web site hit counter The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition

Availability: Ready to download

The original edition of this text found common ground between student radicals and hippie dropouts in their mutual rejection of technocracy -- the regime of corporate and technological expertise that dominates industrial society. The book traces the intellectual underpinnings of the two groups in the writings of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown, Allan Ginsberg and Paul The original edition of this text found common ground between student radicals and hippie dropouts in their mutual rejection of technocracy -- the regime of corporate and technological expertise that dominates industrial society. The book traces the intellectual underpinnings of the two groups in the writings of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown, Allan Ginsberg and Paul Goodman.


Compare

The original edition of this text found common ground between student radicals and hippie dropouts in their mutual rejection of technocracy -- the regime of corporate and technological expertise that dominates industrial society. The book traces the intellectual underpinnings of the two groups in the writings of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown, Allan Ginsberg and Paul The original edition of this text found common ground between student radicals and hippie dropouts in their mutual rejection of technocracy -- the regime of corporate and technological expertise that dominates industrial society. The book traces the intellectual underpinnings of the two groups in the writings of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown, Allan Ginsberg and Paul Goodman.

30 review for The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition

  1. 5 out of 5

    General Greysorrow

    This is hippie garbage of the worst kind. I'm an anarcho-communist. I get the idea of the commune and anarchy. I get collective consensus. I get throwing off the shackles of what is to find a new way. But this...this is something else. Some highlights: Anti-Depressants: Evil LSD/Acid/Narcotics: Good Priests and Scientists: Evil Shamans and Medicine Men: Good An "Expert" Giving You Information: Evil A Shaman Tell You About His Vision: Good There are so many other examples of how the all-encompassing, na This is hippie garbage of the worst kind. I'm an anarcho-communist. I get the idea of the commune and anarchy. I get collective consensus. I get throwing off the shackles of what is to find a new way. But this...this is something else. Some highlights: Anti-Depressants: Evil LSD/Acid/Narcotics: Good Priests and Scientists: Evil Shamans and Medicine Men: Good An "Expert" Giving You Information: Evil A Shaman Tell You About His Vision: Good There are so many other examples of how the all-encompassing, nameless, faceless "Technocracy" is trying to control you (just like the "Corporations" or the "Deep State" or the "Liberal Media" or the "Insert Name Here"). This is an aged hippie, sitting on a street corner, blazed out of his mind, talking about how colors are more real than cars, man: "What if D-O-G really spells God, man?" "What if the atoms in my fingers are all little universes, man?" "Let's all get high!"

  2. 4 out of 5

    Жанна Пояркова

    Невероятно брюзгливый текст о 1968ом и о том, что молодежь плохо образована и не может конвертировать свой протест в перемены или культуру. Это было бы жестко и - будучи оформленным не так скептически, скупо, нарочито поучительно и разглагольствующе - могло бы потянуть на левую критику, но, черт... Читать это физически невыносимо. Опасения Рошака на счет того, что молодняк - это кентавры, разрушающие культуру, так же смехотворны, как, скажем, опасения Хейзинги, что культура Средневековья никому Невероятно брюзгливый текст о 1968ом и о том, что молодежь плохо образована и не может конвертировать свой протест в перемены или культуру. Это было бы жестко и - будучи оформленным не так скептически, скупо, нарочито поучительно и разглагольствующе - могло бы потянуть на левую критику, но, черт... Читать это физически невыносимо. Опасения Рошака на счет того, что молодняк - это кентавры, разрушающие культуру, так же смехотворны, как, скажем, опасения Хейзинги, что культура Средневековья никому не нужна и забудется (он писал об этом в корпусе статей). Сетования на бескультурие "молодежи" - первый знак импотентности текста. Создание культуры и полноценное ее восприятие всегда удел немногих, при этом как культура Средневековья не потеряла своих фанатов, так и бесполезные по мнению Рошака хиппи и бунтующие сынки среднего класса породили огромный музыкальный, философский, пр. пласт культуры. Культура не была разрушена молодняком, как испугался уже довольно взрослый в то время Рошак, как боялся Хейзинга, как кричал в "Закате Европы" Шпенглер, как негодовали сатанисты в произведениях Гюисманса, и как брюзжали бесконечные поколения отцов. Особенно книга Рошака нелепа потому, что он писал ее в 1969, даже не представляя себе, какой культурный взры породили события 1968-го. Он там даже с плохо скрытым страхом цитирует разнузданное описание сексуальной музыки Моррисона, называя их какой-то "кислотной группой Doors". Лишний урок не писать "анализ", когда масштаб событий еще не очевиден. Короче, полный шлак, со временем утративший крупицы полезных наблюдений, что изначально в нем были. Фикшн удался Рошаку не в пример мощнее.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Mary Catelli

    Half way between primary source and secondary source -- written in the 1960s, but by a professor. About the conflict between how they were raised and how they were expected to act in technocracy's jobs (all designed for efficiency), the use of psychedelic drugs, Zen and its use and abuse and the willful misudnerstanding of it, the clash with Marxism and more. Interesting stuff. The lack of insight from the knowledge of how it turned out means, of course, that he presents what it really looked lik Half way between primary source and secondary source -- written in the 1960s, but by a professor. About the conflict between how they were raised and how they were expected to act in technocracy's jobs (all designed for efficiency), the use of psychedelic drugs, Zen and its use and abuse and the willful misudnerstanding of it, the clash with Marxism and more. Interesting stuff. The lack of insight from the knowledge of how it turned out means, of course, that he presents what it really looked like at the time.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Kristen

    This book was really interesting - especially because I was simultaneously reading a book that discussed how people of my generation want too much, work too hard to get it and are too dependent on technology. Apparently my grandparents' generation thought the same thing about my parents' generation! The lesson: "These kids today!" has always been said. I read the version with the 1995 update, so that was especially interesting. Apparently my parents' generation was a major shift in cultural valu This book was really interesting - especially because I was simultaneously reading a book that discussed how people of my generation want too much, work too hard to get it and are too dependent on technology. Apparently my grandparents' generation thought the same thing about my parents' generation! The lesson: "These kids today!" has always been said. I read the version with the 1995 update, so that was especially interesting. Apparently my parents' generation was a major shift in cultural values, and this has continued for all the subsequent generations. Will be fascinating to see how the Baby Boomers' grandchildren turn out. Also, my parents' generation's cultural angst music was SO MUCH BETTER than what we got! I will take one Jim Morrison over all artists from the 90s and Pop2K years. Glad I listen more to their music than my own!

  5. 5 out of 5

    Maureen

    The subtitle, "Reflections on the technocratic society and its youthful opposition," sums up Rozak's central premise. Technocracy may be defined as "...that social form in which an industrial society reaches the peak of its organizational integration. [...] In a technocracy,nothing is any longer small or simple or readily apparent to the non-technical man. Instead, the scale and intricacy of all human activities - political, economic, cultural - transcends the competence of the amateurish citiz The subtitle, "Reflections on the technocratic society and its youthful opposition," sums up Rozak's central premise. Technocracy may be defined as "...that social form in which an industrial society reaches the peak of its organizational integration. [...] In a technocracy,nothing is any longer small or simple or readily apparent to the non-technical man. Instead, the scale and intricacy of all human activities - political, economic, cultural - transcends the competence of the amateurish citizen and inexorably demands the attention of specially trained experts." Rozak explores the youthful opposition by taking a look at the philosophies of Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown, followed by the Eastern influence, Alan Ginsburg, and Alan Watts. He also investigates the uses and abuses of the psychedelic experience, the sociology of Paul Goodman, and the myth of objective conciousness. In the final chapter, entitled, "Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire," the author addresses the challenge facing the youth, to bring all of the varieties of human experience into the forefront of society, so that technocracy is sublimated, and technology is the servant of humankind, and not the other way around. When this book first appeared, it was enormously influential on college campuses across the country. Rozak urged a unified vision of life, where making art is as important as a good job at IBM. Read from the modern perspective, it is interesting to see that in many ways, Rozak's worst nightmare happened. Although he did not envision laptops and iPods, technolcracy has taken over present life to a previously unimaginable degree. The sixties generation took some of Rozak's advice to heart, but the better world he advocated has yet to see the light of day.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Steve Seven

    An informed discussion of the first round of popular rebellion in the 1960s and their influences. As relevant today as when it was written.

  7. 5 out of 5

    David

    The thesis of Roszak's book (which was published in 1969) is that the 60's counterculture is best understood as an attempt to solve the problem of 'technocracy'. Roszak's understanding of technocracy is derivative of Ellul's problematic in "Technological Society." Time is better spent with Ellul. Ellul's position is that nothing can be done about the problem of technocracy *except* to understand it as clearly and distinctly as possible. This is an idea that does not sit well with post-WW2 America The thesis of Roszak's book (which was published in 1969) is that the 60's counterculture is best understood as an attempt to solve the problem of 'technocracy'. Roszak's understanding of technocracy is derivative of Ellul's problematic in "Technological Society." Time is better spent with Ellul. Ellul's position is that nothing can be done about the problem of technocracy *except* to understand it as clearly and distinctly as possible. This is an idea that does not sit well with post-WW2 American optimism. Roszak in particular shares the optimism : he feels (as he indicates in a footnote) Ellul is far too pessimistic and even fatalistic in his estimation of the situation. He points to the youthful countercultural revolution as evidence that there may be some solution to the problem. But Roszak overlooks the difficulty that the counterculture simply offered alternative techniques - e.g. sex, drugs, (one might as well say it) rock and roll, and meditation - to those of technological society. Is it any wonder, then, that the counterculture had been so effectively co-opted into mainstream technocratic society? To his credit, Roszak notes this process had already begun, but he sees it dimly on account of temporal proximity. I don't agree with Rozsak's estimation of Ellul's thesis. If Ellul believed the contemporary situation is thoroughly irrational and inscrutable, then I wouldn't hesitate to regard his thesis as pessimistic. But it seems to me quite realistic.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Willy De Backer

    I read this book in 1975 and it had then an enormous influence on my thinking. I should read it again now, more than 40 years later to see if any of the 'dark sides' of the counterculture wave was mentioned. I read this book in 1975 and it had then an enormous influence on my thinking. I should read it again now, more than 40 years later to see if any of the 'dark sides' of the counterculture wave was mentioned.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Mommalibrarian

    another important book from college days

  10. 5 out of 5

    Drew Anderson

    Roszak's book, published in 1969 is as a sort of review of what was going on among the youth at the time. Roszak explains and gives his thoughts on what exact the counter-culture is counter to, why they are opposed to it, how they are doing it, and who the youth's influences are. Some chapters are better than others, with the best ones still being near essential reading even today, in my opinion The first chapter which explains what Roszak calls the Technocracy, is fantastic. His analysis is clea Roszak's book, published in 1969 is as a sort of review of what was going on among the youth at the time. Roszak explains and gives his thoughts on what exact the counter-culture is counter to, why they are opposed to it, how they are doing it, and who the youth's influences are. Some chapters are better than others, with the best ones still being near essential reading even today, in my opinion The first chapter which explains what Roszak calls the Technocracy, is fantastic. His analysis is clear and does a great job of portraying it as something that is most definitely worth rebelling against without losing any depth in his analysis. The middle chapters explain in depth the counter culture movement in the context of the technocracy. Some of these are probably skippable if you're not interested in learning about the philosophy of Herbert Marcuse, Norman Brown, Allen Ginsberg, Paul Goodman, or psychedelic drugs in a counter-cultural context. The Brown and Marcuse chapter is pretty dense, but the one on psychedelic use is pretty interesting, and contains Roszak's harshest criticisms of the counter culture movement. The first chapter (technocracy's children) and the last two (The Myth of Objective Consciousness, Eyes of Flesh Eyes of Fire) are the best parts of the book and contain the most relevant. Roszak's analysis and critiques of today's technocratic and science oriented society is fascinating, and paints the counter culture movement's ideals in a unique and sympathetic light that it does not get too much of nowadays. I recommend picking up the 1992 reissue if you can, as it contains an updated essay written by Roszak that reflects on the movement as a whole twenty years after it died officially. The book does a good job explaining what exactly the counter culture was, which is great if it's something you want to learn more about. If nothing else, read chapters 1, 7, and 8 as they are pretty easy to read, and provide some truly insightful analysis into the culture that we live in now, and why it is the way it is, especially now that technology has only become increasingly prevalent.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Stephen Coates

    When Roszak wrote "The Making of a Counter Culture" in 1969, the very title of which coined the expression “counter culture”, two decades of the arms race and a decade of the space race led him to describe American society as a technocracy overly focussed on organisational and technological progress and efficiency. He questioned what he saw as a relentless quest for technological progress and efficiency, an expansive evolution of the industrial dehumanisation portrayed by Fritz Lang in "Metropol When Roszak wrote "The Making of a Counter Culture" in 1969, the very title of which coined the expression “counter culture”, two decades of the arms race and a decade of the space race led him to describe American society as a technocracy overly focussed on organisational and technological progress and efficiency. He questioned what he saw as a relentless quest for technological progress and efficiency, an expansive evolution of the industrial dehumanisation portrayed by Fritz Lang in "Metropolis" and Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times". He saw this creating a "myth of objective consciousness," a technocratic ideology promoting efficiency, order and rational control, ultimately leading to societal domination. He went on to interpret the protests of the 1960s, particularly those in 1968 as the youth movement’s rejection of the technocratic society but saw the youth of the time who could be the only significant opposition to this technocracy as being largely irresponsible, overly focussed on drugs and incapable of original ideas. At the time of its writing, his observations were not unreasonable although perhaps overly influenced by neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse’s 1964 ʺOne-dimensional Manʺ, who described capitalist societies as welfare/warfare states. However, viewed from the early 2000s when I read the book, his perception of the youth of the day has not been supported by what that generation achieved in subsequent decades. I found this a useful read for those wanting to understand the 1960s, but not a great read.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Sierra

    I was constantly impressed by how relevant to contemporary issues this book is, as I was reading it. Not only is it an interesting historic testimony, by its description of some of the major cultural influences and social upheavals of the 60s, it also provides an insight into the roots of the current ecological crisis and debate around science ethics, especially regarding artificial intelligence and biotechnology. The language can be heavily academic in some chapters and the references to Americ I was constantly impressed by how relevant to contemporary issues this book is, as I was reading it. Not only is it an interesting historic testimony, by its description of some of the major cultural influences and social upheavals of the 60s, it also provides an insight into the roots of the current ecological crisis and debate around science ethics, especially regarding artificial intelligence and biotechnology. The language can be heavily academic in some chapters and the references to American "pop culture" are not necessarily accessible to a non-native like me, so it took me a long time to read it. I am very glad I did, however, and I would recommend it to anyone concerned with social and personal improvement. The reason I am not giving it five stars is because I find that in the last few chapters that deal with "objective consciousness", the author seems to conflate several definitions of science and technology. The result is a sort of generalized, unconvincing, criticism of "science" that mixes valid concerns about experimental abuses and a paradoxically dogmatic exaltation of alternative ways of seeing the world, which contrasts with the nuanced approaches found elsewhere in this great piece of work.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Dela Navratilova

    Nejvíce zajímavé na této knize je její stálá aktuálnost, pojednávající o problémech tehdejší (ale vlastně i dnešní) doby, a to i přesto, že byla vydaná poprvé před 60 lety. Texty pojednávající o Marcusem, jako jednom z intelektuálních vůdců kontrakultury, mi přišly místy až moc akademické. Na druhou stranu úvahy o technokratické společnosti táhnoucí se celou knihou a Gestalt terapie Paula Goodmana byly podány úžasně srozumitelně. Doporučuji všem, kteří chtějí proniknout hlouběji do mentality 60. Nejvíce zajímavé na této knize je její stálá aktuálnost, pojednávající o problémech tehdejší (ale vlastně i dnešní) doby, a to i přesto, že byla vydaná poprvé před 60 lety. Texty pojednávající o Marcusem, jako jednom z intelektuálních vůdců kontrakultury, mi přišly místy až moc akademické. Na druhou stranu úvahy o technokratické společnosti táhnoucí se celou knihou a Gestalt terapie Paula Goodmana byly podány úžasně srozumitelně. Doporučuji všem, kteří chtějí proniknout hlouběji do mentality 60. - 70. let a poznat jak myšlení kontrakultury prosáklo i do myšlení dnešní generace. "Primárním smyslem lidské existence není vymýšlet způsoby jak vršit čím dál větší hromady vědomostí, ale objevovat různé způsoby jak žít podle nároků ušlechtilého jednání, upřímného společenství a radosti."

  14. 5 out of 5

    two-shoes

    A very dense and dry read that often drifts from its subject to fall into wordy tangents. It does stand as a good look into 1960s counterculture and its influence, but I find a lot of "nothing" wedged between the pages. In all, ehh. A very dense and dry read that often drifts from its subject to fall into wordy tangents. It does stand as a good look into 1960s counterculture and its influence, but I find a lot of "nothing" wedged between the pages. In all, ehh.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Joshua

    I see a glimmer of hope in today's "Maker" culture of overthrowing the technocratic culture that Roszak critiques. His critique of science and scientists seems somewhat one-dimensional, but does touch on some points that h ave and continue to bother me re: the scientific-industrial-military complex. I would be hesitant to recommend this to a student, for fear of "corrupting" them away from pursuing science/technical prowess and instead becoming a "hippie" of sorts. This is a compliment, as the I see a glimmer of hope in today's "Maker" culture of overthrowing the technocratic culture that Roszak critiques. His critique of science and scientists seems somewhat one-dimensional, but does touch on some points that h ave and continue to bother me re: the scientific-industrial-military complex. I would be hesitant to recommend this to a student, for fear of "corrupting" them away from pursuing science/technical prowess and instead becoming a "hippie" of sorts. This is a compliment, as the perception of "danger" tends to indicate some element of truth. (The universe is having a good laugh: I started to read this book on the way back from a scientific conference...) Shelley, "The Defence of Poetry" p.235 - "It is my own conviction that those who open themselves in this way and who allow what is Out-There to enter them and to shake them to their foundations are not apt to finish by placing a high value on scientific or technical progress. I believe they will finish by subordinating such pursuits to a distinctly marginal place in their lives, because they will realize that the objective mode of consciousness, useful as it is on occasion, cuts them off from too much that is valuable. They will therefore come to see the myth of objective consciousness as a poor mythology, one which diminishes life rather than expands it; and they will want to spend little of their time with it." p. 238- "And we should reject the small souls who know only how to be correct, and cleave to the great who know how to be wise."

  16. 5 out of 5

    Whoof

    The analysis of the origins and aims of the 60's counter culture is excellent. However, I found Roszak's blatant anti-scientific bias that appears most strongly in the last few chapters disappointing and poorly argued. Still, the characterization of the hippie/New Left movement and its key players is really well done. I guess one shouldn't expect non-biased examination of a sociological movement from a book that dedicates its entire latter half to explaining how the scientific aim for objectivit The analysis of the origins and aims of the 60's counter culture is excellent. However, I found Roszak's blatant anti-scientific bias that appears most strongly in the last few chapters disappointing and poorly argued. Still, the characterization of the hippie/New Left movement and its key players is really well done. I guess one shouldn't expect non-biased examination of a sociological movement from a book that dedicates its entire latter half to explaining how the scientific aim for objectivity is eroding the human soul and contributing to the alienation of the individual. I'm even sympathetic to some of those arguments (and even find myself agreeing in many places), but Roszak's apparent refusal to allow for any middle-ground is quite frustrating, especially for one who can appreciate the beauty and elegance of an efficiently solved puzzle without considering that "beauty" to be a word inaccurately appropriated from the Romantic sensibility of transcendent aesthetics. Still a worthwhile read.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Jon

    Still-relevant look at different aspects of 50s/60s counterculture. Roszak provides idiosyncratic opinions on poetry (he prefers Ferlinghetti and Rexroth, as poets, to Ginsberg and prefers Ginsberg's early EMPTY MIRROR to the poems that made his name), slashing attacks on charlatans such as Tim Leary, appreciative analysis of the most appealing aspects of post-WWII rebellion, and a plea for the student rebels of that day to avoid a blanket rejection of the intellect and take advantage of the wis Still-relevant look at different aspects of 50s/60s counterculture. Roszak provides idiosyncratic opinions on poetry (he prefers Ferlinghetti and Rexroth, as poets, to Ginsberg and prefers Ginsberg's early EMPTY MIRROR to the poems that made his name), slashing attacks on charlatans such as Tim Leary, appreciative analysis of the most appealing aspects of post-WWII rebellion, and a plea for the student rebels of that day to avoid a blanket rejection of the intellect and take advantage of the wisdom older members of what Roszak elsewhere termed "the dissenting academy" could offer. This is both a work of tremendous historical interest and a living manifesto for anyone who wants to create a more inspiring society by any means necessary or possible.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Travis French

    I don't know much about the Counter Culture. I'm two generations removed from them. I picked up some things here and there. Largely culled from the work of Hunter S. Thompson. An account of The Silent Generation from "The Fourth Turning" made me want to learn more. It must have been fate that I stumbled across Roszak's book at a used book store in Elizabeth, CO. This book is great for the lay reader. The first chapter, in which Roszak elaborates on the Technocracy, is fascinating. Technocracy is R I don't know much about the Counter Culture. I'm two generations removed from them. I picked up some things here and there. Largely culled from the work of Hunter S. Thompson. An account of The Silent Generation from "The Fourth Turning" made me want to learn more. It must have been fate that I stumbled across Roszak's book at a used book store in Elizabeth, CO. This book is great for the lay reader. The first chapter, in which Roszak elaborates on the Technocracy, is fascinating. Technocracy is Roszak's term for what other's call the Establishment. The chapters on how Marxism was adapted by the era is less interesting. I never had much interested in Marxist thought. Read this book. It will help you understand that movement far better.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Dan

    Roszak analyzes the emerging youth culture of the 1960s in terms of the ideas of its intellectual leaders—the radical Freudian politics of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown, for example, or the traditional Eastern philosophical teachings popularized by writer Alan Watts and Beat poet Allen Ginsberg. Roszak analyzes the emerging youth culture of the 1960s in terms of the ideas of its intellectual leaders—the radical Freudian politics of Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown, for example, or the traditional Eastern philosophical teachings popularized by writer Alan Watts and Beat poet Allen Ginsberg.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Bea

    Forty years ago this seemed much more important in illustrating that some grown-ups "got" what we thought we were dealing with. It's rather a disappointment now, though as a description of what people who were in close touch with the "baby boomers" as they grew up believed about their society and their future. This is important because we're suffering the hangovers from that time, our politicians are those who grew up breathing the atmosphere in which peace-and-love and sex-and-drugs-and-rock n' Forty years ago this seemed much more important in illustrating that some grown-ups "got" what we thought we were dealing with. It's rather a disappointment now, though as a description of what people who were in close touch with the "baby boomers" as they grew up believed about their society and their future. This is important because we're suffering the hangovers from that time, our politicians are those who grew up breathing the atmosphere in which peace-and-love and sex-and-drugs-and-rock n' roll and protest-marches all existed.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Diantha

    The main argument. It put into words what I've been thinking about the interplay between science and society for years. I have been educated as an anthropologist, and one of the 'slogans' of anthropology is "making the strange familiar and the familiar strange". I think this is the first book that made me see the familiar as strange to such an extent. Definitely a book that makes you think, and a book that is perhaps even more relevant today than it was when it was published in 1968. The main argument. It put into words what I've been thinking about the interplay between science and society for years. I have been educated as an anthropologist, and one of the 'slogans' of anthropology is "making the strange familiar and the familiar strange". I think this is the first book that made me see the familiar as strange to such an extent. Definitely a book that makes you think, and a book that is perhaps even more relevant today than it was when it was published in 1968.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Dionysus Lightfoot

    Roszak skillfully uses Nietzsche's well-known typology of Dionysian vs. Apollonian forces to build a very eloquent and informed appraisal of the 60's "hippy"movement and its importance in the larger picture of social development. An important study. Roszak skillfully uses Nietzsche's well-known typology of Dionysian vs. Apollonian forces to build a very eloquent and informed appraisal of the 60's "hippy"movement and its importance in the larger picture of social development. An important study.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Dana

    I really dislike academic writing.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Marcelo Yáñez

    Big emphasis on the generational gap of the time -- the few adults and the masses of young people engaging with these ideas. We've reached a reversal now. Big emphasis on the generational gap of the time -- the few adults and the masses of young people engaging with these ideas. We've reached a reversal now.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Nora2012

    Good!

  26. 4 out of 5

    Jason Barnhart

    Certainly helped me understand the beat generation, hippy movement and some of the things we are experiencing now.

  27. 4 out of 5

    David

    Had a class from him in college. He'll tell you why hippies believed what they did. Had a class from him in college. He'll tell you why hippies believed what they did.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Ronan

  29. 4 out of 5

    Mark

  30. 5 out of 5

    Brian

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.