 |
| 1969 publication; my first reading spring 1972 |
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.
