Talk:Anti-establishment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The controversial societal changes and government shifts of the 1960’s paved the way for the Anti-establishment era. Characterized by the free-loving hippie roaming the country spreading their ideals of freedom and pacifism, the anti-establishment movement of the 1960’s an outcry against the conservative diplomats that had sent the country into war with a far away country. Without the threat of being sent over to Vietnam, the anti-establishment movement may have never come into being. Unlike the activists and anti-war warriors that fought the establishment, the anti-establishment followers simply swore it off and moved on.

Contents 1 USA-centric 2 Anti-establishment vs. counterculture 3 Improving this article 4 Post 1960s

[edit] USA-centric

While the USA stuff is interesting, it's unforgiveable not to include stuff from other cultures. Juvenal in Ancient Rome and Hogarth in 18th C London are two that spring to my mind that could be called anti-establishment figures. I'm sure there are others in Chinese, Arabic, etc cultural traditions, too. I think if Jesus was anti-establishment, then Mohammed certainly must have been given how quickly he changed the whole Medina culture. I'm not a philosopher, so will leave the details to them. But I'd suggest also including media figures and philsophers that would come under the heading, to leaven the dough a little. Peter Cook and J-P Satre would perhaps be examples here. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. As a Brit who has lived in the US, one thing is obvious to me and that is "anti establishment" means different things in even those otherwise fairly similar cultures. In the UK, the establishment is (was) aristocratic, or at least firmly fixed into a position of power by attending private schools, moving in upper class society, service in the Guards, having knighthoods and other titles, and so on. The likes of Peter Cook were rebelling agains that smug, often incompetent chumminess. In the US, the rebellion is against the wealthy, to be sure, but there isn't the aristocratic thread. Neale Monks 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Valid points, but I was defining the the narrow 1960s pop term, not the larger concept. When was the term "The Establishment" first coined? Then "anti-Establishment"?

The anti-Establishment push actually began in the 1940s and simmmered through the 1950s. Many veterans of World War II, who had seen horrors and inhumanity, began to question every aspect of life, including the meaning of life itself. Urged to return to "normal lives", plagued by PTSD (but not allowed to discuss it) many vets found suburbia cloying and empty. A vague unease began to bubble up. It spawned diverse paths such the Hell's Angels (the name came from WWII fighting units), the Beats (who were "downbeat" on everything), a craving for angry "true" commentary such as Lenny Bruce's acid-tongued comedy, even a very popular song, Peggy Lee's laconic "Is That All There Is?" This unease was unfocused. It wasn't until the Baby Boomers came along in huge numbers that protest became organized, or disorganized in the case of the hippies. The Beats named these "little hipsters" hippies, after all. The post-WWII malaise needs inclusion, but I'm not familiar enough with the period.

Clayton Emery, September 21, 2006

Well, I'm no expert but "Establishment" as a concept referring to social instutions that define the state, like an established church, apparently go back to the 15th Century (just looked it up in the Encyclo. Britannica). I don't know when the modern usage came about, but I'm pretty sure that it must have been around before the 1960s, and must have existed in the UK for a long time, given the UK's class-ridden society. A lot of British humour is anti-establishment, and openly so. From the 1960s in Britain you have things like Private Eye and That Was The Week That Was which defined themselves as lampooning the smug political classes and undermining the hitherto deferential nature of British society. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with the objections to the article's American bias is that the phrase itself is very American-centric. Certain historical figures may have acted in the spirit of "anti-establishment," but they never referred to themselves that way. That precludes them from being truly anti-establishment. The phrase has a very specific context, and claiming that historical figures were part of it is like claiming that Byron is a forerunner of cyberpunk because he wrote about dark things. ♠PMC♠ 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase 'anti-establishment' is so entrenched and widely used in British culture, and likely other English-speaking cultures, that I find it hard to imagine that it appeared in America during the mid 60s. If you actually think about the word 'establishment', it has more resonance in the UK, with its hereditary peerage and established church, than in the more equal, meritocratic US. If you're an American, it might seem that anti-establishment is peculiar to your culture because the examples you're aware of are American. But equally, for a Briton, anti-establishment examples will be very British. They have to be: the only establishment that each of us is aware of (and perhaps oppressed by) is the one in our own society. Anyway, the etymology question could be fixed by refering to a proper dictionary, like the OED. I don't have that, so can't. But if someone else can, then please do so. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, not American. My above point was more about the historical figures than the question of American or British culture. You can't include historical figures in an article about a movement they didn't call themselves part of unless they were direct pre-cursors to the movement. Including others just to "round out" the article is silly, because as soon as you start doing that, you can start including anyone of cultural significance who ever acted against the norm. You could make a case for Jesus as anti-establishment, if you cared to.

The phrase "anti-establishment" in relation to the attitude of being "anti-establishment" came into the mainstream eye in the 1960s. Just because British people have a history of being sort of "against the established hierarchy" doesn't mean that they were necessarily the originators of "anti-establishment." D'you see what I'm getting at? Go back to the Jesus example, for instance. Jesus was certainly a man against his contemporary "establishment." That doesn't make him "anti-establishment" by any means. Ghandi definitely worked against his "establishment," but again, is not associated with the movement itself. The specific phrase has a specific connotation associated with 1960s student/hippie/protest culture, and the article can't just go spuriously including other cultures just to "round out" the article. Topics with an American bent are not going to be worldview-friendly; just as topics with a British or Malaysian or Brazilian or whatever national bent are not going to be worldview-friendly.

However, on that note, if you can cite me some specific (sourced) examples of the "anti-establishment" movement (specifically mentioning the phrase "anti-establishment" or one so similar that it must obviously have been a precursor) beginning in Britain before the Yanks even touched it, I will shut up and go away immediately. =] One last note - Dictionary.com gives the origin date as around 1955-60 - [1], though it fails to mention a country. ♠PMC♠ 08:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. I went to the public library, and looked up the word in the Oxford English Dictionary (the big one, where you need a magnifying glass to read the tiny print!). Anyway, the first use of the phrase "anti-establishment" in the modern sense is 1958, used in the British magazine New Statesman to refer to its political and social agenda. So while I agree with you, it's probably best not to talk much (at all) about anti-establishment figures from history who didn't define themselves as such, with a cut-off date of 1958 for the English-speaking world at least, we have some boundaries to work within. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. Please don't go away! Let's just re-write the article and make it better. Maybe we can start by shifting the USA-centric section into a "case study" as an interim solution, and then worry about defining the term more broadly in the introduction? Neale Monks 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the sub-head "The Pop Term "Anti-Establishment" in the United States" and noted the term has slightly different meanings in the UK and US. Perhaps some Brit can define the UK use. Clayton Emery, October 5, 2006.

Honestly, I think we should limit the article to the 20th century. If we don't, we'll just be getting overly detailed - like I said, it's the Jesus and Ghandi issue. How broad do we want to go, really? Definitely, we should outline the dissatisfaction that simmered in the Western World during the 40s and 50s, with mentions of beatniks, WWII veterans, and the like (as Clayton Emery suggested). Then we should move into the actual coining of the phrase and its journey into mainstream awareness, also outlining the differences between the concept as applied to 1960s British culture and American "culture". (Does adding quotation marks to an oxymoron make it valid? =P) We should also mention how weak the idea has become now, and how it's often applied willy-nilly to whatever new bit of "rebellious" pop culture comes around. (Sigh. How I loathe thee, Media.) Sound like good? I'm not an expert on the topic by any means, but hopefully that's a reasonably sensible article. ♠PMC♠ 07:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-establishment vs. counterculture

Take a look at the [Counterculture] article. There seems to be lot there that is covered here. Is there a difference between the two concepts? That article has a big section on 1960s America including hippies, vietman, etc. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe merge&redirect this article there? ♠PMC♠ 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps not. I think the concepts are different. Counterculture is going against standards in cultural norms, e.g. music, theatre, literature, and so on. Think punk versus mainstream commerical pop, for example. Anti-establishment is more political, going against the established pillars of society, particularly aristrocracy, established religion, politicians, and so on. So I'd recommend clarifying the differences, and then straightening out both articles so they are complementary but different. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just a thought =) ♠PMC♠ 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this article

I've tried to expand the introduction a bit, clarified the differences between counterculture, and added a section on the British use of the term and the people involved. I've also added references. If someone wants to put references into the US section, that would be a good thing. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post 1960s

The article seems to stop after the 1960. What about the 1970s (punk for instance), 1980s (rave and hip-hop perhaps), 1990s and present day? // Liftarn

I agree, but we do need to be careful not to cover counter-culture (which is probably what a lot of post 1970s punk is). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)