By Nicholas Fuller.
[Bio: Caught between his culture and the system, Nicholas is an idealist, writer and a philosopher at heart.]
In spite of the pessimism that the title evokes, I must admit that writing it took many sighs and is expressed with a very heavy heart.
As a supporter of consciousness movements, and new versions of spirituality alike, this is not something I am happy to state as I saw these movements really coming into their own in the last ten years. Nonetheless, like a coroner at the scene of a tragic family accident, I must pronounce this promising flame of possibilities deceased.
The worst part about it is that anybody may have seen it coming, but nobody did, myself included. As it stands now, the new iterations of the spiritual movement have only two paths remaining in their future: either disappeari into obscurity or, at best, get a brief fifteen minutes of fame on a television talk show. Either way, it’s a flash in the pan, and it was over before it could begin in earnest.
Why?
Why is it doomed, you ask? The proof is in the title of this article, and the very definition of the movement – counter-culture. With this simple phrasing, the spiritual movement has misstepped in its reborn infancy, and is now irrevocably damaged. When a movement begins to self-identify as separate, it has lost. Countless movements of the past have made this same mistake and they share the same fate that is destined for the ill-fated spirituality movements of the new millennium.
In the 1960′s, the Black Panther Party actually had a great many innovative and fantastic ideas as a political movement, ones that the Occupy Wall Street movement share – freedom from unlawful incarceration by corporations and governments, the right to a good education, the right to have viable healthcare. The problem for the Black Panther Party was that it wanted these things solely for minorities and this sealed its fate in the minds of the population and government at large, and in 1969 J. Edgar Hoover said “The Black Panther Party, without question, represents the greatest threat to internal security of the country”. Soon after, they were infiltrated by the FBI and brought down quickly, being labeled as domestic terrorists.
During this same time, Dr. Martin Luther King made real headway with his campaign in the Civil Rights movement. His message was not that African American people were separate or different, but that they were the same as everyone else. Dr. King urged his followers to dress in their Sunday Best, and to speak articulately and to always protest nonviolently. Any act to the contrary posed a very real threat to the credibility of the movement as it would show them as ruthless, savage, and immature and these acts would be capitalized on by their detractors using tactics of fear mongering that catered to preexisting biases and xenophobia. In short, Dr. King wanted everyone in his crowds of protestors to look as one, act as one, and speak as one, and not just amongst themselves, but to the outside world. Those in the crowd, in the streets, were no different from the people who were watching them on television, and every aspect of his speeches centered around equality and unity for all.
The deathknell for the spiritual counter-culture rang as soon as it identified itself as a counter-culture. As soon as it, or any other movement does this, the antibodies come out, the immune system activates against the infection and immediately isolates it, scheduling it for destruction. Every successful movement has only been successful because it fought tooth and nail to not be seen or considered outsiders or counter to the status quo, but rather an existing part of it.
The United States of America was not called “The Counter-Britain States of America”, rather, it pushed a unity for everyone in its every act and action. They fought for freedom of speech, taxation, religion, and representation as all other states under Britain received. Like Dr. King hundreds of years later, they preached freedom and equality for all, as part of the all.
I have focused on political movements here as evidence and you may be wondering why. The reason being that a spiritual movement is not one solely originating from existential crises, but rather it is governed by economic, political, social, and psychological factors, just as much as political movements. Anyone who has seen the Arab Spring movement would have a hard time not seeing the spirituality pulsing under its political surface.
To change gears, let’s look at something that people might feel is more similar to the dedication and devotion, and overall healthy outcome spiritual practice can achieve: exercise. In America, we see advertisements for all kinds of diet and exercise programs from P90X to the Atkins diet. Unfortunately, none of these will ever be anything more than a fad (and a potentially expensive one at that). That’s not to say dieting and exercising itself are unsustainable, but rather that the small percent who can and already do participate in these things don’t need these products and commercials, so they are not aimed at them. They are aimed at a wide audience, the statistically very overweight American population at large. But they have failed to have any effect on the statistics because they, like these spiritual movements, are not sustainable.
They are not sustainable because they fail to take into consideration all the very real and ever present factors contributing to the lack of healthy living of the American population such as beef and corn subsidies, the cutting of school exercise programs, the subsidizing of school lunches, and the effects of stress on the human body due to the recession and high unemployment rates, just to name a few of the many factors. All of these things must be addressed before America can “have the beach body it always wanted”, and just the same, there are many factors that must be addressed before any spiritual movement can get the majority of the population to have the spiritual understanding they always wanted.
Book signings, sesshins, drug trips, burning man, none of these are sustainable events, they all end. It is a vacation from the day to day realities of every day life. Just like when I vote every two years, I feel a part of something bigger than myself, and I feel great and patriotic, but then when the ballot’s filled in, the trip wears off, the euphoria runs dry, everything goes back to business as usual. My alarm clock sounds early in the morning, I have to drive a car that is terrible on fuel efficiency, my girlfriend’s kid is in an educational system that focuses on memorization rather than real learning, I am just now beginning to take on thousands of dollars in college debt because it took me six years to find out there are no more rungs above me on the corporate ladder, and I have to constantly worry about losing my job and with it my ability to care for myself if something bad happens to my health. No amount of DMT, books on Buddhism, and weekend retreats of spiritual practices can even begin to address any of the issues above and frankly, between my 40+ hour work week and full time college work load, I barely have time for the sleep my body desperately needs, let alone the nourishment I’m told my soul needs.
For these reasons and more, the 99% movement, too, is unfortunately doomed, for the same reasons that the counter-culture spiritual movement is. In spite of the intention to the contrary, the very name itself created an “us versus them” polarizing image in the minds of Americans. Anyone who may have actually been a part of the 99% movement by statistics and ideological factors, but who did not agree with parts and portions of the movement’s message, immediately felt they were being labeled as a part of the 1% the movement was fighting against. This can be seen clearly in many internet forums just after the movement arose, when people working 80 hour weeks between 3 jobs, barely making ends meet, but proudly proclaiming they were just fine with the state of things and were not to be considered a part of the “so-called 99%”, as they put it.
On the issue of titles and names being an integral part of a movement’s success, I am going tobriefly focus on the Evolver movement. When I first heard this with no context, the same way anyone hearing about it for the first time, my mind’s eye immediately went to George W. Bush stating that he’s “The Decider”. For the laymen, the masses, the very people with whom the spiritual movement says it is one, and those whom they most need to get their message across to, this can be a little jarring. It sounded presumptuous, and as I thought about it further, it became clear that it was nonsensical. They took something, evolution, which is defined as the observation of change over time, and turned it into a verb. It was absurd, like someone calling themselves a Breather. It is something passive that will continue on regardless of your focus on it. Now, of course you may be able to slow down or increase one’s breathing like Free Divers do, but at the end of the day, breathing, like evolution, is a passive act. It is not one you participate in by the very definition of the word.
I have always been a very spiritual person and I have a bookshelf full of works from Shinzen Young, Ken Wilber, The Dalai Llama, and William Irwin Thompson and many many others. In spite of all of this, and all the issues of sustainability and the importance of how a movement defines itself, I feel like at the end of the day, the current spiritual movement as a whole is most like a group of Lucid Dreamers. They say “Hey, I can sometimes control my dreams, and some can even do it almost every night! Everyone should practice and enjoy this!” This is a very cool message, but on top of taking a lot of time to dedicate solely to it, it’s not sustainable. Just like the acid trip, the voting booth, the vacation, after just a few hours, it ends and reality sets back in, no matter how great the experience before it.
In the very act of the counter-culture identifying itself as such, it has shot itself in the foot and violated the very message of unity and oneness it set out to change the world with. This means that the cultural antibodies have activated and swarmed and it is already being fought hard against by its very nature. If they had fought for the unity they set out for, they would have accomplished their goal. Instead they did the exact opposite, which, in the minds of the masses, violated the fundamental rule of Inception – you have to make the dreamer think the idea is theirs.
Thank you for pointing out an essential truth. I wonder if the cultural immune system is “healthy” enough to conquer the 99% meme.
Fascinating. What now? (And I’m serious … how do we identify the work we need to do moving forward? Is there anything we can do?)
I’m finding a lot of this occluded and am uncertain where Nicholas is intentionally being loose in his language, so because I’m lazy I will just take it at face value. To get a better perspective on what Nicholas meant by “spiritual counter-culture,” I found his profile on a couple of websites, which fleshed out his references to Evolver, Wilber, et al. Any mistakes or poor generalizations I make are completely my own doing, and I don’t intend to cause any offense thereby.
I can confidently say that spiritual counter-culture is not doomed and would cite the historical survey by R.U. Sirius, Counterculture through the Ages. Even more telling is the number of popular movements within Western culture alone which he did not have space for, from the Orphics to Theosophy and it’s decidedly influential descendent Anthroposophy.
One may argue that the movement being addressed is “in its reborn infancy,” a novel instantiation which appears stillborn. I think that this is a gross mischaracterization, ignoring the direct continuity with a New Age flowering in the late 60′s and 70′s here in the United States. A wonderful resource into these roots is Gary Lachman’s Turn Off Your Mind: The Mystic Sixties and the Dark Side of the Age of Aquarius.
Whether we choose to delineate it as a very derivative but new phenomena or not is, I think, a much less interesting question that whether it is in fact countercultural at it’s roots. What activities does Nicholas associate with this movement?
“Book signings, sesshins, drug trips, burning man…”
All gloriously commercial activities give or take sesshins, which I prefer to give considering Genpo Roshi’s $6000 retreats, in post-scandal dollars (I thought he dropped the Roshi!). Drug trips you might question (ignoring the huge drug trade, especially at “no-commerce” Burning Man), unless you’ve informed yourself about the impact of Ayahuasca tourism or Reality Sandwich friend Martin W. Ball offering $200 guided salvia “therapy sessions.” Speaking of Burning Man…
Now, are we talking counterculture or commodified lifestyle design with a much higher than usual risk of traumatic predatory behavior?
While the narrative Nichols presents might seem enticing, I find it frankly disturbing how factually incorrect so much of it is. The Black Panther Party very nearly post-dating MLK Jr. completely, and that from a very early point, “the Panthers condemned black nationalism as “black racism” and became more focused on socialism without racial exclusivity.” Race riots regularly burned US cities for nearly a decade after Dr. King passed. Further belaying the point is the insinuation that great gains have been made since adopting the universal perspective attributed to Dr. King. In actuality:
Any apparent gains made in the last thirty years in narrowing the employment and education gap between African Americans and whites vanishes once you include the incarcerated population.(Source)
Ignorance of the vital role of militant confrontation for every substantial social change I’m aware of, abolition, unions, feminism, gay rights is systematically inculcated.
Running throughout the essay is a use of “spiritual” as an empty signifier. It’s an endemic confusion which the commercial New Age morass takes ample advantage of and promotes.
As to no one seeing this coming, additional resources would be:
Douglas Rushkoff’s discussion with Daniel Pinchbeck back in 2006
Mark Pesce’s essay on McBurners from 2003
Duff McDuffee and Eric Schiller’s excellent blog Beyond Growth
Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States
First off, thank you for reading the article, and thank you even more for commenting on it. I can see that you are well researched and passionate about this topic, to I am going to attempt to explain myself as best as I can.
The generalizations were intentional, because I was not going to try and attempt to make a giant and specified breakdown of what I was referring to, because, at least for the purpose of this piece, the devil is in the details.
“Now, are we talking counterculture or commodified lifestyle design with a much higher than usual risk of traumatic predatory behavior?”
As I stated in the article, I was referring to anything that refers to itself as a counter culture. I tried to make a compelling argument that any movement doing so, automatically was shooting themselves in the foot.
“While the narrative Nichols presents might seem enticing, I find it frankly disturbing how factually incorrect so much of it is. The Black Panther Party very nearly post-dating MLK Jr. completely,”
While I agree that they post date King, I don’t see how that changes what I was saying: that they both fought for freedom for African American people, in very different ways
as for “and that from a very early point, “the Panthers condemned black nationalism as “black racism” and became more focused on socialism without racial exclusivity.”
this is absolutely incorrect, as their entire foundation, known as the 10-point Plan, was exclusive to Black rights, and even specifically cited as against white oppression. See the following link
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/Panther_platform.html
“Any apparent gains made in the last thirty years in narrowing the employment and education gap between African Americans and whites vanishes once you include the incarcerated population”
While I checked your source, this seems to be rather frustrating, and degrading to the point of seemingly intentionall inflammatory. The Rev. Augustus Corbette of the National Black Parents Association seems to see the movement as successful.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c347mjn
Also, this 20 page Hofstra University report shows many important measured factors that would demonstrate its success (income rates of African Americans pre and post Civil Rights Movement) http://preview.tinyurl.com/bn6cudr
“Ignorance of the vital role of militant confrontation for every substantial social change I’m aware of, abolition, unions, feminism, gay rights is systematically inculcated.”
I am not ignorant of said vital role, but since my article was not an opinion on the importance of violence for the progression of movements, I did not include said information nor would I try to tackle it.
“Running throughout the essay is a use of “spiritual” as an empty signifier. It’s an endemic confusion which the commercial New Age morass takes ample advantage of and promotes.”
As I said in the beginning of the post here, as well as in the article, the use of the word “spiritual” is in reference any group labeling themselves as a “spiritual counter-culture”.
I apologize if my generalisation has proved to be off putting to your clearly well researched and knowledgable sensibilities. I was making a generalisation for a point, but I suppose that for you it was “ignorant” sounding, and probably pedantic. I was trying to describe a link I saw between forests, but you have cited trees that did not fit into my article’s thesis.
Thank you for your time and dedication to making this response and thank you for reading and commenting on my article as well. I am no mystical scholar, nor someone who has dedicated a life to mysticism and the understandings of movements. I am an average guy, making a statement about an issue I saw popping up more and more as of late.
Also, in your response, you said you looked me up on other sites to see what I was talking about? I’m a little confused as to what you were referring to.
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the response!
As I stated in the article, I was referring to anything that refers to itself as a counter culture. I tried to make a compelling argument that any movement doing so, automatically was shooting themselves in the foot.
You do make this argument, but the reason you make it (unless I’m completely miscomprehending what you wrote) was to answer the question, “Why is it doomed.” To really address all of the points you were making, I felt it was necessary to break the break it down to three questions: 1) Can real counterculture actually ever be doomed (to which I answered no), 2) Was the particular movement the article addressed itself to actually countercultural (again, I answered no) and 3) Does a militant rhetoric harm progressive movements (no, and I believe it’s essential for them).
While I agree that they post date King, I don’t see how that changes what I was saying: that they both fought for freedom for African American people, in very different ways
The only way that this would support your larger point was if Dr. King’s method was successful where the Black Panther Party’s had failed.
this is absolutely incorrect, as their entire foundation, known as the 10-point Plan, was exclusive to Black rights, and even specifically cited as against white oppression.
I was aware of the 10-point plan, which was released in ’66, the same year that they were founded. In less than four years (I don’t have an exact date), their official policy had changed and they integrated their efforts into the larger resistance movement. By late ’69 they were working closely with the Weather Underground in preparation for Dr. Timothy Leary’s prison escape of January 1970. Three years (at most) out of seventeen certainly supports my statement, “from a very early point…”
While I checked your source, this seems to be rather frustrating, and degrading to the point of seemingly intentionall inflammatory. The Rev. Augustus Corbette of the National Black Parents Association seems to see the movement as successful.
I looked at both of your sources and none of them give citations, so I cannot know for sure, but since they present the same picture as the studies my source explained were invalid, I can only assume that they are the same. The link on your second source might have been wrong, since it points to a study guide and not a report.
I am not ignorant of said vital role, but since my article was not an opinion on the importance of violence for the progression of movements, I did not include said information nor would I try to tackle it.
You seem to confuse the term “militant” with violence, which I thought would have been obvious since there has never been a significant group of violent resistance within the gay rights movement. I haven’t found any reference to any violent groups among radical feminists either.
the use of the word “spiritual” is in reference any group labeling themselves as a “spiritual counter-culture”.
I feel like I’m getting a little pedantic, but I really do not think that it is. Do you mean the Dominionist movement? They very much consider themselves a spiritual counterculture, and have been extremely successful in advancing their cause.
I feel that the central question of my comment has been completely missed. Is there actually anything countercultural about the groups you’re speaking to? My feeling is that there is not, and that is why there is such a strong pattern of cyclical disillusion in American alternative spirituality.
Also, in your response, you said you looked me up on other sites to see what I was talking about? I’m a little confused as to what you were referring to.
The user profiles on Evolver.net and EsotericOnline.net
Nick, this was great! I know we don’t often get critical appraisals of spiritual communities on here, which is half the reason why I wanted this online as soon as possible. For the most part, I agree with what you’re basically saying about spiritual countercultures shooting themselves in the foot by not trying to universalize their problem. It’s a big problem. Where’s the sacred in Western, mechanized and bureaucratic society? We are so disconnected, fragmented, niched, etc. from each other and the world, it’s no surprise there is a terrifying global ecological and economic crisis looming ahead of us. That being said, I’d like to hear some more constructive criticism on your end. Too often, the critics only say: “nope, this won’t work” without really having an alternative, practical vision. More thoughts on this later though, in a response article.
Second thing, I wanted to say the “evolver” community is *trying* to remedy this situation. Instead of being entirely niche and “against” the mainstream, Pinchbeck’s community (I can’t say they are really HIS people, but he is a community leader/founder) is trying to focus more on social engagement. Creating the change through practical innovations, alternative economic systems, and sustainable communities. See his terrific documentary, 2012: Time for Change, where he confronts a lot of the biases and problematic characteristics of New Consciousness/Burning Man subculture.
For the time being, let me just second what brain wise just said: what now? How can we move forward?
I’ll post my own thoughts on this question in the next few days.
One more thing. Here’s Postmodern Times, the video outlet for Pinchbeck’s alternative media project. This is an extended version of something from the film:
The big theme is “what needs to be done.”
“The only way we can possibly take care of everybody is a design revolution, doing more with less.” – Buckminster Fuller
Anyhow, check it out Nick, or anyone else if interested!
i think this was a great piece! I agree with Nick that most of these movements managed to alienate the “average Joe”. watching the 201 movie, I had even more of this feeling. Ya, the concepts and ideals are great that are mentioned but they aren’t the solution, at least not yet. The first thing anyone has to do is get the average person to care On THEIR OWN. once it becomes a “movement” it becomes something only a few will participate in. all the eco-friendly folks and their projects have something I don’t – funds to live alternatively. Ya I could compost or grow food in my yard but I will still use just as much electricity, have to drive my car (Theres NO public transport here and bikes aren’t feasible) and buy most everything else in the traditional way.
Until these groups can find a way to not sound like a bunch of pretentious jerks to the working, average, non-acedemic, these movements will never get anywhere. most people see there mission statement of these groups and can’t see how that will help them have a place to live, a way to stay financially afloat and feed the kids.
Hey Kristie! Good to have you on here. I think your point on 2012 was an interesting take, because I had the exact opposite feeling coming away from it: it’s one of the most tangible, down-to-earth documentaries on the subject of 2012, the likes of which is often kept ethereal and “up in the clouds.” Often many people have a very literal take on it. Like it will happen all by itself and everyone’s consciousness will simply be transformed. Instant enlightenment. I really don’t like that attitude and find it dangerous, because it prevents people from actually getting involved in changing society tangibly, like inventing new sources of energy and making more eco-friendly lifestyles approachable to, well, everyday working people.
I understand your concerns, because the spiritual-ecofriendly-communal folk probably come across as eccentric, doing chakra activation and dumping their un-eaten food into compost heaps–it probably seems like a strange, fringe sub-culture that’s disconnected from the system. Not “in touch” with the reality of everyday lives. This I do really sympathize with. Thinking about it, I’m reminded of this dissonance every time I interact with store-clerks and they ask me if I’m going to school. Can I just outright say, “oh yeah, consciousness studies.” Whenever I do there is a long pause and an uncomfortable struggle on account of the questioner, “huh, that’s weird. Well. interesting.” End of conversation. So what do I usually say? “Psychology.” Heh.
But aside from that, I think we have to take into account it IS a subculture, and like many subcultures, they won’t be easily approachable. Yes, they have chakra activation and meditation, they try to be eco friendly and vegan and read spiritual books like The Celestine Prophecy or “Electric Jesus” (more recently) and come across, not only bizarre, but alien to mainstream culture who are an entirely different world. I haven’t found an “answer” to this dilemma, but being someone who’s not really OF that kind of subculture, nor am I “OF” blue collar work force but well aware of it, I am in an interesting in-between space that’s able to go back and forth between worlds, and witness (and partake in) mutual miscommunication.
So what’s the antidote to all of this? Can the spiritual counter culture read books outside their comfort zones? Must they? I don’t think the answer is easy. They may have found a niche sub-culture and do believe they are trying to change the world, and you know what? In some ways they are. But the larger issues, like sustainability, and the macro-issues, like inventing sustainable and easy technologies that everyday people can afford and adapt, is something we are collectively working on as a species. Seeing universals here is important, even if we are going to come from the “Weird” and “whacky” side of culture, or the more mainstream. We are going to have to find ways to survive and some of the quintessential problems with the system are being deconstructed. Some of them are attempting to be resolved by birthing NEW systems, which spiritual counter-culture is a part of in the big picture, but they aren’t the only ones. The transformation belongs to all of us. I think we each need to see that no matter where we are coming from, and try to start from there.
Hey shamansun! :) Thanks for replying.
I totally agree that 2012 was more down to earth than other takes on 2012 and shifting of consciousness. And as I said, i really do believe there is good in the message (as you said: getting involved in changing society tangibly, like inventing new sources of energy and making more eco-friendly lifestyles approachable to, well, everyday working people).
You said in your reply “I think we have to take into account it IS a subculture, and like many subcultures, they won’t be easily approachable”. It is that belief that is what I believe Nick is talking about in his piece about these movements “shooting themselves in the foot”. The fact that a movement, which has a wonderful message, can believe that as a subculture, or counterculture, or whatever you want to call them, thinks that intrinsically they will be *not* easily approachable that *makes* them not easy to approach for the everyday man or woman.
For example, think about the smart phone revolution. Smart phones are simply everywhere these days. It helps that they are really fun little toys to have, but what really drove their popularity? This sense that we need to be interconnected to everyone, and everything, at all times. This is, in a sense, a “movement” of inter-connectivity. But not one that anyone had to be convinced of. Sure, there were, and still are, some stragglers to the movement, but for the most part, once people saw the benefits of being constantly connected, they jumped right on the bandwagon. No one had to convince them. The movement was not in the slightest way “unapproachable” (maybe a little cost-prohibitive at first, but that has been solved for the most part). No one had to make a documentary for why we should want to have smart phones. The want for it grew organically.
Maybe that is a bad example. What about equality. Sure, when the civil rights movement was first getting off its feet it was a movement that had a lot of opposition. But it also had a huge amount of support. The people who originally supported it didn’t have to be coerced or convinced into supporting it, they just did. The message was something they deeply believed in, innately. The thing the movement needed was exposure to MORE people. As it got that, the popularity of the movement increased. There weren’t hippies doing documentaries showcasing awesome ways of living equally (it’s like, cool, man…). No, there was a fundamental right-ness (yes, that is now a word) that people felt and were attracted to.
The difference between the civil rights movement and this new-age subculture is that there isn’t an underlying sense of action. As I said in my previous reply, the first thing that is needed is for people to have the sense that they should care. What should they care about? Well, each other would be a good place to start. The fact that the poor are getting poorer, that there isn’t a social net for people these days, that the old saying “it takes a village” simply is completely irrelevant in today’s society and the implications of that.
I think you can talk about consciousness all day, til you’re blue in the face, and while I personally love to hear it (read it), it is really just a bunch of pretty words. It’s like reading poetry to the masses. It might be fun to listen to, but at the end of the day, it’s just pretty words. A “movement” implies…well, movement, action, doing. And although in 2012, there are specific actions that are implied that we can all take, as I said in my previous reply, those things are not really feasible for the everyday person.
Take composting…in my neck of the woods – unless I have something to do with my compost pile (and I don’t) – there isn’t an inherent drive for me to do so, even though I like the idea behind the concept. There are ways to make it more attractive though, if the idea can catch on at a higher level than just me. Take Europe for example. In certain parts of different countries, waste is sorted and separated into regular waste, recyclable waste and compost. (see http://tinyurl.com/7v4bhyj for more info). It was found if the trash folks came often enough, provided the container and the necessary liners for the compost container, people were more likely to actually, actively participate. Which is awesome. It also works because lots of people are doing it. Unlike where I live, where I would be the only one on my block probably.
All in all, I agree – the much needed transformation DOES belong to all of us. There just aren’t enough people on the bandwagon, and I see Nick’s point that the current modality of these subcultures isn’t going to get people to jump on. Do I have the solution? Nope. So, I suppose that doesn’t make me part of the solution as of yet. But who knows? :)
Pingback: Is the spiritual counterculture doomed? « The Teeming Brain
What does spiritual “success” look like? A tidal wave sweeping through society cleansing it of evil? A paradigm shift that transform every Joe Sixpack into a Buddha?
Christianity began as a counter-culture; a religion for slaves and foreigners in the pagan Roman Empire. It took a few years (hundreds, actually) for the movement to rise to the upper classes and to the Emperor.
How long have hippies existed by comparison, 60 years?
Look, too, at some of what Christianity is responsible for once Europe was firmly in its grasp for a thousand years…and ask yourself again “What does spiritual success look like?”
@alchemism: I appreciate your point that Christianity began as a counter-culture. Never under-estimate the “underbelly” of a society. I think history shows, to use the Christian language, what was first becomes last, and last becomes first.
The huge turn in Western society towards an interest in altered states of consciousness and curiosity towards indigenous and Eastern societies, for me, represents a turning point in cultural evolution. We’re seeing a new symbiotic world culture emerging: where East meets West, meets indigenous societies, meets who-knows-what in our digital age of remixed cultures and a new sense of time and space through connectivity of the internet (which is, itself, I think, a technologized expression of the noosphere or astral body).
What does spiritual success look like? Well, as long as you don’t hang onto any one manifestation, I think, but see how all of this is connected to a general “movement” in consciousness, then it seems like it is part of a larger movement of Western societies to develop some kind of symbiosis with the planetary ecology. Not just biological, but social ecologies. The world’s cultures, in conjunction with the biosphere, have to learn to get along somehow.
Hey Nicholas,
I have to say I find it strange you criticize my article without ever actually linking to it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-talat-phillips/rise-of-the-new-spiritual-counterculture_b_1412258.html
Perhaps it’s because you ignore the arguments and just criticize the name, which I admit should definitely be questioned, as it’s a title I came up with for one particular article catered to the Huffington Post audience. I understand you’re busy with a 40+ hour work week and college on top of that, but these arguments are, too some effect, lazy. One Google search would have shown you that nobody else is really using this title. I made it up to grab attention to a movement that is largely undefinable and has many, many diverse components, which I describe:
“I’ve come to realize this isn’t simply the Whole Foods sustainability crew, Yoga Journal aficionados or New Age healers. There’s a weird and intricate alchemy of deeper ecological and spiritual activism, where new design systems meet vipassana firmness of mind, plant medicine wisdom engages with Occupy ideologies, permaculture principles with a global festival culture, and a rising planetary awareness with radically practical solutions to address global challenges tidal-waving toward us.”
You critic the name as being separatist, and there is some truth to that saying something is “counterculture”, but I think one major sociological phenomenon you are ignoring is that quite often, it’s these “countercultures” that find their way to penetrate and actually become the mainstream — just think of the Beats (which lead into the sixties), rap music, even the current environmental and sustainability movement. Fact is, new ideas don’t often come from the mainstream but from small groups of passionate people who gather and grow, and then at some point, things hit a critical mass and we have deeper, more wide-spread change. That’s my reasoning for quoting cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Unfortunately, in your article, you overlooked mentioning the growth patterns I discuss: Burning Man has grown from 40 people on Baker’s Beach to 50,000 people at the festival in 100 regional groups in North America alone, festival culture is skyrocketing with DJs having bigger audiences than stadium-filled fans at U2 concerts, permaculture, spiritual activism, and eco-conscious movements (ie: Transition Towns, Shift Network, 360.org, MedMob) are spreading like wildfire, and with the work I’m helping coordinate, I’ve seen the Evolver Movement grow from 4 people hanging out in an apartment to an international community with over 150,000 people, over 100 organizers, and 40 regional groups hosting speakers tours, film screenings, massive consciousness parties, festivals, and even a network-wide Convergence.
I think it’s important to notice the difference between a trend and a full-on shift. Maybe you are not seeing this yourself as you’re too immersed in being indoctrinated into a stressful system of work, school (and possibly debt) — I did that route too. Almost always, the most criticism comes from those who aren’t doing much to change things What I hear underneath this criticism is actually a yearning to move beyond arm-chair skepticism and a grueling work-all-the-time lifestyle to find some passion, perhaps connect with these movements and reclaim some of your life.
I’d also invite a more in-depth Skype dialogue that we can transcribe for your blog about the topic we’ve discussed. If interested, you can reach me at talat((at))evolver((dot))net.
All the best,
Jonathan Talat
Having vacillated with this movement over the last decade, I have my own observations that transform with me. One of the most important notions I have understood is that what the movement is and what it does for someone, its staying power, depends on their intention for being here. The intention is what gives this movement life beyond the common daily ups and downs to which any form of life is subjected.
Seems the intent of healing and transforming is the most powerful, and the people who are willing to live true to those principles are the ones who make this thing sustainable. Its hard to say an idea is fleeting when you can see its effects alive in someone and the incredible positive relish garnered for them.
Whilst its true that maintaing the mind-busting revelations we receive on retreats and ceremonies is difficult, especially when we have to return to our homes, jobs, kids, laundry, bills, tax collectors and whatnot, it is also true that we have the power to assimilate those things into our lives. This, I believe, is what conscious evolution is; finding a way to take the messages we receive from something greater than ourselves and to create a way to birth it into our lives. It aint easy, but I image neither was creating language, discovering fire, or building Rome!
Don’t lose heart or faith. Allow this to vacillate with you. Great things come and great things go, but, as for me, I have no desire or need to imagine a life without inner work, conscious evolution, transformation and growth out of the old paradigms. Every day there is one little thing that changes and embraces the new ever more. Some days I have to lose one to gain one, but alas, there is no going back. We’ve come too far!
I agree the ‘counter-culture’ had its day as a term, and in our modern era can be seen, like the 99%, as divisive and in opposition to the mainstream culture. In this time of planetary awakening and the drive towards unitary modes of culture and being, seeing ourselves as one planet tackling challenges and responsibilities is of paramount importance. The problem is media and ourselves frequently want and need labels. The occupy movement is a good example. Both beatniks and hippies were terms coined by San Francisco Chronicle journalists in the 50s and 60s. Counter culture was made prominent by author and academic Theodore Rozak in his analysis of the different cultural groups of the times, that WERE in direct opposition to the mainstream culture of that time. But we have learned those lessons, and grown, and hopefully become more inclusive in our world view. Another label has been percolating in the culture that I like to use: We are the ULTRACULTURE, not the counterculture, all of us seeds ignited by the evolutionary pressures and triggers of these intense times. We aren’t counter to the mainstream culture, that’s a mistake to believe we’re in opposition. The ultraculture is deeper, brighter, and part of the mainstream itself, an evolutionary wave that honors all that came before as it carves out the future. It’s just another label, and as you say you can’t force it on people, but yes, it’s time to realize that whatever we call ourselves, language is important, and we aren’t in opposition any more. We’re not fighting the system, we’re using out energy to evolve forward, becoming something new, and ultraspectacular…! xx
Current Culture – Tap IN Join the Current. Find the buffer zone. Go with the flow. Tap in, put yourself in the stream, now get with these cultural normatives. A new psychedelicia, eco-infused now aware, TechGnoLogiK has come to define this emerging age. Prisoners of felled paradigms find liberation, freedom in thought forms – meditation – sacrament – movement – in spirit – as force feeds thought to form – a newative norm – naturally advanced evolved, now involved – sharing conscious in-sightful. You are here now, mind freed from future-past, current-love on…
Pingback: Jonathan Talat Phillips: Evolver & the New Spiritual-Social Movement « Evolutionary Landscapes