Page 68 - 6241

The term "counterculture" was introduced into scientific circulation in 1972
by an American sociologist Theodor Rosascom, who identified counterculture as a
set of diverse spiritual influences directed against the ruling culture.
The emergence of the term was associated with youth movements of 1960-

70s: hippies, beatniks and other student radical groups. Their characteristic features
were the opposition to officialism, the rejection of universally accepted norms and
values. In the end, counter-culture as a form of spiritual protest of young people

against the ideals of consumerism society marked a frank denial of standards and
stereotypes of mass culture. Its distinctive feature was a negative attitude towards
the existing bourgeois culture.

The rejection of bourgeois values with the greatest force manifested itself in
students' performances in Paris in the spring of 1968. The students' dissatisfaction
with the prescribed system of higher education was shown. In addition, young

people sought more freedom of relationships. The students wanted to talk about
everything frankly. This was especially true of sex. There were the slogans "To
ban prohibitions!", "To engage in love, not war!", etc. Students also criticized
capitalism as "a society of equal opportunities." Within a month and a half, student

unrest reached Sorbonne, which became the centre of the movement. The police
intervention provoked student barricades. At the same time, moderation and

responsibility on both sides of the barricade helped to avoid bloody clashes. The
events of spring 1968 in France became history as the greatest rebellion of youth of
the twentieth century in a developed capitalist country.
Since then, culturology operates with the concept of "counterculture".

Consequently, counterculture is a socio-cultural approach that opposes the
fundamental principles prevailing in a particular culture. At the end of the
twentieth century, culturologists paid special attention to this phenomenon and its

role in the historical dynamics.
In the history of culture, there are situations where local complexes of values
begin to claim a certain versatility. They go beyond the limits of their own cultural

environment, proclaiming new value and practice guidelines for the broad social
communities. These are countercultural tendencies.
Culture does not develop at all by simply increasing spiritual treasures. If the

process of cultural creativity proceeded smoothly, without turns and twists, and
complex mutations, humanity would have today a branched monoculture. In
Europe, in particular, it would still transition itself into an expansionist culture.
In fact, the cultural process generates new cultural-historical epochs, which

differ radically from one another. Paradigmatic changes are constantly occurring in
the culture. This in-depth transformation generates counterculture as well.

67