Graduation Date
Spring 1973
Document Type
Thesis
Program
Other
Committee Chair Name
Larry Buffington
Committee Chair Affiliation
Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty or Staff
Second Committee Member Name
James A. Carrol
Keywords
Counter Culture
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed a startling number of youth movements. The conflict created by youth culture has been distinctive if only for the generational divisions it has highlighted. Large numbers of social scientists have written on this phenomenon from many perspectives. One classical theoretical perspective is Marxian theory. As it emphasizes the role of classes as revolutionary agencies, it has had a difficult time assimilating the actions and implications of youth culture. Parsonian functionalism has focused on the functional character of youth movements (Eisenstadt, 1956). The most salient feature for functionalism is the formation of distinctive groups among a single age-cohort. These groups serve the function of aiding the transition to adulthood by combining relations of diffuse solidarity with universalistic values (Flacks, 1970). Though the Parsonian perspective explains a distinctive youth culture, it does not explain an "alienated, oppositional, revolutionary one in societies like our own" (Eisenstadt, 1956; Parsons, 1962). Functionalism attempts to find the causes of youth alienation and radicalization in the profound adaptive strains and discontinuities among the institution and infrastructure of an advanced industrial society (Kenniston, 1965, 1968; Douglas,1970; Bell, 1970). A number of writers within a humanistic framework have argued that there is a direct linkage between youthful rejection of industrial society and the values of human dignity held by the young (Goodman, 1961; Friendenberg, 1965; Reisman, 1950; Yablonsky, viii 1968). Toffler (1970) and McLuhan (1967) see youth movements as reflecting and explaining certain inherent tendencies within a mushrooming technology. Critics of the current youth phenomenon see it as fulfilling a safety value function rather than representing a genuine revolt against technocracy (Marcuse, 1964; Ellul, 1964). Other writers see the youth culture as attempts to act out and resolve psychological problems and fantasies (Beltheim, 1969; Feuer, 1969; Shils, 1969). Several writers have emerged to write on the meaning of the collective, internal youthful opposition to the United States (Slater, 1970; Roszak, 1969; Reich, 1970).
Recommended Citation
Temple, Edmond, "A Generational Myth: Counter Culture" (1973). Cal Poly Humboldt theses and projects. 2501.
https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/etd/2501