SIXTIES
CULTURE AND THE RESURGENCE OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
by Peter Morrell
three Breton girls in traditional dress, 1995 – Peter Morrell
There is a link between the resurgence of alternative forms of medicine in
the early 1970’s and what happened in the previous decade, the sixties. The link is obvious
for historical reasons: nothing happens without causes, ie. events that preceded the event
in question, which act as formative causes for it: nothing happens in a vacuum, it has
predisposing factors which are visible in society before the event. It is therefore both
customary and necessary to look at the period immediately preceding the 1970’s for any
special cultural changes or developments that may have acted as the formative causes of the
rise in alternative medicine.
There are several strong links with the sixties that are fairly obvious.
Firstly alternative health is often referred to as a ‘movement’, a key word during the
sixties to describe a social or cultural phenomenon. Secondly, the alternative therapies are
often referred to or seen as tools or systems of `liberation’ a method of overthrowing the
stuffy established order of things. This is another key sixties term and concept as we shall
see. Thirdly, the very word `alternatives’ is very much a sixties concept, deriving from the
rebellious activities of the young generation during that decade, and meaning alternative to
the established or traditional way of going about something.
So, even from just a cursory glance at the subject of alternative health,
it is apparent that it does have cultural roots embedded in the sixties. Indeed, it would
probably be very surprising if it didn’t, as few things today were not shaped or influenced,
if not actually created during that period. Certainly from talking to homoeopaths in the
research for this project, the sixties connection was felt to be a strong and important one.
It is felt that a full understanding of the significance of the alternative health boom can
only be gained from an examination of the sixties.
It will therefore be fruitful to examine fairly briefly but in some depth,
some of the main events of the sixties and their cultural significance as they impinge upon
the politics, medicine and values of British society in the 20 years since. This examination
will, therefore, act very much as a framework which can set the resurgence of alternative
medicine in the 1970’s and 80’s, in a wider cultural context, and hopefully reveal some of
the assumptions, values and motives that probably lie behind the phenomenon.
Introduction
To many, the sixties are epitomised by the Beatles, the changes in fashion
– especially clothes and music – by the rebellions of youth in many parts of the world, and
by the Vietnam War. Certainly these developments were new and they persisted right through
the period in question. They were also profoundly influential. The sixties was without doubt
a decade of great change and upheaval; not the upheaval of war, like the forties had seen,
but an upheaval on the cultural and social level. In every respect it was a turbulent and
exciting decade.
There was challenge to the established norms, of tastes and fashions, of
beliefs, of behaviour, of language, literature, music, film and the arts. There was great
political upheaval, rebellion by the young against their parents and against the political
structures of society. It was an age of protest, of questioning things that had always been
accepted, that had never really been questioned before, like parents, sex before marriage,
illegitimacy, the power of the Church, employment, etc.
Time and time again throughout this period the young were to single out,
challenge, question and reject the accepted ways of doing things, the traditional patterns
of belief and behaviour. Protest, revolution and liberation were the key words for the
decade. Values were questioned, new ideas brought in, experimented with and the old ideas
thrown out or replaced by the new, the futuristic, and frequently the outrageous. What was
old was ‘square’, outdated, inappropriate and was unceremoniously dumped in preference for
the new, the ‘way out’, the ‘fab’, the ‘hip’, the ‘with it’, the ‘groovy’, the ‘trendy’ and
what was deemed to be appropriate.
The young wanted to throw out and replace what they felt was no use to
them, or what was unattractive, outmoded or that they just didn’t like. They felt utterly
oppressed by the values and concepts of their parents’ generation. They saw them as a
burdensome yoke which they wanted removed at any cost. So there was a strong anti-authority
feeling throughout the decade and it was a time of the young coming excitedly together,
united against the common enemy of parents, the police, teachers, governments, grown-ups,
fuddy-duddy’s, the old, indeed anyone who tried to push you around, tell you how to live
your life and what you should feel, think, say or do. There was a restless striving for
independence as never before.
Parents looked at their children as they approached adolescence with
horror and wondered ‘what is wrong with them? Why don’t they love and respect us anymore?’
There was a pervasive sense of alienation and a great gulf opened up between young and old
as never before. It became sissy to do what parents said, to like what they liked, do things
for them, or even just to not rebel against them. It was increasingly fashionable to quite
genuinely hate one’s parents. They became symbols of oppression and outmoded lifestyles.
This fight for freedom or to throw off the shackles, was a truly global
aspect of the decade. It happened not only in the ‘free world’, in the arts, family life,
fashion and music, it was happening in politics too, especially in Africa, Latin America and
the Far East, as old colonial states demanded, fought for and gained independence from their
colonial oppressors. For example, Ghana and Malaya became independent from Britain in 1957,
Nigeria and Somaliland in 1960, Tanganyika and Sierra Leone in 1961, Uganda in 1962, Gambia,
Zanzibar and Kenya in 1963.
Here in Britain, the young didn’t want to be told what to say, what to
think or what to do anymore. They didn’t want to follow the code of living of their parents’
generation. They wanted to live their own lives, to find out for themselves what they might
feel, say, think and do. They wanted total control of their own lives, total independence
and freedom: other buzz words for the times. They were against all `authority figures’ and
just wanted to experience life in their own fresh, spontaneous and uninhibited way.
In clothes, in fashion, in music and in the experimental use of drugs like
cannabis, cocaine and later LSD, the sixties represent the development and assertion by the
young of their own right to choose for themselves and to develop their own distinctive
styles, tastes and culture. And with this came a rejection of the tastes, styles and values
of their parents’ generation. And what made this fascinating was that it was happening in
Britain, in the USA, in Canada, in France, West Germany, Australia, etc, throughout the
developed western world. It was a truly widespread phenomenon. The trend became much more
than a mere experimentation, but as the decade wore on, it was elevated into a cultural
tradition, a true movement or phenomenon, increasingly with a life of its own. And in many
respects this phenomenon has persisted since. It has now become an accepted part of
adolescence and is taken for granted today.
As the decade progressed it became clear that this was by no means a
transient event, but what was happening was a deep and genuine shift in the structure of
society, of profound importance to governments, the intellectual world, public morality and
current affairs. Indeed, the changes happening in the third world countries could be
directly compared with the changes sought by the young generation in the developed world.
They were part of the same process: a demand for change, for recognition, for greater
autonomy. So it is important to state this.
In other words, it is possible to view this phenomenon as an event
confined to Europe and America, whereas in fact it was in many ways global. That is not to
say that Africans were smoking drugs, listening to pop music and growing their hair long!
But the broad parallel was there in terms of what they wanted, fought for and obtained:
independence. In the developed world this trend manifested mainly for the young and was part
of their identity search, whereas in the undeveloped world it manifested on the political
level. Our main concern here, however, is chiefly with events in Britain. But that was just
a microcosm of a wider movement of change throughout the world.
There was challenge to the accepted norms about the family, about drink
and drugs, about religion, about dress and language and most of all about sex. There was a
widespread and increasing permissiveness on sexual matters which was always accompanied by a
profound sense of indignant outrage by parents, newspapers, teachers and governments. In
this respect it was the age of free sex or ‘free love’.
Throughout the decade there was a gradual liberalisation and exploration
of pornography and eroticism whether in films, drama, music, art, television or literature.
The Lady Chatterley’s Lover case in 1960 being a fine example, as with Kenneth Tynan being
the first person to say the word ‘fuck’ on live television in 1965.
A key catchphrase of the era was `make love not war’ which sums up the
broad permissiveness, promiscuity and pacifism of the times. Pacifism was an integral part
because the parental generation had just fought a war and were pro- military. Anything they
were in favour of, youth was against. So in this crude equation, youth were anti-war because
it was anti-parents to be so. It was a reaction against being controlled by them.
Another reason, of course, was the horrendous spectacle of the Vietnam War
played out on television news- screens every night throughout the developed world for the
whole decade. And there was also the ever-growing threat of nuclear annihilation. A fear
engendered to some extent by the Cold War in superpower relations.
So there was a feeling among the young that not only were their parents
stupid old fuddy-duddies, but that they were also very dangerous and would one day either
blow us all up or send us across the world and force us to fight a pointless and futile war,
which in terms of young people amounted to much the same thing. Add to this the terrifying
brinkmanship of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and a host of atomic tests in the Pacific,
in Russia, China and in the USA. It seemed to many as if the world was nuclear- obsessed and
that Armageddon was just around the next bend.
The Sixties as a cultural phenomenon actually covers more than that decade
and begins roughly in 1958 with the arrival of Elvis Presley and `rock and roll’ on the
music scene. It also extends into the early seventies, when America began to pull out of the
Vietnam War, say 1974, with the downfall of Nixon and Watergate. So it probably more
accurately covers 16 years rather than just 10. Some would place its origins earlier in the
early fifties with the rise of jazz, skiffle and the Teddy Boy. In a sense the precise
origin is immaterial, because the causes can be traced to that area of time and back to the
second world war.
Its pervasive influence, however, extends way beyond that. Its values are
found in Feminism 1971-85, Punk Rock 1976-82, at the sense of outrage at the police killing
of Blair Peach in 1979 in broad daylight, in the resurgence of CND in the early 1980’s, in
the summer of inner city riots in 1981, in the Coal strike of 1984-5, in the re-emergence of
environmental concerns as a serious political issue (c.1988- 9) and with the recent
termination of the Eastern Bloc and the Cold War between East and West (1989-90). So,
although we can for convenience isolate the 1960-70 period as the `Sixties’, it actually
extends far beyond the confines of that decade, certainly in terms of an influence or
undercurrent.
Beginnings
The period begins with a cluster of key events like the Teddy Boy, Elvis
Presley, Rock and roll, Look Back in Anger, (all 1956) the first CND marches (1958). All
these events were profoundly sensational and caused great outrage amongst the older
generation. There was outrage in churches, schools, Parliament and newspapers. It was the
first helping of rebellion against the received wisdom of parents and governments. Worse
still was yet to come.
Another dominant sixties theme was help for the underpriviliged. This
expressed itself in a variety of new charities. These include Oxfam, Shelter, Release,
Amnesty International. Many were instigated by students or the young and drew on their full
support.
We have outlined and explored many of the themes that arose and became
dominant during the sixties, but what of their effects? What happened to the beliefs and
values and the youth protests? Did they achieve anything concrete? In order to answer this,
one must look mainly at the political structure and the laws that have been passed as well
as the attitudes and morality of the average citizen.
Certainly in legal terms the sixties was an immense success. The decade
ushered in or paved the way for great changes in the legal system. One can cite the rights
of blacks, women and homosexuals, the legalisation of abortion, relaxation in censorship and
gambling laws, and more recently the law on drink. Many things that started as protest have
eventually become enshrined in the law of the land and became a new form of orthodoxy. So
the overall shift in values was real, not an apparition or a `flash in the pan’. A slow
process of liberalisation and loosening has occurred and a wider tolerance and
permissiveness exists now than was apparent before or immediately after the second world
war.
Many of the changes that occurred in the sixties have become permanent
features of modern life. In every sphere there has been greater freedom, tolerance,
independence and openness. There is less class-obsession and prejudice today in Britain than
ever before.
The whole decade can be divided quite neatly for our purposes into a
pre-1966 phase and a post-1966 phase. Before 1966 there was, as we have seen, a general and
increasing rebelliousness and anti-establishment liberalisation and permissiveness. These
were general trends that were clearly visible in all walks of life.
However, after 1966 there came a split of the whole movement. At this
point the rebelliousness seemed suddenly to crystallise into 2 distinct threads. One was
overtly political, left-wing and very radical, with Che Guevarra, Mao and Castro as its
hero-figures. The other was the passive, apolitical hippy mentality using drugs and
`dropping out’ in order to realise a higher and mystical reality tinged with oriental music
and mysticism. In a sense this latter group were derived from the ‘beatniks’ of the fifties
and the folk- music fashion of the early sixties.
The two groups were completely opposed to one another and represented
different interpretations of the social situation. They differed fundamentally in dress,
musical tastes, behavious, perception of what was wrong with society, of what society they
wanted and of the means of achieving it.
The politicos believed in outright violent revolution as the only means of
achieving the socialist revolution that they felt was the only answer to Britain’s, or
indeed the world’s problems. They rejected the hippy vision as maudlin nonsense and
self-indulgent, drug-inspired idealism that would never change people radically or overthrow
what they saw as the capitalist menace – the root cause, in their view, of all that was
wrong with the world. These were broadly aligned with East Coast American political
movements at the same time.
The hippies rejected the politico’s vision of life and the type of
socialist, totalitarian nightmare that they wished to inflict on everyone. They believed in
laissez-faire open-market economics as the only free and fair way to run a country, though
they were more socialist in some ways and more conservative in other ways. They also leaned
towards the ecological, though that term had not even been created at that stage. They were
aligned with the West Coast ‘laid back’ American culture.
Endings
As indicated earlier the precise ending of the sixties as a cultural
phenomenon is not easy to pinpoint. The problem is that the many cultural threads that
originated in or were developed during that era have not simply disappeared, but linger on
in various forms and have followed a life of their own. They are still very much with us
today, thought it is true to say, not in so virulent a form. The days of protest are not
over, but times are certainly a lot quieter, possibly less exciting too.
Origins
Of great interest is the analysis of the root causes of the sixties
phenomenon. It seems to have been caused by a blend of two or three strong currents.
Firstly, an analysis of human psychology at the time of adolescence, provides us with many
clues as to its origins. Secondly, the ‘spoiling’ of the post-war children by their jubilant
parents and encouragement to do so by postwar governments. Thirdly, there is in the fifties
the influence of gradually improving living standards throughout the developed world and the
emergence of technologically advancing gadgets and machines in the home.
Another factor was the liberating influence of the rise of popular
culture, especially rock and roll. This was evidence of the strong American influence, that
had been strong in wartime on a domestic level: the GI brides as they have been dubbed. When
rock and roll came the influence was on a cultural level. The other major American influence
was through films. In both cases the themes, values and styles of American life acted as
powerful role- models for British teenagers. There was imitation of American music and dress
throughout the fifties.
These were relatively affluent times and the affluence was not confined to
the upper and middle classes, but was for the first time reaching down into the working
classes. Working people could afford to save a little, an annual holiday or even to buy a
car. They were clearly upwardly mobile in modern terms! And this was unprecedented and
revolutionary in its own way.
Perhaps the post-war baby-boom was the cause. It was like a return from
war to the family life with a vengeance! Perhaps it was this that caused the post-war
parents to sow the seeds of their own downfall. We must remember that the `youth’ of the
mid-fifties had been born in 1940-42. The ‘youth’ of 1962 had been born 1946-7, that of 1965
had been born in 1950 and that of 1970 had been born 1955. So we can assume from this that
the roots of the sixties movement lay in the generation of ‘warbabies’ and the postwar baby
boom. We can speculate whether these children were neglected by their parents being brought
up during the war and shortly after it. There is some truth in this, but it is unclear how
much credence we can place on this theory.
All these factors combined to create an indulgent age, in which parents
were taken for granted and their values mocked or derided. In which the young saw their
parents as claustrophobic tyrants who they had to break free from at any cost. This is
certainly how it appeared to many.
Whatever the root causes we can state that the wartime and postwar
children seemed to have an inner need to find their own identity, perhaps an identity they
had been denied in early childhood, and that they were subsequently driven to search for
such an identity outside the family home.
Adolescent Psychology
The psychology of human adolescence has been widely acknowledged as
important in every analysis of the sixties phenomenon. The fact that adolescents are in many
psychological ways ‘transitional beings’ – neither children nor adults – makes them follow a
very precarious path ridden with inner conflict. This psychological conflict is mainly
between an allegiance to parents, the family and their teachers on the one hand, and a
strong sense of pulling away from all that and asserting their own will and carving out an
individual identity for themselves.
There are two poles in this scenario: one is the authority figures like
parents, teachers, adults, governments and the police, and at the other pole gather the
young. They are united together for two reasons. Firstly they identify strongly with each
other as compatriots and peers with shared problems and a common objective: freedom.
Secondly, they are united against a common foe: the authority figures. So they are pulled in
two directions. They are pulled by their peers, by their allegiance to them – a strong
cohesive moulding force (peer group pressure), and they are pulled – albeit reluctantly – to
their family by their affection, loyalty and direct physico-economic dependence. Until they
earn a living and are autonomous they cannot leave the parental home. And there lies the
rub!
The adolescent is also prey to conflicts in another area that was heavily
explored during the decade: sexual identity. The adolescent has left the largely genderless
world of childhood and is about to enter the ‘jungle’ of the relationship world, in which
friendships can turn into bitter jealousies and rivalry in the search for a suitable mate.
Sexual matters are a major aspect of adolescence. The sixties were dominated by the
adolescent, so it is not surprising that sex became so important at that time.
Thus the sixties phenomenon seems very much like a sudden and simultaneous
discovery by youth that they are all `in the same boat’; that they are all against their
parents and teachers (authority figures) but still searching for their own personal identity
and individuality. They are therefore in a state of crisis, not knowing which way to turn.
At times they turn to their parents and are pleasant, at other times they turn to their
peers and reject or mock their parents. It is a continous cycle of appeasement followed by
conflict, then appeasement and then more conflict as they swing from allegiance to one pole,
to allegiance to the other. There seems to be no harmonious middle ground.
This has much to commend it. There is quite obviously a lot of truth in
it. However, it does not explain everything. For example, it does not explain why it
happened when it did, where it did or why the search for identity played itself out in so
many complex and varied themes and sub-themes during that decade.
It could be argued that the gradual liberalisation of life in the fifties
released in youth the ‘fear’ and ‘oppression’ they been kept under in the family situation
for centuries. The fresh air of freedom smelled good and they wanted more. They were thus
free at last to find their own identity rather than have one forced upon them by their
parents as they had been for centuries. Again, there is probably some truth in this
argument.
And it is at this point that we must move on to examine the historical
context of the sixties.
Historical Impetus
There are abundant historical reasons why the phenomenon occurred when it
did and where it did, that have little really to do with adolescent psychology. It can be
argued that the free world `held its breath’ during the 1939- 45 war and was only able to
‘relax’ into some kind of normality during the fifties. It had been so preoccupied by war
that any other interests would have seemed like sheer self-indulgence. To have pursued other
interests during the war, rather than concentrate totally on it, would have been unthinkable
to most of the population, while ‘our boys were out there killing the Gerry’. It would have
seemed unbelievably selfish and uncaring, as if you didn’t care what happened, who won or
lost.
We must recall that the war had created an extremely cohesive social force
in Britain, ruthlessly exploited by the government and reinforced continually through
domestic propaganda. Anyone who did not contribute to the war effort (directly or
indirectly) was seen as a traitor and therefore as indirectly doing the Germans’ work. So
there was tremendous social pressure keeping people’s hearts and minds focussed on the war
and the war effort. It dominated everything. Even in post-war Britain there was still
rationing and there were long and vivid memories of the war itself. Most families lost
someone during the conflict, many lost homes and families too. So it would have taken at
least five or six years to build up some kind of normal life again.
In many ways there was not a ‘return’ to normality at all, in any case,
simply a moving forward to a new life. The past had gone and with it a whole way of life.
Many resented this, hoping to pick up where they had left off. It wasn’t to be. The war had
changed everything. The new jobs were in building and in new factories, especially the motor
industry, which had remained more or less stagnant for six years. Attention was now focussed
on designing and marketing new models. And they looked to America for design inspiration.
So that takes us into the early fifties, and it was around then that the
general ‘loosening and spoiling’ really began. Families who had been denied everything other
than war began to wake up to their other needs, including their families, their children and
their economic position. As a result they began to better themselves and spoil their
precious offspring in ways they had been neither able nor aware enough to do previously. So,
in this interpretation, the sixties were a product of what happened in the fifties, which in
turn was a product of the war and the post-war situation. A situation here meaning the home,
the family, the government, friends and relatives. Primarily it meant home, friends and
family, and as we have seen, it was mainly in that arena that the full force of sixties
changes were to be enacted.
In another sense the sixties can be seen as an inevitable phase that a
developing population must pass through, a phase of its development. This can be a useful
way of looking at it. It can be seen as a cultural shift that lagged behind the
technological shift that preceded it. In this sense, it can be seen as a delayed by- product
of the Industrial Revolution. That might be stretching things a little far, however. Few
historians would take this view. The post-war thesis and the identity-crisis of youth is
more likely a sounder explanation of the historical facts.
The study of the sixties is interesting from another angle, as it raises
all sorts of problems about the nature of history and the causes of events that more
properly belong to the philosophy of historical research, but which are nevertheless highly
relevant to this study.
We have now moved in the direction of explaining the three main elements
that we identified as the sixties phenomenon: why it happened here, why it happened when it
did and why it was youth who brought it all about.
Students
Throughout the foregoing we have made frequent mention of the importance
of students in the changes and protests that occurred during the sixties. They were in many
respects the adolescent writ large. They played an immensely important role in the whole
cultural event. We need to find some explantion for this.
We must begin by analysing what a student is in archetypal forms. Students
combine many characteristics that are important in our analysis. They are young (ie.
transitional beings), they are intelligent and they are dependent upon their parents and the
State for their `non- productive life’. Yet they are largely independent of parental
control, of the Government, of the employed majority and of what others in society may say
about fashion, values, morals, ideologies, political questions, music, etc.
They were thus regarded by the young as ‘hero- figures’ in the sixties
phenomenon, which is probably why they played such a prominent role in it. They combined all
the characteristic heroic features and could be relied upon (by youth) to have strongly
independent views on all the key issues of the decade. Indeed, as the sixties unfolded, they
proved themselves able to fiercely define and defend the views of youth. They were at the
forefront of critical attacks on governments, the police, political ideologies, law and
order and the traditions of the past. As a result they came to be associated with radical
politics, student unrest, campus revolt, riots, demos, petitions, sit-ins, etc.
They also keenly encapsulated the views and expression of youth in terms
of defining their own cultural mix. They grew their hair long, grew beards, wore colourful,
trendy, ‘way out’ clothing, espoused revolution, heroised (mythologised?) Che Guevara,
Castro, Lenin and Mao, stayed in bed late, rarely washed, lived with their partner, smoked
cannabis, drank a lot, were sexually promiscuous, listened to loud music, attended pop
festivals, hitch-hiked everywhere, didn’t give a damn and were answerable to no-one for
their views or beliefs: not to employers, parents or governments. They could say what they
liked and do what they liked and thus they were hero-figures throughout the decade. However,
they were, of course, hated by the rich, respectable and powerful, and feared by the
elderly.
As the sixties wore on students became stronger and stronger in the
counterculture, and admiration for them amongst the young grew. Students seemed to dwell in
a perfect world, a heaven, a utopia. It seemed like one long party. To go to college or
university became the dream of every sixteen to eighteen year old, as it represented the
ultimate in terms of freedom, vociferousness, enjoyment and being with your own kind.
To become a student was therefore, tantamount to turning your back on the
whole system, the rat-race, the parental generation and telling it to go and screw itself.
It was the ultimate. You got your grant cheque, your bedsit and you could do what the hell
you liked. You could stay up late smoking dope with friends and listening to freaky music if
you wanted and no-one would stop you. All your mates did the same, and who gave a shit? It
was bliss. Becoming a student was a political event, it was in effect ‘doing your bit’ for
the revolution. Sounds crazy now, but that was what it was like.
This is something of a stereotype of course. It was not true of all
students in the late sixties and early seventies. There were very few like this in the early
and mid-sixties, but many like it in the late sixties and early seventies. Even then,
however, there were many students who simply got on with their studies. There were also
those who `wore the uniform’ of revolt without actually attending any demos, sit-ins or
rallies. These were clearly not card- carrying ‘children of the revolution’. Perhaps they
were swept along with the tide of peer-group pressure, without understanding the overall
message. Perhaps they understood and embraced the overall message, but rejected the means of
achieving the end.
The late sixties were in many ways dominated- especially in student
circles- by a deep and pervasive sense of mission, of being able to change the world, of
really being poised on the very brink of a major shift in global thinking, a real
revolution. This feeling was so strong that it was almost tangible. None more so than in the
spring of 1968 when in Prague, in Paris and in the States evidence of this change seemed to
emerge powerfully and poignantly.
What then was the basis for this belief? Disregarding the actual student
unrest of 1968, we can identify 3 main threads. Firstly there is their critique of society
as it then was. Second was their vision of the type of society they wanted. And thirdly
there were the measures they felt necessary to overthrow the former and establish the
latter.
Firstly, their critique of society was a critique of the values and
methods of their parents’ generation. It was a mass rejection of the established way of
life.
Secondly, their vision of the type of society they wanted to live in was
liberal, laissez-faire, compassionate, romantic and truly egalitarian. It was a
predominantly socialist society that they wanted. They were against prejudice and privilege
and for the best of the past. It was a form of idealism and this aspect reached its zenith
in the hippy phase where the romantic vision became a mystical vision.
Thirdly, the methods they felt were necessary to overthrow the established
order and to establish there own new society, were drawn largely from revolutionary
politics. This aspect reached its fullest expression amongst the student power demos and
sit-ins.
In fact, as it turned out, and this is also true of what happened in the
States, there was an underlying lack of unity. There was a lack of unity in their critique,
in their vision of what they wanted and in the means of achieving a change. Thus the
movement meandered along in a rather disorganised and diffuse manner coming together in
united action or protest only occasionally over specific issues. As they lacked agreement,
they lacked also a focus to gather around and their energy was manifest merely as general
rebelliousness and political shadow boxing. Their efforts never developed into a full
revolution, a `storming of the Bastille’, they merely fizzled out.
Alternative Medicine
Having drawn together all the main threads of the sixties we must now turn
our attention to their role in the upsurge of interest in alternative medicine in the
seventies.
Apart from the general rebelliousness and anti- establishment activity,
the times were also marked by a gradual decline in the relative trust and status of the
expert or boffin. As a result, for example, science declined in status from Wilson’s `white
heat of technology’ of the early sixties to a growing distrust of science and experts
generally by the early seventies.
In many ways, it can be argued, this paved the way for the rise of the
anti-hero, the ordinary man or woman in the street, whose good sense was invoked repeatedly
to challenge the wisdom and authority of scientists, experts or doctors. It was a David and
Goliath situation, which had (and still has) great appeal.
Another event that caused a great blow in the credibility of medicine was
the Thalidomide tragedy. And this proved – quite rightly – to be a problem that would not go
away. It was a ghost that was repeatedly to return and haunt regular medicine throughout the
seventies and since.
There was a decline in morale and in the conviction, mythically pervasive
in science and medicine, that science had all the answers. In the late sixties and early
seventies another series of events was to bring into question or challenge this view of
science and the technological. There was a great upsurge of interest in pollution, wildlife
conservation and environmental education. This interest had been generated in part by the
realisation that many chemicals and pesticides had for some time been causing immense
damage, here and abroad, to many species (including man) that they were not intended to
harm. The Torrey Canyon oil spill of March 1967 reinforced this dismay.
There was also widespread protest against the building of motorways and
large trunk roads through areas of pretty countryside and similar outcries about the
products of 1960’s planning and architecture in many parts of Britain. The Ronan Point
disaster of 1968 – when part of a tower block fell off – again reinforced the view that
technological ‘progress’ and reliance on ‘experts’ carried with it a price, certainly in
safety terms, and often in terms of human lives. The whole concept of `them and us’ created
a demoralising effect in all professions. So the high status enjoyed by professional people
and experts generally suffered a marked decline between 1960 and 1970.
The net effect of all this is easy to see. With a growth of interest in
all forms of ‘alternatives’ from music to gardening, it is hardly surprising that there was
a turn also towards alternative forms of medicine. Combine this with the decline in trust
and respect for professionals and experts, including doctors, and concern over the
side-effects of pollutants and drugs and we can see a fairly clear historical basis for the
rise in interest.
Sources:
Booker, Christopher (1970) The Neophiliacs,
Fontana
Booker, Christopher, Palmer, Tony & McGough, Roger (1973)
The Sixties Sociopack, Sociopacks Ltd.
Braden, William (1971) The Age of Aquarius, Eyre & Spottiswood
Cockburn, Alexander & Blackburn, Robin (1969)
Student Power, Penguin
Cooper, David (Editor)(1968) The Dialectics of Liberation, Penguin
Cox, Barry (1975) Civil Liberties in Britain, Penguin
Fisher, Trevor (1990) Portrait of a Decade: the Sixties, Batsford
Hopkins, H. (1963) The New Look, a Social History of the 40’s and 50’s in Britain,
Levin, Bernard (1970) The Pendulum Years: Britain in the 1960’s
McMillan, James (1972) The Roots of Corruption, Tom Stacey, London
Masters, Brian (1971?) The Swinging Sixties,
Mays, J.B. (1969) The Young Pretenders, Sphere Books
Medlicott, W.N. (1969) Contemporary England 1914-64,
Nuttall, Jeff (1968) Bomb Culture, Paladin
Palmer, Tony (1970) Born Under a Bad Sign,
Roszak, Theodore (1970) The Making of a Counter Culture, Faber & Faber
Roszak, Theodore (1973?) Where the Wasteland Ends,
Sillitoe, Alan F.(1971) Britain in Figures, Penguin
Watkins, Leslie & Worcester, Robert (1986) Private Opinions Public Polls, Thames &
Hudson
Wootton, Barbara (1971) Contemporary Britain