[ the main topic page ] [ the main page ]

Vilayat Ismailov - Doctor of Philosophy sciences, professor,
Director of Scientific-Methodological Center for Cultural studies of
Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan Republic

Abulfaz Babazadeh - Master of Cultural Studies,
Chief of the Statistics and Social Research sector of
Scientific Methodological Center for Cultural studies of
Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan Republic

Countercultural expansion and cross-cultural interaction - philosophical view

At present modern culture’s range is not uniform. This is explained not only by attempts of certain nations to come back to origins of their culture, but rather by local and global social and political processes, which origin sometimes remains not completely clear for the world public. But all the processes, which, this or that way, affect social, humanitarian and ideological problems, have their own prehistory, commencement, passage and result.
Here the counter-culture expansion factor deserves special attention. The studies show that counter-culture phenomena in the society existed all the time, but they did not bear such mass nature as we see from the second half of the twentieth century. Despite the fact that the counter-culture as a social phenomenon has arisen quite recently, it has rather stable methods of expansion and popularization. The main motivating force of its popularization is the principle of freedom and cultural liberalization advocated by the counter-culture; and this principle means refusal from common norms and stereotypes of culture, religion, national traditions and other canons formed in the ancient times and passed from generation to generation.
In 1969 American sociologist, the author of the term “counter-culture”, Theodor Roszak has published the book The Making of a Counter-Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and its Youthful Oppositions», where he defined the concept of the counter-culture and by this became the largest theoretician of the end of 60-70-ties of the XXth century. In his studies he put together moral tendencies aimed against the prevailing culture into single phenomenon of counter-culture. According to T.Roszak the origin of the counter-culture is a rebellion of young people based on their irreconsible attitude to the parents’ generation. “Young people” hate “fathers”, first of all, for their consumptive and soulless attitude to life. Pursuit of material values, moneymaking eventually formed a civilization “totally sunk in genocide, in risky crazy game aimed to eliminate all”[1]. Thus, the main goal of the counter-culture’s formation is the fight against technocratic civilization.
One of ideologists of the Students’ Revolution of 60-ties of the XXth century German and American philosopher G.Markuze - who in his works reflected theoretical base of the counter-culture’s concept - expressed his own peculiar approach to the phenomenon of the counter-culture. In his point of view, the culture is the means of total oppression of biological and social essence of a human being. In other words the cultural progress widens and strengthens the function of organized supremacy leading to growth of general aggression, which eventually results in world wars, horrors of concentration camps, etc. “Great Refusal” - that is destruction of culture and its repressive field - is needed to resist this process. Accordingly non-repressive culture, - that is counter-culture, since it resists the repressive culture, - will replace the repressive culture.[2]
The counter-culture, as a rule, not just has the paradigm, differing from the paradigm of dominating culture, but it obviously opposes itself to the dominating culture, throws doubt upon the dominating cultural values, norms and moral standards, and creates its own system of norms and values.
The studies in this field show that the counter-culture’s phenomenon is not uniform, and under this term presently is understood the whole totality of youth’s sub-cultures, including counter-culture and anti-culture. It includes the sub-cultures not only of the “left” but also of the “right” wing, - up to criminal groups, inclined to racist, chauvinistic and pro-fascist ideologies. They refer to this category not only hippie, beatniks, as it was in 1960-ties, but also punks, metalheads, rockers, and skinheads. It should be specially underlined, however, that sub-cultures of this spectrum of the youth’s protest – are not at all “the technocrats’ children”: in Russia, for example, these are children from poor suburbs, urban slums, ill-being families, graduates of boarding schools and children’s homes, longing for social revenge, avenging the society for their deprivation.
As the American writer-journalist Irving Krystal says, the counter-culture is one of the most important events for the last fifty years of the western civilization’s existence. The counter-culture has radically changed our educational system, our multi-field art, our entertainment, our sexual conventionalities, and our code of ethics.
By the end of 1990-ties of the XXth century lateral conception of the counter-culture has been formed. P.S.Gurevich, for example, in “Cultural Studies. XX century” encyclopedia defines the counter-culture as the concept used in modern cultural studies and sociology “for designation of socio-cultural principles confronting fundamental principles prevailing in a specific culture, and which is identified with the youth’s sub-culture of 1960-ties reflecting critical attitude to the modern culture and its rejection as “the fathers’ culture”[3]. Such interpretation rejects existence of single phenomenon of counter-culture, since it refers to the counter-culture criminal groups, for example. Number of analysts, while developing this conception, identify the counter-culture, alternative culture and youth’s informal groups, attributing them such specific features as critical attitude and tendency for rejection and revision of traditional values, partial or full refusal from the existing official ideology, negative attitude to official culture, traditional art, orientation to their own ideals, values, way of life, etc. [4]
As opposed to the extensive interpretation there appears the onto-gnoseological concept of sub-cultures rejecting the counter-culture’s concept itself. In fact, if the counter-culture is something that actively opposes to the culture, that is, to something super-natural and created by people, then it is absurd, per se. That is why this concept considers as the most productive use of the sub-cultures’ concept, which makes it possible to sense the cultural differentiation of the modern society.[5]
This concept allows defining basic differences between the youth’s sub-culture and counter-culture as the culture types. In particular, the constructive activity typical for the youth’s sub-culture aimed to create its own world, struggle for survival, closed nature, escapism, avoidance of confrontations with an enemy, passive and defensive position, changes “for oneself” (self-esteem, self-expression, playing social roles) is opposed by destructive activity typical for the counter-culture aimed at victory over the enemy, fight for victory, openness of  confrontation and war, constant search for confrontation with an enemy, aggressive attacking position, changes for the whole society[6].
At the same time certain scientists conclude that the youth belonging to the counter-culture is traditionally distinguished by its defects of legal and moral consciousness, deformation of consumptive sphere of a person, negative specific features of their character and of their emotional and willed sphere. At the same time the synergistic effect is multiplied in case of combination of results of wrong individual development, defects in education and unfavorable situation, in which the person found itself. As a result the counter-culture appears to be a relatively closed system with rigidly fixed role prescriptions and loss of orientation in respect of reason for being. Totalitarian religious sects may serve as an illustration here[7].
The phenomenon of punk-culture as one of aspects of the counter-culture in the post-soviet space is relevant also. The punk is an extremely complicated cultural phenomenon, which main imperative initially was destruction of all stereotypes and limitations. It represents not just musical style – the punk-rock – but heterogeneous culture with its own systems of values, certain types of behavior, esthetic programs and inner contradictions.
The punk-culture represents one of manifestations of such “confrontation counter-cultures”. The counter-culture is not limited to political extremism and liberation of consciousness by means of drugs, sex, rock music and oriental mysticism, but it is a complex process, during which it is difficult to assert dynamic functioning of culture and evolution of mankind.
Rather quickly the counter-culture acquires broader interpretation and starts to be considered not only as a protest against regime, against establishment, against bourgeois culture, but as a protest against culture in general, against remote culture, against socially fixed ordinary people’s environment. According to this conception the culture represents a regulating and unific basis. It provides for existence of certain norms, mandatory for everybody, and, thus, it subordinates a person to high principles while ignoring individuality and unique character of a separate person.
The main object of the counter-culture’s struggle according to Roszak is the technocracy, moreover, the technocracy interpreted correctly – that is interpreted “metaphysically” and not socially. The technocracy shows itself in development of military-industrial complex, barbarian use of environment, social injustice, oppression of an individual and manipulation by the social conscience. There is no sense to fight against these phenomena, because their radix lies much deeper – in the rational and scientific consciousness of a new-European man, technical intellect, and in “scientific character”, in general.
Presently many countries in the world advance the initiative of cultures’ dialogue, which became one of priorities in the foreign policy of the ruling elite. The dialogue is aimed to rapprochement of cultures of various countries and nations, which has to prevent the predicted collision of civilizations. Unfortunately, the counter-culture has a status of third party in this dialogue. And it has to be counted.
The problem of the cultures’ dialogue in the context of understanding of “the other” is also made actual by acuteness of various interregional and international conflicts, since interaction of cultures and their dialogue is the most favorable basis for development of interethnic, international and inter-confessional relations, needed for settlement of contradictions and conflicts in the modern world. The concept of dialogue in this case acts and is used as a method “of civilized coexistence” of cultures, arts and different schools of humanitarian mutual understanding and cooperation of different nations, communities and cultures. But the counter-culture’s phenomenon still confronts “the dialogue”, and that is why the counter-culture may unwillingly become the reason of not only accelerated development of the processes of intercultural dialogue, but also of the mutual understanding and integration of the cultures on one wing. The reason is that the counter-culture confronts the culture and cultures in the whole, irrespective of their origin and localization.
Recent futurological studies show that if the events are developed according to the same scenario, then in the nearest future the counter-culture will manifest itself not only in the form of separate phenomena, but having an impact on peoples’ minds it will form a separate front, a camp, which it would be practically impossible to resist.
In this connection the philosophers, cultural specialists as well as representatives of other social sciences have to develop and offer to the world public new mechanisms of coexistence of the culture and counter-culture, since the prognoses in this respect are disappointing.


[1] Roszak Th. The Making of a Counter-Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and its Youthful Oppositions. N-Y.,1969. P.49.
[2] Ìàðêóçå Ã. Îäíîìåðíûé ÷åëîâåê. Ì., 1994.
[3] Ãóðåâè÷ Ï.Ñ. Êîíòðêóëüòóðà // Êóëüòóðîëîãèÿ. XXâåê. Ýíöèêëîïåäèÿ. Â 2-õ ò. ÑÏá., 1998. Ò.1. Ñ.322-323.
[4] Ñèêåâè÷ Ç. Ìîëîäåæíàÿ êóëüòóðà: «çà» è «ïðîòèâ».Ë., 1990; Àëåêñàíäðîâ Ð.Þ. Ñîöèàëüíî-ôèëîñîôñêèå àñïåêòû ðàçâèòèÿ ìîëîäåæíîé ñóáêóëüòóðû // Ãóìàíèòàðíûå è ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå íàóêè. 2008. ¹5.
[5] Ëûñàê È.Â., ×åðêàñîâà Þ.Þ. Ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû èññëåäîâàíèÿ òþðåìíîé ñóáêóëüòóðû // Ãóìàíèòàðíûå è ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå íàóêè. 2008. ¹5.
[6] The same. P. 152.
[7] The same. P.134-136.

[ the main topic page ] [ the main page ]