Why the Hippie Movement Failed

Why did both the Cynic philosophical movement and the hippie movement (two very similar movements) fail? I believe the answer is that they both failed to clearly convey their message. Certainly a message was received and absorbed by society, but given the nature of the two movements, an absorption of some of their ideals by society would seem to me to speak more of a failure than a success.

The nature of what the two nearly parallel philosophies sought to convey is such an enormous issue—since the two philosophies speak to the entity of society itself—that proper communication of the philosophy to the masses would have been crucial to its success.

Assuredly, both movements were subject to hijacking by various social and political movements almost as soon as they had begun, as this is the case with all grassroots movements and revolutionary philosophies. Specifically in the hippie movement, everyone with an agenda most definitely hopped onboard and implanted their ideals into the movement as if those ideals were somehow compatible with the initial philosophy. For example, certainly no one would dare argue that a true criticism of the nature of society is somehow compatible with an economic or political philosophy, since both economy and governance are two of the pillars of society itself. How could one argue for a new economic or political philosophy and dare criticize the nature of society? That would be like arguing against breast-feeding with the right tit and suggesting the left is somehow more perfect. Indeed, it would have been hypocritical for a hippie who was a true Cynic to attach their self to such things, which would have been in direct opposition to their ideals.

Trying to prevent various groups who each have their own agendas, including other governments, or the powers that be from co-opting any movement has always been a problem for any grassroots movement, and the only answer has always been to guard the movement, which is typically done either through centralized control (a bad idea for a number of reasons) or through a commonly understood philosophical ideal. For numerous reasons, the latter is usually the way it is done (basically because, unlike a man, you cannot kill an idea), but such a method has its weaknesses which are always taken advantage of.

I believe the solution to this notable problem is properly sufficient and efficient communication of the movement's philosophical ideal. Unfortunately, the lack of such communication has always been the downfall of any worthy movement.

By sufficient, I mean that the message should be appealing, desirable, and persuasive, and that it should be delivered in such a manner as to be nearly indestructable or tamper-proof. The goals and ideals of the movement should be presented much like food for the masses. It should look appealing, smell appealing, and if possible taste appealing, so that it is found to be desirable to a large portion of people. Presentation is really everything! For example, if one is criticizing society itself, then it would not only be a good idea to point out the insurmountable problems of society, but to also show, in an attractive manner, the most obvious benefits of the alternative.

Obviously any concepts which are counter to that of society are not going to look very appealing, since all people have been born into and weaned on their society, and it is all they know, so the sufficiency of the message should not only be targetted at making the alternative itself look attractive, but it should also be focused on changing the way the individual and the masses actually perceive their choices. In other words, it needs to be made attractive not only to their eyes, but also the very way in which they think about it must necessarily be transformed, if possible, before the actual perception is even had (making the way things are currently done look ugly helps too).

By efficient it is meant, that the philosophical ideals and/or goals of the movement must be clearly, concisely, and thoroughly expressed in a manner which is unmistakable to the overwhelming majority. By clear it is meant, that one should really have to either go out of their way or be rather dense to miss the point. By concise it is meant, that the message should be wrapped up in as few terms which can be misinterpreted as is possible, and in which the masses can easily understand it. Finally, by thorough it is meant, that not only should the arguments against a particular way of doing things be heard loud and clear, but the alternative should be understood just as clearly, and should be just as readily discernable as any criticism. The message should be capable of delivering the entire desire behind the movement and of bringing it into fruition, from start to finish, in as few words which are able to be misinterpreted as possible, and delivered in such a way as to be most efficient.

Such an efficient delivery requires two tools: individual representation and mass communication. Besides being made to look bad and ultimately falling prey to co-opting, the hippie movement lacked an adequate means by which to communicate its message to the masses. The social order was able to suppress and twist the message because it held a far greater and more efficient means of mass communication in its hands. To get around this, a movement would have to either take advantage of new means of mass communication which are not yet wholly controlled (such as the Worldwide Web currently presents itself) or use as extensive arsenal of tools of mass communication such as books, films, music, art, posters, etc. Something like handing out copies of films in mass would seem the most efficient means by which to deliver a sufficient method in today's world which, unfortunately, was not an option for the 1960s hippie movement.

Unfortunately, another problem which any movement designed to criticize society undoubtedly runs up against is the use of tools which society built in order to aid in the acheivement of its goals. Such a practice is inevitably accused of hypocrasy, but the means by which to counter this accusation is to make clear from the start (perhaps in the original message itself) that in order to free another from their prison one must physically walk into the prison and release their shackles. In other words, if they are imprisoned by the use of indoctrination through mass communication, it is necessary to use such tools of mass communication to initially free them from their indoctrination. You cannot reach out to someone in the virtual reality of the social order unless you go there yourself.

And so, I am convinced that the hippie movement was a failure due to two things: it failed to sufficiently and efficiently convey its message and it was co-opted nearly from the get-go. I am fully convinced that the movement was initially grassroots and uncorrupted, but that it was taken over by extremist elements who had their own political agendas almost as soon as it got rolling, and then it was ultimately squashed by the ruling social order, who, more than likely, were also responsible for the initial co-opting and likely used controlled opposition as a means by which to end a legitimate movement of the people – such is the case throughout history. Afterall, if you make a movement look threatening or unattractive through the use of controlled opposition and mass disinformation before the overwhelming majority are awakened to this new way of viewing things, the people will naturally reject the movement.

If we want to see things change we need to learn to communicate better. We need to become more sufficient and efficient in our messages. We need to jealously guard the core philosophical principles of a genuine grassroots movement. We must understand the political, sociological, psychological, and military tactics which have been used throughout history to crush genuine movements of the people. We must understand what makes our fellow brothers and sisters "tick". We must understand the art of man-herding (as Socrates called it), take tips from past movements, perfect the implementation of centralized leaderless movements (take a tip from the Christians, who's leader was already dead and therefore unable to be killed), insist upon peaceful resistance and study the techniques of individuals such as Ghandi, Christ, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thomas Paine, etc. Because peace, freedom, and brotherly and sisterly love for all mankind is only one well-organized and intelligent communication of an idea away.

No one can fight the system, which is nothing more than an idea itself, in action, unless they fight it with an idea which is also placed into action by the people.

Peace. Alraune.

The Ancient Roots of the Hippie Philosophy

It has been suggested that the hippie philosophy shares many beliefs with the ancient Greek Cynics. In fact, as early as July 7, 1967, a Time Magazine article asserted that the 1960s hippie counterculture espoused many of the same ideals as the ancient Greek school of Cynicism, and even made specific note of the philosopher Diogenes of Sinope – an interesting character to be sure. However, while it is true that no one school of philosophical thought could be considered to be the hippie philosophy, it is absolutely true that the idealogical force behind the lifestyles of most hippies is very much in line with the ancient Greek school of Cynicism.

The Cynics believed that the purpose of life was to live a life of virtue (ie. a sort of personal moral excellence and well-being) which was in agreement with Nature. This was accomplished through living a simple life and rejecting conventional (ie. "conformative") desires for things such as wealth, power, fame, and material possessions. They believed that we are all children of the world, that the world belongs to us all equally, that most suffering is created by the misguided values which society holds (eg. greed, etc.), that the nature and purpose of society needs to be questioned and corrected, and that true happiness can ultimately be gained through rigorous training of the mind, the attainment of self-sufficiency, and by living in a way which is more natural for humans than the machine of modernized civilization offers.

The Cynics would have almost certainly asked the questions: "What is the purpose of society?", "What are we doing?", "Is this happiness?", "What is the point of this great experiment and where is it going?" All of these questions would appear to be quite in line with the sort of thinking that characterizes most individuals who would identify themselves as hippies.

Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly given the way society treats those whom it deems a threat to its nature, the word Cynic is derived from the Ancient Greek word kynikos, which means "dog-like", and the word kyôn, which means "dog". Many explanations have been offered for why the first Cynics were given this name, however, it is almost certain that it was meant as a type of insult. Cynics seemed to have been amused by the term as is evidenced in the words of Diogenes who said, "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them."

One commentator stated: "There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named. First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads. The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it. The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy. The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between friends and enemies."

In the late 18^th and early 19^th century, the term 'cynicism' came to be known as an attitude of scorn or jadedness, especially directed toward others as a general distrust of their professed motives. This modern definition would be in marked contrast to the ancient philosophy, which emphasized virtue and moral freedom through a liberation from convential social desires.

The founder of the school of Cynicism, is traditionally said to be Antisthenes (c. 445-365 BCE), who was a contemporary of Plato and a pupil of Socrates. His student, Diogenes of Sinope, is perhaps the most famous of the Cynics, likely due to his over-the-top antics. Diogenes was truly the most extreme of the Cynics.

Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412-323 BCE) was the son of a coin minter, who fled his home in Sinope after getting into some trouble for defacing the coinage. Shortly afterward, he travelled to Athens to study philosophy and challenge the established customs and values of society.

Diogenes taught by example and truly lived what he believed in. His goal was to demonstrate that wisdom and happiness can be found in the man who is independent from the constraints and false values of society, and that civilization itself was regressive. He maintained that all the artificialness of society was incompatible with happiness and that true morality necessitated a return to the simplicity of nature, saying, "Humans have complicated every simple gift of the gods."

When asked where he came from, Diogenes was known to reply, "I am a citizen of the world," which was a radical statement in his time since a man's identity was intimately tied to his citizenship in a particular city-state.

Diogenes believed that human beings lived very artificially and hypocritically, and that they would do well to study the dog. His reasoning was that dogs live in the present, have no anxiety, and they have no use for the pretensions of abstract philosophy. He thought these things as well as the uncanny ability of a dog to instinctly discern between a friend and a foe were excellent virtues, noting that unlike humans who either dupe others or who are duped, dogs will give an honest bark at the truth.

He was very well known for his antics, and among his more notable ones were sleeping in a tub, rolling a tub for no apparent reason, urinating on people who insulted him, and pointing at people with his middle finger. He is said to have walked about in the daylight with a lamp "seeking an honest man"; he requested a stick to chase creatures away from his body once he had perished – his way of commenting on the value of burial customs; and he is even said to have insulted Alexander the Great. On one ocassion Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of bones. Diogenes is reported to have said, "I am looking for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave." Another story relates that Alexander was thrilled to have met the philosopher and asked him if there was any favor he might grant him, whereby Diogenes replied, "Yes. Stand out of my sunlight."

Another story has it that there was a report out that Philip II was marching on Corinth, and the whole town was in a bustle. One man was furbishing arms, another was wheeling stones, and still others were patching walls and strengthening the battlement. Diogenes, having nothing to do, was so moved by the sight of all these men working so earnestly that he gathered up his philosopher's cloak and began rolling his tub up and down the Craneum. An acquaintance asked him why he was rolling the tub, to which Diogenes replied, “I do not want to be thought the only idler in such a busy multitude; I am rolling my tub to be like the rest,” which is an interesting way to say, “All the toils of civilized man are vain, and in fact, meaningless.”

In addition to Antisthenes and Diogenes of Sinope, other notable Cynics were Crates of Thebes, Onesicritus, Bion of Borysthenes, and Menippus of Gadara.

Cynicism was by far one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies. Much like the philosophies espoused by the hippie movement, it provided people with a sort of hope for a way in which to attain happiness and freedom in an age of great uncertainty. Although no official doctrine of Cynicism has ever existed, there are at least five core principles which can be summarized as:

1. The purpose of life is to seek happiness and live in agreement with Nature.
2. Happiness is attained through rigorous mental training, a positive attitude, and through becoming self-sufficient.
3. The virtuous life is one in which the individual has freed their self from the influences of wealth, fame, power, greed, and other unnatural strivings, conventions and customs.
4. Self-sufficiency is found in living a virtuous life. In other words, learning to live a simple life that is in agreement with Nature.
5. The suffering in the world is ultimately caused by false judgments of value, which generate negative emotions and a vicious character. Another way to put it, is that concepts such as the high importance and value money is given in most modern societies are considered to be the major contributing factors to the overall decline in personal happiness and happiness as a whole.

So it was that the Cynics had little or no property – they were true minimalists. They held that a life lived in accord with nature required only the bare necessities, and thus they were perhaps some of the first civilized persons to dabble with the concept of “back to the earth” and a sort of primitivism. However, none of this necessarily meant that a Cynic would completely retreat from society, on the contrary, Cynics tended to live in full view of the public. The job of the Cynic philosopher was to evangelize humanity, as the watchdog of man, and thus they would colorfully point out the error of civilized humanity's ways while simultaneously leading them, by example, toward what the Cynic considered to be the ideal life of happiness where the individual was free from the illusions of commonly pursued social values, and in which he was self-sufficient and attuned with Nature.

Obviously not all Cynics were as extreme, or rather unconcerned with the way others took their antics, such as Diogenes, and the plethora of various hippies would be much the same. Not many hippies would think that urinating on someone who insults them is exactly a good way to go about changing the opinions of others, or that defacating in a theater, such as Diogenes is reported to have done, would somehow enlighten their fellow man. However, there are definite parallels between the ethics of the hippie counterculture and that of the Cynics, and it would seem quite self-evident that Cynicism has indeed been a philosophical undercurrent of the hippie movement.

Just as the Cynics, hippies come in many flavors, and all should not be lumped into the same categories of various extremist elements, or even into the exact same philosophical categories as many hippies are typically lumped by their contemporaries. For instance, there are Marxist-socialist hippies and there are also those with a more Libertarian economic philosophy, yet there are still others who really don't espouse an economic philosophy as they are much more like the Cynics in viewing money and property as being detrimental to the well-being of mankind, and ultimately the cause of much unhappiness.

The hippie philosophy has adopted many different philosophical viewpoints and should never be considered to be of any one, but it would seem that all hippies are somewhat cynical.

Peace. Alraune.

Sources:

Diogenes Laërtius, v. VI. The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, 2^nd edition.

Diogenes Laërtius, v. II. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Loeb Classic Library, ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard Univeristy Press.

Kidd, I. (2005), in Rée, Jonathan; Urmson J. The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy, Routledge.

Long, A.A. (1996), in Bracht Branham, R.; Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile. The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, University of California Press.

Cynicism, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4^th edition. 2006. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Bertrand Russell. A History of Western Philosophy. Simon and Schuster.

Aristotle, Rhetoric.

Stobaeus, Florilgium.

Dudley, Donald R. (1937). A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6^th Centruy A.D., Cambridge.

Lucian, Historia.

Cicero, Tusculanae Quaestiones.