Early Retirement Extreme Forums

The counterculture is diverse but is characterized by a rejection of bourgeois values. Below is a summary of countercultural movements of the last two hundred years. Aside from Japan I am not aware of any widespread countercultural movements today or for that matter since 1970. Have we all become squares? Is ERE a countercultural movement or is it too bourgeois?

Bohemianism (nineteenth century possibly earlier to World War 1)
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschw ... style.html
The Lost Generation (1920s/30s)
Hipsters (1940s)
Beatniks (1950s)
Hippies (1960s)
Punk (1970s)
?? (1980s to Present Day)

Herbivores (Japan, present day) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men

Well, roughly, off the top of my head, I would add Punk, Grunge, Rise-of-the-Geeks/Nerds and Neo-Hipster to the list of counter-cultural movements of the last 50 years.

Some other recent countercultures: Hip Hop; Next-Gen Hippies (back-to-the-land, and New Age types); and Doomers and Preppers, who might actually be more traditional than the current bourgeoisie. Transhumanists/CyberLibertarians are probably a subset of Rise-of-the-Geeks.

ERE is definitely anti-consumerist, but whether it's counter-cultural would depend on how you define "bourgeois values". Lots of folks here seem to want to own their own means of production and be financially comfortable, so I see ERE as evolving the system rather than destroying it.

Not sure if we're all squares, or all so individual (partly thanks to the ability to find niche groups online) that there's no one official Culture any more.

7Wannabe5 wrote:Well, roughly, off the top of my head, I would add Punk, Grunge, Rise-of-the-Geeks/Nerds and Neo-Hipster to the list of counter-cultural movements of the last 50 years.

But I'm never sure what counter-cultural really signifies when it seems like these movements quickly become adapted by the mainstream. I would think more fundamentalist religious movements like living in discrete compounds are better examples of counter-culturalism?

walker wrote: ERE is definitely anti-consumerist, but whether it's counter-cultural would depend on how you define "bourgeois values". Lots of folks here seem to want to own their own means of production and be financially comfortable, so I see ERE as evolving the system rather than destroying it.

And it depends on societal consumption in generating passive income through mainstream investment (stock market). Also nothing is more bourgeois than landlording, another vehicle that many exploit for ERE.

It would seem that "counter-culture" is in the eye of the beholder. I think one of the issues may be that the main culture is more multi-cultural than it used to be (befitting of the proper empire we have become -- empires tend to absorb cultures.)

But I think the two principal characteristics of the dominant culture are careerism and consumerism (i.e., you are not supposed to be sufficiently happy or satisfied except via a properly labelled career and accumulating stuff and/or expensive tourist experiences, and there is probably something wrong with you if you don't pursue those goals). So to the extent something in anti-careerist and anti-consumerist, you might deem it counter-cultural, at least in part.

Minimalism and frugality would seem to fall into that category generally. But the variations are endless.

There is also an unstated assumption that to be truly "counter-cultural" something must be relatively well-known, publicly critical of the mainstream and probably reported on by mainstream media as such. I'm not sure that distinction makes a difference to yours truly, but it probably does to the public at large.

It's helpful to distinguish counterculture from subculture. A subculture is something that's part of mainstream culture (e.g. nerds, goths, emos, ... ) whereas a counterculture is something that opposes mainstream culture and is opposed by mainstream culture (e.g. hippies, criminals). ERE is more of a subculture in that regard. It's at variance with how mainstream culture usually does things but the difference is on consumerism and careerism and not on co-optable issues like how to dress or which gadgets to purchase. In particular, ERE is intentionally designed to share eclectic aspects of established subcultures of mainstream culture. This allows us to invest, to manage taxes, to only buy what we need, to participate in the free/gift economy, etc. ERE is not a culture but if it becomes one it will be an emergent movement. This is part of the design.

I think I'd count Occupy and Anonymous, and maybe the Tea Party in the beginning.

The problem these days is that marketing gurus immediately co-opt any 'movement' and use it to sell to the masses. Even preppers who [used to] pride themselves on OPSEC sell their lifestyle on blogs and TV shows.

I asked my DD about this yesterday. She thought my suggestions were too political, and thought I was being a little 'thick' for struggling to come up with examples. She said Punk first (70's), the Breakfast Club/Fight Club-ish group in the 80's, then I forget what she called the Tony Hawk/Xgames culture in the 90's, and the 'beard and beanie, peak-everything' culture of the 00's. Currently, she said SJW's would consider themselves a counter-culture, but she thinks they are just PC police on steroids. She said there is a large group like her that eschews technology related to pop culture like cars and social media (she hates my fitbit), but they don't have a name and the media doesn't talk about them because "if you don't exist in social media, you don't exist." She also said they are afraid to blog and post their ideas on the internet because "the internet sucks it up and takes it from you."

A lot of the older counter-cultures have music attached to them. The new ones don't seem too. I'm not 100% if that means anything, but it's interesting.

Dragline wrote:I think one of the issues may be that the main culture is more multi-cultural than it used to be (befitting of the proper empire we have become -- empires tend to absorb cultures.)

Definitely more multi-cultural than it used to be, which is stressing the system. This is one of the reasons we are seeing large obvious political mistakes being made by Indiana and Arkansas governments. Groups that held sway historically are seeing their power erode rather quickly, though not unexpectedly, and they are making the mistake almost all groups do in this instance. They pushback instead of adapting.

@jennypenny
Fight Club would be the late 90's.

Chad wrote:@jennypenny Fight Club would be the late 90's.

She meant breakfast clubbers who grew up and joined fight club. ("You guys are a really unhappy group." LOL)

That was what she said to you? Ha!

Added Punk (1970s) to the list.

Counterculture is cultural and not political, so political movements are generally not applicable. Counterculture is opposed to the mainstream culture. A political movement generally seeks to change the leadership, but retains mainstream culture. With the exception of the Hippies all the historic countercultural movements were apolitical; the Hippies themselves were generally politicized for social causes, but did not seek major changes in the political system.

As has been noted by others I consider ERE to be a subculture, but not a counterculture.

John Q Public, ERE, and a Bohemian walk into a bar:
John Q Public: I like art. I will pursue it in my spare time. After retirement in 30-40 years I will be able to dedicate myself to my art.
ERE: I will work for 5-10 years, then art all day it will be.
Bohemian: Job? Work? Art! Art is now.

All the mentioned recent countercultural movements (except for the Japanese Herbivores) seem to be much marginalized. I remember the 80s/90s and compared with the 70s, conservatism seems to have significantly increased with a much stronger orientation to careerism and consumerism. It seems much stronger now, then the 70s – and the 70s were called the “Me Decade” as compared to the 60s.

I’ve heard of the neo-Hipsters, but haven’t met any. They just seem to have a different fashion sense and that is all – not much of a backlash to mainstream culture.

General Snoopy said: John Q Public: I like art. I will pursue it in my spare time. After retirement in 30-40 years I will be able to dedicate myself to my art.
ERE: I will work for 5-10 years, then art all day it will be.
Bohemian: Job? Work? Art! Art is now.

...and the Punk would say "Body to Body. Job to Job."

I’ve heard of the neo-Hipsters, but haven’t met any. They just seem to have a different fashion sense and that is all – not much of a backlash to mainstream culture.

Well, it has been my experience that one cultural identifier of male members of the neo-hipster scene is that they were the first to recognize the ways in which the feminist movement might be milked to their advantage. IOW, if it was 1989 and you spotted a young man entering a cafe with a man bag slung across his hip, very good interesting shoes on his feet and his hair artfully tousled over his forehead, then it would be highly likely that you might find him married to and supported by a smart (but stupid) girl with thick glasses in future years. Clear cultural descent from the 18th century "Dandy" movement.

Hiya-

following on Jacob's comment about definition of counter-culture vs. sub-culture , maybe it would be useful to explain why your suggested counter-culture is counter-cultural.

Name of counter-culture.
What aspect of mainstream culture are they challenging?


Here's my contribution:

The Intentional Community movement

Participants often reject consumer culture, capitalism as a whole, some delve deeply into environmental or social justice causes or re-imagine Christianity, any of which challenge corporate or traditional social values. These folks are actually trying to live on $7k per year or less and are a real threat to corporate america in their core value systems ...

That's really interesting anomie. I wonder how far it will go.

I would add that the Zeitgeist Movement is counter culture..It's been around for about 5ish years..it seems to have trouble getting its footing. Seemed like it was bigger a few years ago than it is now but it still goes on. It still provides content, Art Festivals, Zeitgeist days and Q & A podcasts from its founder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rIG2jPZyEM Some really interesting sociological and psychological talking points from Z-Day..also goes into the philosophical implications of status and one's social value..start at 34:34, where it reminds me directly of ERE..

Just saw an interesting blog post that made me think of this thread: Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution. I like his perspective on understanding the ideal ratio of dabblers to creators in a subculture, and his suggestions on how to optimize a subculture in the face of an invasion by sociopaths (in the Gervais Principle sense).

"Normality" has become far more widereaching in recent history. Living off the land? Oh, that's cool, you're like Bear Grylls in a way! You're a geek? Oh, that's cool, I love The Big Bang Theory! Don't use a smartphone? Oh that's cool, I love to "unplug" for a few hours on the weekend! Seriously. Most lifestyle choices you can think of are now framed as being normal or "cool" or "edgy".

If more things are normal, then more things are mainstream, and therefore less lifestyles are going to be considered "counterculture".

I wouldn't call that a bad thing. I think it's great -- much less hassle. The people who think this is bad are usually trying to gain higher status from rebellion. Unfortunately for them, capitalism absorbs rebellion into normality. Fortunately for the rest of us, it means you can live how you choose without being ostracized as much.