyondidentifyingalate-modernzeitgeistthatmanifestedinanumberof
disparatetrajectories.Itisalsoalittledifficulttoidentifyaparticularmomentwhenthe
counterculturebegantocoalesceinpostwarWesternsocieties.Roszak,however,would
almostcertainlyhaveidentified1956,linkingitsemergencedirectlytothepublication
ofGinsberg’s“Howl.88Iftherewas“afoundingdocumentofthecounterculture,”89he
declared,thiswasit!Itwastheinitialanguishedcridecœuragainsttechnocracy.Thatis
tosay,whileearlierimportanttextsmightbeconsidered,suchasAldousHuxley’sDoors
ofPerception(1954),90theywerenotbornoutofthesamedeepsenseofdis-easethat
Ginsberg’sworkaddressed.Hence,whenRoszakreadthiskeyearlyworkof“theBeat
generation,”91heimmediatelyrecognizedittobenothinglessthan“theworld’sdistant
earlywarningsystem.”92
Beattexts,suchas,mostinfluentially,JackKerouac’sOntheRoad(1957),WilliamS.
Burroughs’svisceralNakedLunch(1959),and“Howl,”excavatedtheunderbellyof
postwarAmericansocietyandexposedthesocialpressuresitsmembersweresubjected
to.Theresultswere,asGinsbergdiscussedlaterinlife,revolutionaryandwide-ranging:
• generalliberation:Sexual“Revolution”or“Liberation,”GayLiberation,Black
Liberation,Women’sLiberationtoo;
• liberationofthewordfromcensorship;
• decriminalizationofsomeofthelawsagainstmarijuanaandotherdrugs;
• theevolutionofrhythmandbluesintorockandroll,androckandrollintohigh
artform,asevidencedbytheBeatles,BobDylan,andotherpopularmusicians
whowereinfluencedinthe1960sbythewritingsofBeatGenerationpoetsand
writers;
• thespreadofecologicalconsciousness,emphasizedbyGarySnyder;
• oppositiontothemilitary-industrialmachinecivilization,asemphasizedinthe
worksofBurroughs,Huncke,Ginsberg,andKerouac;
• attentiontowhatKerouaccalled,afterSpengler,“SecondReligiousness”
developingwithinanadvancedcivilization;
• respectforlandandindigenouspeoplesasproclaimedbyKerouacinhisslogan
fromOntheRoad,“TheearthisanIndian.”93
SuchconcernsconcurredwithRoszak’sownemergingcounterculturalthought.He
notedthat,ratherthanturningtoviolentprotest,BeatRomanticismsacralizedwhata
conservative,largelyChristiantechnocracyhadtrivializedandprofaned.“Lifeisholy,”
declaredKerouac,“andeverymomentisprecious.”94Inthedarkcornersofsocietyand
intheundergrowthofmodernitytheBeatsfoundholinessandbeauty.“Iknew,”said
Kerouac,“thattheearth,thestreets,thefloorsandshadowsoflifewereholy.”95Explicit,
loud,andprovocativethoughBeatcultureoftenwas,Roszakunderstoodittobe
politicallyimportant.Forexample,heinsistedthat“muchofthepermissiveeroticismof
theday,insofarasit[was]unforcedandflowing,isnotsimplehedonism.”Such
subjectiveexperiencesshouldnotbecondemned.“Ratherthereisaboutitacertain
unpretentiousenchantmentwithorganicdisplayandpleasure…”96Therewas
somethingfundamentallyrevolutionaryaboutastatementsuchasGinsberg’s“the
assholeisalsoholy.”97
“Howl”distilledtheBeatresponsetopostwartechnocracyandreorientedthe
consciousnessofagenerationofyoungpeople.Indeed,muchofRoszak’stheorizingof
thecounterculturecanbetracedbacktohisreadingof“Howl.”FuelledbyGinsberg’s
experienceofsexandpsychedelics,thepoem’s“onrushofemotionalbulk”98immersed
itsreadersinasurreal,hallucinatoryworldofmadness,music,andmysticism.Itwasa
brazen,unflinchingchallengetoprevailingconstructionsofthesacredinAmerican
society.Unsurprisingly,theauthoritiesreactedswiftlyandbrutally.Aswellas
confiscatingcopiesofthebook,on3June1957(Ginsberg’sbirthday)policearrestedhis
publisher,LawrenceFerlinghetti.Eventually,however,tothesurpriseofmanyatthe
time,commonsenseprevailed.Thesubsequentobscenitytrialincludedthetestimony
ofnineliteraryexpertswhodefendedthemeritsof“Howl.”JudgeClaytonHornwas
persuadedbytheirargumentsanddeclaredittobe“notwithoutredeemingsocial
importance.”Assuch,heconcludedthat“itcannotbeheldobscene.”99Roszak
understoodthistobeasignificanthistoricalmilestone.
Asindicatedabove,ofparticularimportancetoRoszakwasthefactthattheBeats,
unliketheMarxistcriticsofanearliergeneration,viewedtheworldthroughaRomantic
lens.Inparticular,RoszakwasnotaloneinidentifyingBlakeastheprophetforthe
emergingcounterculture.100Ginsberg,forexample,claimedthat“Howl”wasthedirect
resultof“abeatificilluminationyearsbeforeduringwhich,”hesaid,“I’dheardBlake’s
ancientvoice&sawtheuniverseunfoldinmybrain.”101Again,hedeclaredthat“the
voiceofBlake…isthevoiceInowhave.”102Huxleytoo,ofcourse,hadturnedtoBlake
severalyearspreviouslywhenwritingTheDoorsofPerception(thekeyideaandtitleof
whichwasinspiredbyhisthinkinginTheMarriageofHeavenandHell).Blake’sinterest
insubjectiveexperience,hissupportfortheAmericanandFrenchrevolutions,his
oppositiontoslavery,hisdefenseofsexualliberation,hiscommitmenttofemale
emancipation,hisresistancetooppression,hiscriticismsoforganizedreligion,his
esotericism,andhisemphasisontheimaginationmadehimanimportant
counterculturalantecedent.Hence,RoszakbeginsTheMakingofaCounterCulturewith
afewtellinglinesfromBlake’sMilton:
ArtDegraded,ImaginationDenied:WarGovernedtheNations.
RouseupOYoungMenoftheNewAge!setyourforeheadsagainstignorant
Hirelings!ForwehaveHirelingsintheCamp,theCourt&theUniversity,who
would,iftheycould,foreverdepressMental&prolongCorporealWar.103
Indeed,hisbookcanbereadasanunpackingoftheselines.ForRoszak,Blakestandsas
thekeythinkerinalonghistoryof“Dionysianseers.”104Itistohimthatweshouldgoto
begintheconstructionofa“beautifulpolitics.”Hence,unlikeearliertwentieth-century
culturesofresistance(particularlyinEurope),theprotestpoliticsoftheAmerican
countercultureshouldnot“runbacktoMarx,”butratheritshoulddrawitsinspiration
from“theeclecticradicalismofBlake.”105WhileRoszakappreciatedtheimportanceof
Marxiananalysis,beingparticularlyinfluencedbytheideasoftheNewLeft,hislineof
sightwasunapologeticallyfixedonBlake:“Blake,notMarx,istheprophetofour
historicalhorizon.”106Again,ashewritesofWheretheWastelandEnds,“ifIhadto
summarizethepurposeofthisbookinasentence,Imightcallitanefforttoworkout
thepoliticalmeaningofWilliamBlake’spropheticpoems—especiallyVala,Milton,and
Jerusalem.”Ofparticularimportancetohimwas“thepoliticalsignificanceofhis‘mental
fight’againstthepsychologyofscienceandthecultureofindustrialism.”UnlikeMarx,
Blakehadrecognized“thattherewasanother,darkerpoliticsunfoldingbeneaththe
surfaceofclassconflict.Hesawinthesteadyadvanceofscienceanditsmachinesa
terrifyingaggressionagainstprecioushumanpotentialities—andespeciallyagainstthe
visionaryimagination.”107
ForRoszak,therefore,theproblemswere“neverassimpleassocialjustice.”108AsPeter
Ottohascommented,“echoingthecorrespondencedrawnbyBlakebetweenmodern
culture,politicalsystems,andwar,itseemedtoRoszak…thatthedeepestimpulsesof
thetechnocraticmindcouldbeseeninthedestructionofthenaturalworld,thewars
ravagingthetwentiethcentury,andthethreatofnuclearannihilation.”109Yet,justas
BlakehadglimpsedthelightofhopeintheenergydrivingtherevolutionsinFranceand
America,soRoszaksawitinthecounterculturalactivityofthebabyboomers,
particularlywhentheireffortsweredirectedtowardsthepromotionofpeaceanda
neo-ludditeturntonature.HesawthisenergyinGinsberg’swork,thekeywordsand
imageswithinwhichare,heargued,“thoseoftimeandeternity,madnessandvision,
heavenandthespirit.”Hiswasacry,“notforarevolution,butforanapocalypse:a
descentofdivinefire.”110Assuch,“likeAmosandIsaiah,Ginsbergaspirestobeanabi…
onewhopermitshisvoicetoactastheinstrumentofpowersbeyondhisconscious
direction.”111Itisasif,Roszakmused,“Ginsbergsetouttowriteapoetryofangry
distress:tocryoutagainsttheanguishedstateoftheworldasheandhisclosest
colleagueshadexperienceditintheguttersandghettosandmentalinstitutionsofour
society.Whatcameofthatsufferingwasahowlofpain.”112
Roszaksawinthecounterculture“thefiresofOrc”—Orcbeingthepersonificationof
righteousrebellioninBlakeanmythology,whostandsagainstUrizen,the
personificationoftraditionandconservatism.Justas,atthebeginningofBlake’s
AmericaaProphecy,thefiresofOrcigniteanddriveforwardtherevolutionagainst
oppression,soinTheMakingofaCounterCultureRoszakidentifiesthecounterculture
as“takingastand”againsta“backgroundofabsoluteevil...”113Similarly,atitsnadir,
Ginsberg’spropheticangstmanifestedinadark,psychedelicvisionofMoloch,
arrestinglyrelatedinPartIIof“Howl”:“I…gothighonPeyote,&sawanimageofthe
robotskullfaceofMolochintheupperstoriesofabighotelglaringintomywindow;got
highweekslateragain,theVisagewasstillthereintheredsmokeydowntown
Metropolis…”114(Moloch—Molech,Molekh,mōlek—istheAncientNearEasterngod
associatedinLeviticuswithchildsacrifice.)Ginsbergdrewonideasgleanedfrom
Moloch’sreceptionhistory:inParadiseLostMiltondescribesthe“horridKing
besmearedwithblood/Ofhumansacrifice,andparents’tears…”;inBlake“Molech”
representstheinhumanityofwarandblindwrath;andinFritzLang’s1927film,
Metropolis,Molochisthedemonicmachinethatconsumesworkers,whoarethen
simplyreplacedascomponentsofindustry.115Hence,forGinsberg,Molochepitomizes
allthatiswrongwithtechnocracy.AsGregorStephensonsays,he“presentsa
comprehensivenightmareimageofcontemporarysocietywhichisaspenetratingas
thatofBlake’s‘London’…Americansocietyisseenashavingconsistentlyignored,
suppressedanddestroyedanymanifestationofthemiraculous,theecstatic,thesacred
andepiphanous.”116Itisnotdifficult,therefore,toseewhyRoszakunderstood“Howl”
tobethefoundingdocumentofthecounterculture.Ginsberghaddiscovered,hesays,
“whatitwasthatthebourgeoisgodMolochwasmostintentuponburyingalive:the
curativepowersofthevisionaryimagination.”117Molochrepresentedthedemonic
potencyoftechnocracy—theexcessesofindustrialization,militarism,materialism,
capitalism,theinstrumentaluseofpersons,thestarvationofthesoul,andthealienation
ofthecreativespirit.Likewise,drawingonBlake,Roszak’sownworksoughttochange
consciousnessbyexposingtechnocracyandrevealingtherevolutionarypotentialofthe
counterculture.
Marcuse,repressionandthereturntotheOldGnosis
Wehaveseenthat,forRoszak,therootsofsocialrevolutionweretobefoundin
consciousness,notclass.OfparticularnoteinTheMakingofaCounterCulturewashis
contentionthat,whileMarxiananalysisstillhadinsightstooffer,itwasFreudian
analysisthatwouldprovidethenewrevolutionarieswiththeguidancetheyneeded.
Psychology,notsociologywouldbekeytothesuccessofthecounterculture:“sociology
hasbeenforcedtoyieldprogressivelytopsychologyasthegenerativeprincipleof
revolution.”118Hence,Roszaksawmuchpromiseinhumanisticpsychologyandthe
developmentof“humanpotentialities”(aconceptpopularizedbyHuxley119):“amonga
growingnumberofthosewhomovewiththeforwardcurrentsofpsychotherapyand
thehealingarts,‘consciousnessresearch’andthenewreligions,aspontaneous
consensushassprunguparoundtheevolutionaryimageofhumanpotentiality.”120
RoszaklinkedthistocounterculturalEasternization,121whichsignificantlycontributed
tothesacralizationofwhatthehumanisticpsychologistAbrahamMaslowcalled“peak
experiences.”122Concerningsex,forexample,Roszakobservedthat“nothingisso
strikingabouttheneworientalismasitshighlysexedflavor.Iftherewasanything
KerouacandhiscolleaguesfoundespeciallyappealingintheZentheyadopted,itwas
thewealthofhyperboliceroticismthereligionbroughtwithitratherindiscriminately
fromtheKama-sutraandthetantrictradition.”123Again,thesamewastrueof
psychedelicexperiences.WhilewehaveseenthatRoszakcouldbescathingaboutsuch
“non-intellectivemodesofconsciousness,”hedidnotthereforedismissthemaslacking
socialsignificance:“evenifZen,asmostofGinsberg’sgenerationhavecometoknowit
andpublicizeit,hasbeenflawedbycrudesimplifications,itmustalsoberecognized
thatwhattheyounghavevulgarizedinthiswayisabodyofthoughtthat…embracesa
radicalcritiqueoftheconventionalscientificconceptionofmanandnature.Iftheyoung
seizedonZenwithashallowunderstanding,theygraspeditwithahealthyinstinct.”124
Peakexperiencescouldbegenuinelyconsciousnessexpanding.
Roszak’sanalysisanddevelopmentoftheideasoftheFreudianLeftcanbeunderstood
harmartiologicallyasaninvestigationofthecorrosiveimpactoftechnocracy.Thatisto
say,theyidentifiedthesinfulstatefromwhichindividualsneededredemption.In
particular,hemademuchofHerbertMarcuse’sreadingofFreudandNormanO.
Brown’s“silly-brillianteffort”125inhiswidelyreadbookLifeAgainstDeath:The
PsychoanalyticMeaningofHistory,126bothofwhichwereenormouslyinfluential.As
DavidAllynhascommented,“itishardtoappreciatehowpopularbothMarcuseand
Brownwereamongthestudentsofthesixtiesandseventies...Theyredefinedthenotion
of‘thegoodlife,’oneofthemostimportantcategoriesinwesternthought,inamanner
thatappealeddirectlytothesexualrevolutionariesoftheyoungerset.”127JimMorrison
ofTheDoors,forexample,mademuchofBrown’sbook.128Aswewillseewasthecase
withMarcuse'swork,Brownchallengedthevaluesofthepreviousgeneration,
explainedthestatusquointermsofrepression,and,forRoszak,exposedthemalign
impactoftechnocracy.(Ofcourse,thatRoszakdrewheavilyontheirideas,hadthe
immediateeffectofinvestinghisownworkwithcounterculturalcapital.)Likewise,
fromadifferentperspective,Goodman’suseofgestaltpsychology,whichfocusedonthe
individual’sconsciousexperienceinthepresentmoment,furtherhelpedRoszakto
explainthepsychologicaleffectsoftechnocracy:“individualandsocialneurosissetsin
onlywhentheseamlessgarmentofthe‘organism/environmentfield’isdividedbya
psychicfactionalismthatsegregatesfromtheecologicalwholeaunitofdefensive
consciousnessthatmustbepittedagainstan‘external’realityunderstoodtobealien,
intractable,andfinally,hostile.”129
WhileRoszakmakesanumberofimportantpointsregardingtheworkofBrownand
Goodman,heismostengagingandrevealingwhendiscussingMarcuse,“theguruofthe
NewLeft.”130InErosandCivilization131—oneofthekeytextstoinformthesexual
politicsofthecounterculture—Marcusediscussesthe“realityprinciple”
(Realitätsprinzip).ForFreud,thisreferredtothecapacityofthemindtoevaluatethe
externalworldandtorespondtoit,asopposedsimplytoreactinginaccordancewith
the“pleasureprinciple”(Lustprinzip)—theinstinctuallibidinousurgetoseekpleasure
andtoavoidpaininordertosatisfybiologicalandpsychologicalneeds.Hence,ineffect,
therealityprincipleenablesanindividualtofunctionaccordingtoreasonratherthan
passion.(Thisislibidinalrepression,thesublimationofwhich,Freudunderstoodtobe
centraltotheemergenceof“civilization.”)ForMarcuse,itisimportantthatthe
repressionoftherealityprincipleisrootedinhistory,notbiology.Repressionisthe
productofanunequaldistributionofscarcityinacivilizedsociety.Itoccurswhenthe
apparatusofindustrialcapitalismenablestherulingelite“toimposetheirselfishwillon
subjectpopulations,todepriveandexploitandtreaddownthosewhoareweaker.So
beginsthe‘logicofdomination.’”132Tounpackthisalittlemore,centraltoRoszak’s
understandingofthelogicofdominationintechnocraticsocietiesaretwokey
Marcusianconcepts,“theperformanceprinciple”and“surplusrepression.”Theformer,
whichis“theprevailinghistoricalformoftherealityprinciple,”133isasociallyimposed
compulsiontowork,whichmanipulatestheindividualintorepressingtheeroticand
playfulsideofhisorhernature.This,forRoszak,identifiedonetheprimarymalign
forcesoftechnocracy,which,inturn,madethecounterculture’snon-intellectivemodes
ofconsciousnesssonecessary.Whiletheperformanceprinciplemanifestsinvarious
ways,whetherwethinkoffeudalismorcapitalistindustrialismitisalwaysrootedin
domination.Ordinarymembersofsociety,arguedMarcuse,must“perform”according
towhatisrequiredofthemasworkersmanipulatedbythe“productiveapparatus.”
Surplusrepression,whichwasalsocentraltothedevelopmentofRoszak’s
understandingoftechnocracy,isrelatedtotheperformanceprinciple.“Basic
repression”inMarcusianphilosophyis“necessaryfortheperpetuationofthehuman
raceincivilization,”134inthatthedesireoflibidinalinstinctsforimmediategratification
doesneedtoberestrainedinorderforhumanstofunctionproperlyineverydaylife.
LikeFreud,Marcusearguedthatbasicrepressionandsublimationarerequirementsfor
theprogressofcivilization.(Roszak’scriticismsofcounterculturalexcesscanalsobe
interpretedinthisway.)Surplusrepression,however,refersto“therestrictions
necessitatedbysocialdomination.”135Itorganisestheinstinctsinaccordancewiththe
“performanceprinciple.”Moreover,aswithothersassociatedwiththeFrankfurtSchool,
suchasparticularlyTheodorAdornoandMaxHorkheimer,Marcusearguedthat,in
ordertoensurecompliance,workersmustbedominatedinwaysthatmakethe
restrictionsappear“natural.”Hence,aswehaveseenRoszakargueoftechnocracy,
repressionisperceived,notas“domination,”butratherascommonsense.Repressionis
disguisedastheactionofrational,objectivelaws,whicharedefendedbyexperts.As
such,theindividualunwittinglyinternalizessurplusrepression:“thesocietalforceis
absorbedintothe‘conscience’andintotheunconsciousoftheindividualandworksas
hisowndesire,morality,andfulfilment.”Hence,Marcuseargues,“inthe‘normal’
development,theindividualliveshisrepression‘freely’ashisownlife:hedesireswhat
heissupposedtodesire…”136Again,thisinformedRoszak’sargumentregardingthe
importanceofthecountercultureasaforceforunmaskingthetruenatureof
technocracyandliberatingthehumanspirit.
ImportantthoughMarcusewasforthedevelopmentofRoszak’scritiqueoftechnocracy,
hewasunhappywithsomeaspectsofhisthought.DrawingontheRomantictradition,
humanisticpsychology,andcounterculturalbohemianism,herejectedMarcuse’sclaim
thatthelogicofdominationisnecessarilypresentthroughouthumanhistoryandinall
cultures.Forexample,articulatingarathernaïveandRomanticprimitivism,Roszak
insistedthattherehadbeensocietiesinwhichtheirmemberswereabletoliveina
harmoniousrelationshipwitheachotherandthenaturalworld,uncorruptedbythe
productiveapparatusofcivilization:“itisnotatallclear…thatthesesimplefolkspent
theirlivesdrudgingawayunderthewhiplashofnear-starvation.Infact,wehavereason
tobelievethatmanyofthem(especiallyduringtheNeolithicperiod)livedadecently
comfortablelifeinawisesymbioticrelationshipwiththeirenvironment.”137Thatisto
say,heconstructedhisownmythofthe“noblesavage”—whichhasbeenused
throughoutthemodernperiodtoarticulateaprimalandinnatehumangoodness
uncorruptedbycivilization138—asachallengetotechnocratichegemony.OurNeolithic
ancestors,hebelieved,“livedmainlyinegalitariancommunitieswheredomination,as
Marcuseusestheterm,didnottakeitstoll.Atthisstageofsociety,therefore,repression
couldnothaveexistedinanyformthatsatisfiesMarcuse’sdefinition.”Hence,he
concluded,“repressive,class-basedregimentation—thesocialformwecall
‘civilization’—onlyfollowsuponthedestructionofprimitivetribalandvillage
democracy.”139ThecounterculturethusbecameanimportantmomentinRoszak’s
redemptionnarrative,whichistheorizedasapost-technocraticreturntoanidealized
state.Inotherwords,heimaginedaneo-ludditeprogressiontopremodernharmony.
Again,thisiswhyhecelebrated—asdidseveralothers,suchasCharlesReichinhis
influentialutopianmanifesto,TheGreeningofAmerica140—countercultural
communalismandthebohemianreturntonature.Hedescribedthisasthesurfacingof
“theancientandoriginalnaturephilosophyofourspecies”—“theOldGnosis.”141Hence,
althoughheemployedMarcuse’stheoryofrepression,heinterpreteditverydifferently
asthesuppressionoftheOldGnosis.This,again,wasinformedbyhisreadingofthe
Romantics,particularlyBlake:“bywayoftheirfascinationwithprimitiveandpagan
worship,Hermeticism,cabbalism,andnaturemysticismgenerally,theRomanticsmake
cleartheirkinshipwiththatgreatandancientspiritualcurrent.”142AsJoniMitchellput
itin“Woodstock,”asongthatsummedupmuchofwhatRoszakcelebratedaboutthe
counterculture:
Wearestardust,
Wearegolden,
Andwe’vegottogetourselves
Backtothegarden.143
Concludingcomments
Theaimofthisarticlehasbeenrelativelystraightforward,namely,toarguethatRoszak,
aswellasbeingaperceptivechroniclerof1960syouthrebellion(whichishowThe
MakingofaCounterCulturetendstoberead,particularlybythosewhohavenotstudied
itcarefully),wasanimportantradicalthinkerinhisownright.Ihavearguedthathe
soughttopreparethegroundworkforadistinctivepoliticsofconsciousness—whathe
referredtoas“abeautifulpolitics,”andwhatIhavecalledhis“Romanticradicalism.”
DrawingheavilyontheRomantictraditionandparticularlyonthethoughtofBlake,he
criticallyincorporatedanumberofcounterculturalideastoconstructaalternativeto
thedominantpoliticaltheoriesoftheNewLeft(andtheiruseofFreud),ontheone
hand,andtothepsychedelic,sexual,andmysticalexplorationsofthecounterculture,on
theother.Again,asanactivistonthepacifistLeft,hewasjustascriticalofanyformof
revolutionaryviolenceashewasofcolleagueswhoretreatedtotheirivorytowersto
interprettheworldratherthanjointhestruggletochangeit.144
WhileMarxiananalysiswascertainlyaformativeinfluenceonhisthinking,hecameto
viewitaspartoftheproblem.WhileheclearlyconsideredtheuseofFreudbyMarcuse
tobeinspiredandcertainlyhelpfultothedevelopmentofhisownthought,inthefinal
analysis,ittoofellshortofwhatwasrequired,forMarxismhad,fromtheoutset,been
corruptedbytechnocracy.Ithad“endorsedthefundamentalvaluesofindustrialism.”145
ThisiswhythecounterculturewassoimportantforthedevelopmentofRoszak’s
beautifulpolitics:“bywayofadialecticMarxcouldneverhaveimagined,technocratic
America[hadproduced]apotentiallyrevolutionaryelementamongstitsownyouth.”
AlongsimilarlinestotheargumentpresentedbyMillsin1960,146hearguedthatthe
workingclass,whichhadpreviously“providedthetraditionalfollowingforradical
ideology,nowneitherleadsnorfollows,butsitstightandplayssafe:thestoutestprop
oftheestablishedorder.”147TheMakingofaCounterCulturethereforeinsiststhatthose
concernedwithsocialandpoliticalchangemusttakeseriouslytheRomanticvisionof
disaffectedmiddleclassyouth:“thereisasenseintheair,especiallyamongtheyoung,
thatMarxismandliberalismhaveingoodmeasureceasedtoprovideexplanationsof
theworld.Indeed,intheirofficialforms,thesedoctrineshavebecomepartofwhat
requiresexplanation.”148Again,Marxismhadneveradequatelyquestioned“theone-
dimensionalconsciousnessoftechnocraticsociety,”orcalledfor“arenaissanceofthe
imagination.”149Assuch,heidentifiedacontradictionunforeseenbymanyontheLeft.
Theyhad“alwayspredicatedrevolutionarychangeonthe‘immiserization’ofthe
proletariat.”Theirproblemduringthelong1960swasthat“rebellionwasbreakingout
whereitwastobeleastexpected:amongyoungermembersofthebourgeoiselite
whoseintereststhemilitary-industrialcomplexpurportedtoserve.”150Asaresultof
theaffluenceofthe1960sandaconsequentsenseofsecurity,anewgeneration,
inspiredbytheRomanticspirit,demanded“levelsoffreedom,self-expression,and
enjoymentthatsuggestedtheysawlifeassomethingmorethangettingandspending.”
Moreover,“insteadofthankingtheirbenefactors,theymockedthemintheirsongsand
poems,andproceededtoraiseissuesthatsuggestedseveredoubtsabouttherightness
andrationalityofurbanindustrialsociety.Theyweredoingnolessthancallingthe
mythofmaterialprogressintoquestion.”151Inshort,thoseconsideredcrass,profane,
andirrationalbythe“experts”inpatriciantechnocracy,weredrawingontheOldGnosis
toclearapathtothestatefromwhichhumanityhadfallen.The“instinctivefascination
withmagicandritual,triballore,andpsychedelicexperienceattemptstoresuscitatethe
defunctshamanismofthedistantpast.”152However,participativedemocracy,he
argued,“cannotsettleforbeingamatterofpolitical-economicdecentralism—onlythat
andnothingmore.”153Thespellofobjectiveconsciousnessmustbebroken;the“high
priestsofthecitadelwhocontrolaccesstoreality”154mustbedefrocked.Consequently,
naïvethoughsomeoftheirideasmaybe,“thestrangeyoungsterswhodoncowbellsand
primitivetalismansandwhotaketothepublicparksorwildernesstoimprovise
outlandishcommunalceremonies”areshowingsocietythewayforward,foritisthey
whoare“seekingtogrounddemocracysafelybeyondthecultureofexpertise.”155
1TheodoreRoszak,Sources:AnAnthologyofContemporaryMaterialsUsefulforPreservingPersonalSanityWhileBravingtheGreatTechnologicalWilderness(NewYork:HarperColophonBooks,1972),xxii.2TheodoreRoszak,“BritishPeaceMovement:LookingfortheMarchers,”TheNation,25October1965,273−77;“TheCounterCulture:Part1.YouthandtheGreatRefusal,”TheNation,25March1968,400−406;“TheCounterCulture:Part2.PoliticsoftheNervousSystem,”TheNation,8April1968,439−43;“TheCounterCulture:Part3.CapsulesofSalvation,”TheNation,1April1968,466−70;“TheCounterCulture:Part4.TheFutureasCommunity,”TheNation,15April1968,497−502.3WhileRoszakused“counterculture,”inthisarticlethemorerecentcompound“counterculture”willbeused.4AlanWatts,quotedonthebackcoverofTheodoreRoszak,MakingofaCounterCulture:ReflectionsontheTechnocraticSocietyandItsYouthfulOpposition(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1995).5LindaHerbst,“Review:TheMakingofaCounterCulture:ReflectionsontheTechnocraticSocietyandItsYouthfulOpposition,”SocialResearch37,no.3(1970),484.6AndrewGreeley,TheNewAgenda(GardenCity:Doubleday,1973),2917CliveJames,“UndertheCounter,”NewSociety15(12March1970),449.8JeromeKirk,“Review:TheMakingofaCounterCulture:ReflectionsontheTechnocraticSocietyandItsYouthfulOpposition,”AmericanJournalofSociology75,no.5(1970),893.Seealso,GeorgeStade,“TheConversionofaSquare,”TheNewYorkTimesBookReview(24September1972),1.9MarkC.Taylor,“TerminalFaith,”inReligion,Modernity,andPostmodernity,ed.PaulHeelas(Oxford:Blackwell,1998),53.10PeterOtto,“‘RouseUpOYoungMenoftheNewAge!’WilliamBlake,TheodoreRoszak,andtheCounterCultureofthe1960s-1970s,”inBlake2.0:WilliamBlakeinTwentieth-CenturyArt,MusicandCulture,eds.StevenClark,TristanneConnolly,andJasonWhittaker(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2012),28.11BerniceMartin,ASociologyofContemporarySocialChange(Oxford:Blackwell,1981),1.Seealso,ArthurMarwick,CultureinBritainSince1945(Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1991),67−132.12Martin,SociologyofContemporarySocialChange,15-16.13ColinCampbell,“AccountingfortheCounterCulture,”ScottishJournalofSociology4,no.1(1980),45;ChristopherGair,TheAmericanCounterculture(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2007),9−11.AlthoughacknowledgingtheimportanceofRoszak’swork,Gaireffectivelyignoresit.Similarly,inareviewoftheoriesdiscussingwhycounterculturesemergeandtheiroverallpsychosocialsignificance,CampbellsimplynotesthatRoszakwasoneofseveralthinkerstofocusontheimportanceofsocietaltrends.14HarveyCox,TurningEast:ThePromiseandPeriloftheNewOrientalism(London:AllenLane,1979);DannyGoldberg,InSearchoftheLostChord:1967andtheHippyIdea(London:IconBooks,2017);HughMcLeod,TheReligiousCrisisofthe1960s(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2007).15KevinFagan,“‘CounterCulture’AuthorDies,”SanFranciscoChronicleOnline,13July2011,http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Theodore-Roszak-Counter-Culture-author-dies-2354712.php(accessed5January2018).
16See,forexample,ThomasFrank,TheConquestofCool:BusinessCulture,CountercultureandtheRiseofHipConsumerism(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1997);JosephHeathandAndrewPotter,TheRebelSell:HowtheCountercultureBecameConsumerCulture(Chichester:Capstone,2006).17HediedofcomplicationsrelatedtolivercancerathishomeinBerkeleyon5July2011.18SeeparticularlyTheodoreRoszak,TheMakingofanElderCulture:ReflectionsontheFutureofAmerica’sMostAudaciousGeneration(GabriolaIsland:NewSocietyPublishers,2009).19Roszak,CounterCulture,xii.20Roszak,CounterCulture,xiii.21Roszak,CounterCulture,8.22Roszak,CounterCulture,207.23Roszak,CounterCulture,8.24Roszak,CounterCulture,208.25Roszak,CounterCulture,208.26Roszak,CounterCulture,215.27Roszak,CounterCulture,159.28TheodoreRoszak,UnfinishedAnimal:TheAquarianFrontierandtheEvolutionofConsciousness(London:FaberandFaber,1976),35.29Roszak,CounterCulture,205.30Roszak,CounterCulture,205.31Ibid.,205−206.32WilliamBlake,“AuguriesofInnocence,”inWilliamBlake,SelectedPoetry(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1996,173.33TheodoreRoszak,Person/Planet:TheCreativeDisintegrationofIndustrialSociety(London:VictorGollancz,1979),xx.34Roszak,Person/Planet,xx.35SeeRoszak’scommentsonDylaninMakingofaCounterCulture,63,71.36BobDylan,“TheTimesTheyArea-Changin’,”TheTimesTheyArea-Changin’(ColumbiaRecords,1964).37TheodoreRoszak,TheCultofInformation:ANeo-LudditeTreatiseonHigh-tech,ArtificialIntelligence,andtheTrueArtofThinking(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1986).38TheodoreRoszakandGrahamChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”NewScientist49,no.471(4March1971),484.39EricHomberger,“TheodoreRoszakObituary,”GuardianOnline,27July2011,https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jul/27/theodore-roszak-obituary(accessed20July2017).40BettyRoszakandTheodoreRoszak,Masculine/Feminine:ReadingsInSexualMythologyandtheLiberationofWomen(NewYork:HarperTorchbooks,1969).Hereferencesherasaninspirationin:WheretheWastelandEnds:PoliticsandTranscendenceinPostindustrialSociety(GardenCity:Doubleday,1972),ix;TheVoiceoftheEarth:AnExplorationofEcopsychology(London:BantamPress,1993),5;TheGenderedAtom:ReflectionsontheSexualPsychologyofScience(Berkeley:ConariPress,1999),168−69.ItisalsoworthreadingthefollowingbyBettyRoszak:“TheSpiritoftheGoddess,”inEcopsychology:RestoringtheEarth,HealingtheMind,eds.TheodoreRoszak,MaryE.Gomes,andAllenD.Kanner(NewYork:SierraClubBooks,1995),288-300;“TheTwoWorldsofMagic,”1974,http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/modeur/ph-rosz.htm(accessed15July2017).41TheodoreRoszak,“ThomasCromwellandtheHenricanReformation”(Ph.D.diss.,PrincetonUniversity,1959).42Roszak,ElderCulture,281;Roszak,Person/Planet,217.43Roszak,ElderCulture,281.44Roszak,ElderCulture,23.45Roszak,Person/Planet,89.46TheodoreRoszak,TheDevilandDanielSilverman(Wellfleet:LeapfrogPress,2003),223.47Roszak,Person/Planet,95.48Roszak,CounterCulture,237.49Roszak,Wasteland,xxiii.50Roszak,Wasteland,xx.51Roszak,Wasteland,xxii.52RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”485.53RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”485.54RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”485.55RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”485.
56RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”485.57RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”485.58RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”484.59RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”484.60TheodoreRoszak,“Introductiontothe1995Edition,”inMakingofaCounterCulture,2nded.(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1995),xiii.61Roszak,“BritishPeaceMovement,”273−77;“CounterCulture:Part1,”400−406;“CounterCulture:Part2,”439-43;“CounterCulture:Part3,”466−470;“CounterCulture:Part4,”497−502.62Roszak,“CounterCulture:Part1,”400−406.63See,AndrewRossabiandJosephBerke,“Anti-Psychiatry:AnInterviewwithDr.JosephBerke,”Salmagundi16(1971),185−92.64JosephBerke(ed),CounterCulture:TheCreationofanAlternativeSociety(London:PeterOwen,1969);JosephBerke,“CounterCulture:TheCreationofanAlternativeSociety,”InternationalTimes46(13−31December1968),20−21.65ItisnotevenreferencedbyKenGoffmanandDanJoyinCountercultureThroughtheAges:FromAbrahamtoAcidHouse(NewYork:Villard,2005).66Berke,CounterCulture,5.67TalcottParsons,TheSocialSystem(Glencoe:FreePressofGlencoe,1991),355,522.68J.MiltonYinger,“ContracultureandSubculture,”AmericanSociologicalReview25,no.5(1960),629.69See,forexample:StanleyCohenandLaurieTaylor,EscapeAttempts:TheTheoryandPracticeofResistancetoEverydayLife(London:AllenLane,1976),160−65;RobertHewison,CultureandConsensus:England,ArtandPoliticsSince1940(London:Methuen,1995),129,131,143−45,150−57;KennethLeech,Youthquake:TheGrowthofaCounter-cultureThroughtheDecades(London:SheldonPress,1973);ArthurMarwick,TheSixties:CulturalRevolutioninBritain,France,Italy,andtheUnitedStates,c.1958−c.1974(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998),10−12;KeithMelville,CommunesintheCounterCulture:Origins,Theories,StylesofLife(NewYork,Morrow,1972);FrankMusgrove,EcstasyandHoliness:CounterCultureandtheOpenSociety(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1974);ElizabethNelson,TheBritishCounter-Culture,1966−73:AStudyoftheUndergroundPress(Houndmills:Macmillan,1989);JamesSpates,“CountercultureandDominantCultureValues:ACross-nationalAnalysisoftheUndergroundPressandDominantCultureMagazines,AmericanSociologicalReview41,no.5(1976),868−83.70RoszakandChedd,“RomanticatReason’sCourt,”484.71Roszak,Wasteland,139,413−45.72Roszak,Sources,xxiii-xxiv.73SeeRoszak,CounterCulture,24−25;TheodoreRoszak,“OnAcademicDelinquency,”inTheDissentingAcademy,ed.TheodoreRoszak(London:ChattoandWindus,1969),21−22.74NoamChomsky,“TheResponsibilityofIntellectuals,”inTheDissentingAcademy,ed.TheodoreRoszak(London:ChattoandWindus,1969),256.75Roszak,“OnAcademicDelinquency,”5.76Roszak,“OnAcademicDelinquency,”5.77Roszak,“OnAcademicDelinquency,”3.78Roszak,“OnAcademicDelinquency,”4.79ForworthwhileanalysesofthecurrentsituationintheUK,withmuchofwhichRoszakwouldhaveagreed,seeStefanCollini,SpeakingofUniversities(London:Verso,2017)andLesBack,AcademicDiary:OrWhyHigherEducationStillMatters(London:GoldsmithsPress,2016).80Roszak,“OnAcademicDelinquency,”5.81Roszak,“OnAcademicDelinquency,”4.82TheodoreRoszak,AmericatheWise:TheLongevityRevolutionandtheTrueWealthofNations(Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1998);reprintedasLongevityRevolution:AsBoomersBecomeElders(Berkeley:BerkeleyHillsBooks,2001;2nded.2009).83KathrynRoszak,quotedinFagan,“‘CounterCulture’AuthorDies.”84Roszak,“Introductiontothe1995Edition,”xi.85Roszak,“Introductiontothe1995Edition,”xi.86Marwick,TheSixties.87Roszak,“Introductiontothe1995Edition,”xii.88AllenGinsberg,HowlandOtherPoems(SanFrancisco:CityLightsBooks,1956);SeealsoJonahRaskin,AmericanScream:AllenGinsberg’sHowlandtheMakingoftheBeatGeneration(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2004).89Roszak,CounterCulture,67,202.
90AldousHuxley,DoorsofPerception(London:ChattoandWindus,1954).91“…thisisn’talostgeneration,thisisabeatgeneration.”JackKerouac,quotedinBillMorgan,“Editor’sPreface,”inAllenGinsberg,TheBestMindsofMyGeneration:ALiteraryHistoryoftheBeats,ed.BillMorgan(London:AllenLane,2017),xix.92TheodoreRoszak,FromSatoritoSiliconValley:SanFranciscoandtheAmericanCounter-Culture(SanFrancisco:Don’tCallItFriscoPress,1986),51.93AllenGinsberg,“Prologue,”inBeatCultureandtheNewAmerica,1950-1965,ed.LisaPhillips(NewYork:WhitneyMuseumofAmericanArt,1995),18.Thisisarevisedversionofhis“ADefinitionoftheBeatGeneration,”Friction1(1982),52;Ginsberg,BestMinds,1−5.94JackKerouac,OntheRoad(London:Penguin,1972[1957]),51.95JackKerouac,ThePortableJackKerouac,ed.AnnCharters(NewYork:Penguin,1996),84.96Roszak,UnfinishedAnimal,257.97AllenGinsberg,quotedinRoszak,UnfinishedAnimal,257.98MichaelRumaker,“AllenGinsberg’s‘Howl,’”inOnthePoetryofAllenGinsberg,ed.LewisHyde(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1984),36.99BillMorganandNancyPeters(eds),HowlonTrial:TheBattleforFreeExpression(SanFrancisco:CityLightsBooks,2006),197.100See,AliciaOstriker,“Blake,Ginsberg,Madness,andtheProphetasShaman,”inWilliamBlakeandtheModerns,eds.RobertJ.BertholfandAnnetteS.Levitt(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1982),111−31;Otto,“‘RouseUpOYoungMen’,”27−40.101AllenGinsberg,“NotesforHowlandOtherPoems,”inTheNewAmericanPoetry,1945-1960,ed.DonaldAllen(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999),415;alsonotedbyRoszakinCounterCulture,127.AsSteveFinbowdiscusses,thepoemisactuallyrepletewithspiritual,politicalandcreativeinfluences:AllenGinsberg(London:ReaktionBooks,2012),63−65.Seealso,Ostriker,“Blake,Ginsberg,Madness,”111−12.102AllenGinsberg,“NotesWrittenonFinallyRecordingHowl,”inACasebookontheBeat,ed.ThomasFrancisParkinson(NewYork:ThomasY.Crowell,1961),28.103Roszak,CounterCulture,ix.104Roszak,CounterCulture,114,119105Roszak,CounterCulture,126.106Roszak,Wasteland,xxxiii.107Roszak,Wasteland,xxvi.108Roszak,CounterCulture,126.109Otto,“‘RouseUpOYoungMen’,”31.110Roszak,CounterCulture,126.111Roszak,CounterCulture,128.JohnLardashasGinsbergassumingtheroleofJeremiah:TheBopApocalypse:TheReligiousVisionsofKerouac,Ginsberg,andBurroughs(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2001),214.112Roszak,CounterCulture,128.113Roszak,CounterCulture,47.114Ginsberg,“NotesforHowl,’416;seealsoAllenGinsberg,DeliberateProse:SelectedEssays1952-1995,ed.BillMorgan(London:Penguin,2000),230.115JohnMilton,ParadiseLost,eds.WilliamKerrigen,JohnRumrich,andStephenFallon(NewYork:ModernLibrary,2007),29.Seealso,Ostriker,“Blake,Ginsberg,Madness,”120−23;Lardas,BopApocalypse,214;GregoryStephenson,“‘Howl’:AReading,”inOnthePoetryofAllenGinsberg,ed.LewisHyde(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1984),389−90.116Stephenson,“‘Howl’,”390.117Roszak,CounterCulture,128.118Roszak,CounterCulture,186.119See,AldousHuxley,“HumanPotentialities,”inJulianHuxley(ed.),TheHumanistFrame(London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,1961),417−432;AldousHuxley,TheHumanSituation:LecturesatSantaBarbara,1959,ed.byPieroFerrucci(StAlbans:Rriad/PantherBooks,1980),231−247.120Roszak,UnfinishedAnimal,4.121ForacomprehensivediscussionoftheEasternizationthesis,seeColinCampbell,TheEasternizationoftheWest:AThematicAccountofCulturalChangeintheModernEra(Abingdon:Routledge/Paradigm,2007).Seealso,ChristopherPartridge,TheRe-EnchantmentoftheWest:AlternativeSpiritualities,Sacralization,PopularCultureandOcculture,Vol.1(London:TandTClarkInternational,2004),87−118;RobertWuthnow,AfterHeaven:SpiritualityinAmericaSincethe1950s(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia
Press,1998);RobertWuthnow,ExperimentationinAmericanReligion:theNewMysticismsandTheirImplicationsfortheChurches(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1978).122AbrahamMaslow,Religions,Values,andPeakExperiences(Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,1976[1964]).123Roszak,CounterCulture,135−136.124Roszak,CounterCulture,136.125Roszak,CounterCulture,115.126NormanO.Brown,LifeAgainstDeath:ThePsychoanalyticMeaningofHistory,2nded.(Middletown:WesleyanUniversityPress,1985[1959]).127DavidAllyn,MakeLove,NotWar.TheSexualRevolution:AnUnfetteredHistory(Boston:Little,BrownandCompany,2000),200.128See,JamesRiordanandJerryProchnicky,BreakOnThrough:TheLifeandDeathofJimMorrison(London:Plexus,1991),50.129Roszak,CounterCulture,187.130See,JohnAbromeitandW.MarkCobb,“Introduction,”inHerbertMarcuse:ACriticalReader,eds.JohnAbromeitandW.MarkCobb(NewYork:Routledge,2004),2.131See,HerbertMarcuse,ErosandCivilization:APhilosophicalInquiryIntoFreud(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1956).132Marcuse,ErosandCivilization,104.133Marcuse,ErosandCivilization,35.134Marcuse,ErosandCivilization,35.135Marcuse,ErosandCivilization,35.136Marcuse,ErosandCivilization,46.137Roszak,CounterCulture,105.138See,TerEllingson,TheMythoftheNobleSavage(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2001).139Roszak,CounterCulture,105−106.140CharlesReich,TheGreeningofAmerica(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1971).141Roszak,Person/Planet,53;Roszak,Wasteland,353.142Roszak,Wasteland,353.143JoniMitchell,“Woodstock,”LadiesoftheCanyon(Reprise,1970).See,ChristopherPartridge,TheLyreofOrpheus:PopularMusic,theSacredandtheProfane(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2014),115−41.144Marx’s11ththesisonFeuerbach:“Thephilosophershaveonlyinterpretedtheworldinvariousways;thepoint,however,istochangeit.”145Roszak,Sources,xii.146C.WrightMills,“LettertotheNewLeft,”NewLeftReview1,no.5(September-October,1960),18−23.147Roszak,CounterCulture,34−35.148BarringtonMoore,quotedinRoszak,CounterCulture,103.149Roszak,Sources,xix.150Roszak,“Introductiontothe1995Edition,”xxv.151Roszak,“Introductiontothe1995Edition,”xxv.152Roszak,CounterCulture,265.153Roszak,CounterCulture,265.154Roszak,CounterCulture,265.155Roszak,CounterCulture,265.