Talk:Hippie: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hippie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Hippie was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 31, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed May 15, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fashion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: San Francisco Bay Area This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Template:WP1.0

Though well-written, the main article lacks analysis which goes beyond the recording of phenomena to assign responsibility for QUALITATIVE CHANGES which the hippies imposed on the stream of American history. Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist. They do, and they are in the majority within policy-making bodies (official and otherwise) in American government and within society in general. To steal a march from the hippies themselves by calling upon Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us!" HIPPIE is not, and probably never was, a length of hair, style of dress, idiom of speech or any other artifact of self-expression; it is, and probably always has been, the sum of motivated actions to undermine and overthrow all that had been standard POV, custom and social practice before the Decade of Dissolution (1960s). This intent is presently expressed and enforced as Political Correctness and countless other forms of mandatoty self-hatred within the United States. Hippies haven't passed into history -- they have simply become "The Man". From what better point to enforce one's Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.197.15 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may perhaps be a debatable point of view, but being an open-minded and neutral encyclopedia project, we have this thing called "neutral point of view" that we use for handling points of view that are debatable, or opposed to other points of view. Basically, any point of view can be mentioned as such, provided its significance can be verified in reliable sources. So, if you could find any published sources that match your point of view, we could take a look at their appropriateness for mention. And this complaint makes little sense to me: "Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist." Uh, the article doesn't actually assert or imply that the hippies no longer exist, and how could it actively assert something it doesn't "by omission"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Eulenspiegel. I would add that we contemporary hippies never insist on "political correctness;" the unnamed author above is confused on that point. Perhaps he is thinking of a group that has no official name or historical designation; in the United States they might currently be called "leftist liberals" (with or without the pejorative sneer), though this group knows little of traditional liberalism. He is correct that this group DOES seek to impose its will through intimidation; hippies never did that and still don't. Apostle12 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are speaking of satyagraha, but this was a practice of the American civil rights movement, not hippies. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The hippie subculture still exists across the United States and remains relevant today." Is this claim supported by any sources, citations, or anything other than personal belief? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.165.164 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very good question and an important one for the credibility of the article. It might alternatively be said that the subculture for all intents and purposes is dead, buried and mourned in the USA of today. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might indeed be said, except that the hippie subculture isn't dead or buried, and if it were, most people would not mourn it. Labels like transcendentalist, beatnik, hippie, freak, and many others, are transient names for the perennial countercultural movement sometimes called Bohemianism. Those who find Bohemianism threatening pass laws against it, delete it from the history books where possible, and pretend it is extinct where not.

Consequently, as Bohemianism goes in an out of fashion, new movements seem to appear and disappear, each with a new name. When Bohemianism is fashionable, transients join it in large numbers, creating the illusion of an explosive new trend. When the fashion changes the transients depart. This gives the impression that the trend has collapsed, and depresses Bohemians who do not understand their historical roots.

Bohemianism is alive and well around the world. It thrives in enclaves associated with educational and cultural centers, in experimental rural settings, and increasingly online. It provides a source of perspective on mainstream culture, and sometimes pioneers alternatives that the mainstream later adopts; consider the worldwide ecological movement. That is how "The hippie subculture still exists across the United States [actually the world] and remains relevant today." Ornithikos (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully written and also quite valid of course.

I take issue with a very few of your opinions: my impression (as an old hippie myself) is that the minimal, nay microscopic, real effect of Bohemianism on society is to be mourned by all humanity.

What has the Internet done for us in comparison with the great elevation of human life quality so many of us thought would be quickly accomplished with it, when we all were enabled to communicate and band together so freely? What happened and how could this be? (That's like a constant nagging daymare to me.)

And what is the real - not pretended and showy - effect on politicians and what they have (not really) done for us on such vital matters as "the worldwide ecological movement".

How many movements in history have stood in for real improvement about as effectively as subsitute teacher Mae West did by sheer happenstance before country schoolhouse lads in My Little Chickadee (one of the most hilariously implausible scenes in movie history)?

It seems we have created many more games and ways of playing them, but aren't we in more trouble today than ever before?

It's nothing like actually hugging a tree in a major European city park to prevent policitally sponsored workmen from getting to it with a chainsaw (which I did in 1971 - I hugged the same tree again a few weeks ago).

I wish I didn't have to say that I cannot see any real relevance left now, as compared to say 1969, for all of what we really wanted accomplished then, peace being foremost among those excruciatingly heartfelt things. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" . . . remains relevant today" is editorializing WP:EDITORIAL, and was corrected. Also added [citation needed] in opening paragraph as wp:v Grimsooth (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie was always a very loosely used term, and I think the entire article is attempting to make something encompassing and whole out of something that was not. Most young people at the time did not identify themselves as hippies. Having the hair, clothing and musical tastes of the times did not make on a hippie, and neither did protesting the war or using drugs or exploring Eastern philosophies. People participated in some of these and rejected others; it was never a whole-cloth thing. Few serious students, intellectuals, committed political activists, or other goal-oriented people identified as hippies.

The term seems to have acquired significance decades later that it did not have when it was current. Many who are now associated with the so-called hippie movement considered the label a pejorative one and would never have used it for themselves.Djxb2001 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I first started working on this article I made that point, and I cited the literature which said that young people identified as many different things, including "freaks". As I've stated before, we need to go from the sources and stick to them as closely as possible. What's going on here is that we have several editors attempting to mythologize the youth movement, and it appears that you've caught on to that. Can you point to a single source you've found to be reliable and somewhat accurate? Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yablonsky's THE HIPPIE TRIP is probably the best contemporaneous overview of hippie life circa 1967-68. While the term "hippie" was used as a pejorative by those primarily identified with the Beats, and "straight" people definitely used it pejoratively, those at the center of the hippie phenomenon (Steve Gaskin, Stewart Brand and others whom Yablonsky refers to as the group's "spiritual leaders") adopted the term early on; for many it became a positive identifier. Even today, when Gaskin is asked his religion, his answer is most often "hippie." BTW, the term "freaks" was most often combined with drugs that tended to be disparaged in hippie settings, e.g. "speed freaks" or "meth freaks." Most libraries carry Yablonsky's book, and I would suggest you read it Kjxb2001; it's a pretty pure source, as it has not been edited since its initial publication.

If there are editors who are attempting to mythologize the hippie movement, I am not aware of them. Apostle12 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The term seems to have acquired significance decades later that it did not have when it was current."

That is good as a potential premise, but it will remain only a premise until we find sources, sources, sources that discuss this aspect for a conclusion.

If you look at the etymology article, it is clear the word hippie was already "current" in some circles in the 1940s and by the early 1960s was gaining currency in Greenwich Village New York and many other places, well before a certain San Francisco editorialist pompously declared that he invented the word. But because the pompous San Franciscan's claim got picked up in other publications, we have a sterling example here of an editor here who stands on "Verifiability NOT Truth" and as a consequence we teach in the very first paragraph that the movement was unambiguously born in San Francisco, no mention of Greenwich Village at all.

My hypothesis is that the word did indeed under go some pejorative change in the 1980s, largely as a result of British usage and influence. Two factors would be the 1) Peace Convoy, whom everyone else in the UK somewhat derisively called "hippies" even though most HATED the word, and 2) The character of Neil Pye on the BBC's "Young Ones" show did much to popularize the conception of hippies at that time, on both sides of the Atlantic, as the show was then picked up by America's MTV. This is, of course, only a hypothesis, of what you might possibly find if you were to dig up some actual sources that really discuss any changes over the decades in the popular perceptions of the meaning and usage of the label "HIPPIE". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was a hippie and proud of it. Must assume all of you were, who are giving us knowledgeable opinions here. We were hip to the lip. If you know what that means, you were one of us, the proud ones. If not (you can ask me), you probably weren't proud and you didn't like to be called a hippie. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your experience, but that doesn't help us write a better article. I know you want to help, so if you could explain what it means to be a "hippie" and why you were proud, that might point us in the right direction. How would you define a "hippie"? What makes this article different than, let's say, bohemianism or teenage rebellion? And most of all, why is this topic important? When you (or anyone else) replies to these questions, please don't reply to me. Reply as if you were writing to the cyborg-kids in 2150, who will be accessing external memory devices that allow them to understand the entire history of civilization in the blink of an eye—as they walk on the surface of a terraformed Mars. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being hip to the lip was being aware of the talk, i.e. knowing more instinctively than precisely where it was all coming from and understanding how to put up with it, live with it, love life anyway. We were very aware and involved.

The lip we felt we were quite definitely hip to was all the glaring hypocrisy in politics, warfare, organized religion, commercialism, high fashion, racism, in marketing of everything from groceries to health care and medicine, automobiles, toys, careers, in the monetary system, standard education, the peddling of holidays, the treatment of native peoples, the never-ending Pharisaic control and defilement of the name of the real historic Jesus - whom we felt we knew without needing any details - and of many other great humanitarians, and above all: the lack of real generous, kind, friendly, mutually considerate Love. LOVE was the word, or still is, and those of us who write it, always use capital letters.

We were also hip to our own lip in describing our feelings, sometimes just in looks at each other, against all that almost insurmountable hypocrisy; singing, running, dressing, undressing, dancing, howling, laughing, sexing against it all, and gazing at the wondrous truth and reality of the moon and the stars, the mountains, trees, oceans, rivers, and little flowers... Drugs were a possibility for some of us, but not at all wanted as a lifestyle by all.

Some faked all this to try to fit in, a few very well, but we were hip to that lip also. They talked a lot, we didn’t.

We were the hippies, not the lippies. We were proud. These were feelings, very strong among us, often unspoken, usually undefined, that made us all sincerely feel like a global family. We knew we were there, and we knew where we were, even if we were spread around the globe and never saw and touched each others faces, as we would have loved to do. We were connected in a way that felt physical. It was a stronger bond than the Internet ever will be able to accomplish. It was heart and soul, not words. It was fire, water, earth and wind all wound up together in a bright-white-innocent-silvery-jingling magic of our own.

I could go on forever here, banging on this keyboard through my tears, but as you say, maybe this is of no interest or help to anyone anymore. And I most certainly cannot source it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gaskin's MONDAY NIGHT CLASS comes close to being a source for much of what you write. Apostle12 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, the revised primary source transcripts reprinted in Gaskin's Monday Night Class (2005) are a good source for Gaskin's beliefs about hippies. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but is the top image, added rather recently, really a good representation for this article? To get people interested? Looks to me like somebody dressed up kind of hippie style (maybe recently?) in a setting which looks more lite a standard, comfortable apartment rather than any atmosphere one would expect to see. No typical posters on the walls, no shawls hanging from the ceiling, no chimes, no incense, no long shag carpet - bland. And what's that on top of her head? Undiscernable. Just a thought. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a period pic from 1969, which makes it 43 years old. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"And what's that on top of her head?" LOL No doubt, it is some wall-mounted ornament behind her head... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscernable and distracting thing, whatever it is. Cute Italian girl. Nice pinstripes (never saw them on any hippie back then). Inappropriate top image, as I see it. Hope we can find something much more engaging to go there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you've said here. You're basically arguing that we should strive to enforce stereotypes about hippies rather than portray actual people associated with the lifestyle. Is that really what Wikipedia should be doing? Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some would say the photo bears a remarkable resemblance to User:Jeanne boleyn - maybe someone should ask her....  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V:"You're basically arguing that we should strive to enforce stereotypes about hippies rather than portray actual people associated with the lifestyle." I strongly resent that unjustifiable accusation. Why be rude? There's a big difference bewteen stereotypes and genuine, engaging atmosphere. I should know. Am strongly anti-stereotypes.

G: very good idea, if so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a stronger example of POV than the attribution of the long list of social advances to whatever it is this article refers to but I removed the tag from the Legacy § for the usual reason given in the log. It's also amusing to see the typical etymology job on a word you saw come into existence. I doubt any etymology is valid, it was just there at the right time when the subculture emerged that would receive it as a label. Geo. Carlins hippie-dippy weatherman was apparently first performed in '67 and I'm sure Steve Allen and Louis Nye used the term before that. 72.228.177.92 (talk)

I'm thinking about adding the critique of the hippie movement from All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (2011), a BBC TV series by Adam Curtis. I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about it. Going from memory, Curtis's criticism starts with several simple observations: the hippies were influenced by system theories popularized by flawed/incomplete computer models of the environment and society, and their experiments with alternative communities failed because the models they used didn't take into account the human tendency to use politics and power to change society. According to Curtis, the hippies attempt to weaken politics and power struggles within their subculture ironically led to more of it, with bullying by stronger members of the group leading to less individuality and more oppression contrary to its stated aims. Of course, this type of problem has less to do with hippies and more to do with the nature of humanity. Nevertheless, this is one of the best criticisms of the hippie movement I've run across, so I would be interested in hearing what others have to say. If you respond, please refer to other sources of criticism if you can. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you put it, "The hippies were influenced by system theories popularized by flawed/incomplete computer models of the environment and society"....Can this really be true? I spent a lot of time with a lot of hippies, and I can say categorically that even the most cerebral among us never went there. Mostly we were simply naive; we did not understand that political and governmental structures exist to moderate power struggles that are an unavoidable concomitant of the human condition.

Probably the most aware hippie "guru" (though he would certainly reject the term) was Stephen Gaskin. I am not sure bullying and oppression occured at The Farm, an intentional community he founded, though certainly the community went through dysfunctional periods. The Farm still exists, and its forty-year history has been carefully documented. It would be revealing to compare Curtis'criticisms with the realities of life at The Farm.

Do you know where I might review Curtis' work? Apostle12 (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire series is available for free online.[1] One does not have to be personally aware of something for it to be influential. Disease is a good example. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disease analogy might apply if one could demonstrate that the relevant system theories had been sufficiently popularized by the time hippies began their experiments AND that hippies had been exposed to such theories, either by studying them, or because said theories had become major forces shaping 1960s culture. Will watch the series to see if Curtis adequately supports his hypothesis. Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What criticism of the hippies does the article currently contain? Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course criticism of the hippies should be noted, rather than promulgated, by the article. I see that quite a bit of criticism is noted in the section titled "Summer of Love 1967," especially the last paragraph. Reading through the article, counterpoints are also noted. Haven't yet reviewed Curtis' critique, however there may be an appropriate place for it in the article--perhaps in the sections that discuss hippie ideals,especially "Spirituality and Religion."Apostle12 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Could you briefly rephrase it in your own words? Based on my review of the literature, there are several critical themes that come up more often than others. These include: sex, drugs, intentional communities, and the legacy of the hippies. From my own reading on the subject, I'm more familiar with the criticism surrounding drugs and the intentional communities, and less familiar with the criticism of sex and legacy. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather quote it:

"With this increased attention, hippies found support for their ideals of love and peace but were also criticized for their anti-work, pro-drug, and permissive ethos...By the end of the summer, the Haight-Ashbury scene had deteriorated...Haight-Ashbury could not accommodate the influx of crowds (mostly naive youngsters) with no place to live. Many took to living on the street, panhandling and drug-dealing. There were problems with malnourishment, disease, and drug addiction. Crime and violence skyrocketed. None of these trends reflected what the hippies had envisioned. By the end of 1967, many of the hippies and musicians who initiated the Summer of Love had moved on. Beatle George Harrison had once visited Haight-Ashbury and found it to be just a haven for dropouts, inspiring him to give up LSD.[citation needed] Misgivings about the hippie culture, particularly with regard to drug abuse and lenient morality, fueled the moral panics of the late 1960s."

"The events at Altamont Free Concert shocked many Americans,including those who had strongly identified with hippie culture. Another shock came in the form of the Sharon Tate and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca murders committed in August 1969 by Charles Manson and his "family" of followers."

"Starting in the late 1960s, hippies began to come under attack by working-class skinheads. Hippies were also vilified and sometimes attacked by punks, revivalist mods, greasers, football casuals, Teddy boys, rednecks and members of other youth subcultures of the 1970s and 1980s. The countercultural movement was also under covert assault by J. Edgar Hoover's infamous 'Counter Intelligence Program' (COINTELPRO)..."

"While many hippies made a long-term commitment to the lifestyle, some people argue that hippies "sold out" during the 1980s and became part of the materialist, consumer culture."Apostle12 (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]