a beautiful politics: theodore roszak’s romantic ... · for theodore roszak. it was a vibrant,...

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.