Haight Ashbury’s Hippies: Permission to think differently

The HippyEven ten years ago, people wore ties. I still have one somewhere, an unpleasant orange affair with a few loose threads, part of a uniform worn by millions as they trudged to work to sit in their cubicle and pushed paper (remember paper?). I haven’t seen many ties in San Francisco, and certainly none in Ashbury Haight, spiritual home of the hippy movement and contemporary marketplace of crystal trinkets, tie-dye clothing and stylish T shirts. Today, the office is dying, swept away by the tides of change in the Social Age. But step back five decades, walk down these streets to look how this change occurred.

In the 60’s, a combination of cheap rent and psychedelic drugs created a community, a community based on free thinking and shared values: the music and literature that that community spawned drove a national awareness of it’s bohemian viewpoint and an amplification of it’s messages of free love and peace. To a disenfranchised youth, it fell on fertile ground.

1967, the Summer of Love, epitomised that culture: the amplification effect drew visitors from afar. As the numbers increased, the messages became confused. The original culture, one of experimentation and freedom was swept into a rapid parody of itself. The change overwhelmed the community and led to it’s eventual death (symbolised by a mock funeral for the ‘death of the hippie‘ in October of that year). As the former summer of love turned into an autumn of hard drugs and violence, the neighbourhood lost it’s way.

The roots of the hippy culture fell to a congruence of space and ideas: low rental accommodation, shared occupancy in older houses, a temperate climate and a repressive system. No wonder young people gathered and thought new thoughts. The space contributed to the ideas.

Amoeba Music

Today, it’s a parody: wide streets, bright painted shopfronts, a population of die hard wannabes and dreamers craving a bygone era. Today, it’s McDonalds that sits at one end of the street with Ben and Jerry’s at the other. Two behemoths of capitalism framing a memory of egalitarian freedom.

Don’t get me wrong: i loved it, although it’s more hipster and capitalist than hippy these days. Coffee shops, endless trinket stores and a constant stream of dreamy people in brightly coloured clothes, some clutching guitars, all welcoming, all clinging on to someone else’s memory. It’s a sunny living museum of a bygone age, clutching at it’s reputation and using graffiti to remind it of what it once was and what it represented to so many fellow thinkers around the world.

There’s a darker side too: San Francisco has a highly visible homeless culture and here was no exception. People collapsed in the shade of a wall, one guy stumbling and rocking back and forward, waving a stick around as if fighting off his own demons. Evidence of drink and drug problems on every street corner. The doctor offering transparent prescriptions if you could pay the bill (California permits marijuana use by prescription: in this area, it’s clear that the criteria are lax).

Despite this, the area retains a certain unique charm.

It’s ironic that a movement condemned as addled and vaguely structured has had such an impact on how we live, work and think today.

Hippy culture was of it’s time: a youth reaction to repressive social mores and imposed values. It was a countercultural thrust for liberation and freedom. It was catalyst for change: but then that change happened. it lost it’s momentum when it had achieved what it set out to do: to prove that self determination instead of conformity was an option, it proved that the messages of love could prevail.

Listen to this wall

Everything about the old world was lethargic: institutions and mentalities maintaining the status quo. The hippies were the stone that cast the ripples. Whilst not everyone made the trip to Ashbury Haight to join the movement, local hippy cultures sprung up around the world and the messages permeated. Whilst the hippy movement may not have painted a sustainable alternative, they did create the space where that alternative took root.

Today, we often don’t wear ties: people live together out of wedlock and many cultures embrace or at least tolerate liberal values and self expression. Not all: there are still battles to fight, but ideas that were once heretical have become common, so common that we don’t even stop to think how they got here.

The freewheeling mindset prevails: San Francisco remains a vibrant and tolerant city, willing to change, willing to explore it’s boundaries. In the contemporary city, everything goes.

There’s an argument that today’s space for unrestrained creativity and liberation is facilitated by and hosted upon the technologies we carry in our pockets. Whilst the hippies evolved from New York’s East Village and Ashbury Haight in California, and embarked on pilgrimages to places such as Glastonbury or the Isle of Wight, today’s digital rebel is more likely to join virtual communities and adopt multiple identities as they explore their own versions of reality.

Computers have changed the world and it’s easy to attribute that change to monsters like IBM and Hewlett Packard. But we can equally attribute it to the hippies. It’s easy to cite Steve Jobs, the billion dollar hippie, but there’s truth to the notion that his liberal arts background contributed to his disruptive power. Ideals expressed through music and art (notably calligraphy) influenced his thinking strongly and a strength of hippie culture was it’s willingness to embrace literature, art, music, performance: a holistic view of the world. If nothing else, the hippies were willing to search, to explore other value systems and thinking: in their case, eastern philosophies and mysticism. If we look at what it means to be agile in thought and deed, they certainly fulfilled that.

Organisations need hippy thinking: a willingness to think differently and share values. A willingness and capacity to form communities and share widely. It’s easy to dismiss the hippy culture as a meaningless, drug fuelled bout of sexual liberation and self fulfilment, but it’s left us more than that.

The hippies helped create permission to be different.

It’s probably no surprise that both New York and San Francisco pioneered LGBT rights and that to this day San Francisco is a liberal mecca for people of every sexual preference: and as we learnt from the recent Mozilla fiasco, tolerance for difference is not just a ‘nice to have‘. Organisations that don’t welcome difference can never truly be innovative or creative. If everyone is not truly equal, how can their voices really be heard?

Companies like Apple emerged as counter culture: unafraid to love music, to champion excellence, to value the different. Indeed, they actively positioned themselves as different. And we swarmed to them like moths to the light.

Amusingly, the two food chains bracketing Haight Ashbury today represent different ends of the spectrum: like Apple and IBM, McDonalds is the meat eating, globally dominant status quo whilst Ben and Jerry are the human faced, charismatic, LGBT friendly, flexible working upstarts.

The challenge for Apple, Google or Twitter is to make it through their summer of love: are their values and ideals transient, simply one step on a journey to a new liberal relationship with knowledge, or are they transformational and relevant in a contemporary setting? Just being big and wealthy doesn’t equal permanence.

Startups can afford to be different: they experiment with facets of their cultures that irk them: companies like Valve, with open and fluid teams, flat structures or open holiday policies. Startups are allowed to be freewheeling. But in time, they conform: Apple is no longer the upstart now it resides in it’s chromed headquarters. Alongside the Googleplex on Mountain View, guarding the San Francisco peninsula, these are simply the physical manifestations of global communities and cultures. But can their values survive the pressure?

The hippies provided the catalyst for change, but ultimately were swept away by that very change.

The original hippy movement was not strategic: it was emergent. Circumstance created the environmental pressure and that pressure was released in a wave of youthful rebellion. It’s just this type of wave that will carry away many of the other twentieth century anachronisms (like the notion of ‘career’, the idea of structured learning, ideas of privacy and permanence).

Today, the circumstances are different, but the pressures still build: organisations have to find ways to engage in the conversations, to find their hippie mindset to question, to challenge, to unite.

Who gives permission to change? Often organisations think that they own this right, but in fact it’s held by the community. Sure, we can implement change programmes, but the decision to actually change sits within us all. The hippies found unity around shared counter cultural values and messaging. They united to reject the system and co-created a new reality within their communes and community spaces. A truly co-owned transition. Within our own organisations, we have to reflect on where our permission to change is owned, how we are empowering people to own it, or whether our systems and processes are more about control and repression than free thinking and innovation.

As i rode the taxi across town, my driver recounted his own stories of Ashbury Haight in the 60’s. Every block or so he said ‘i lived there‘, through a seemingly endless sequence of shared apartments and transient relationships. Today, he drives a cab. The enlightenment he received lives on in memories and a certain disregard for the system. In time his counter cultural urges have left him firmly in the mainstream, but maybe with a different perspective, and perspective is something you can’t easily attain.

A challenge for our young tech start-ups is that their culture is emergent and they simply have no time for reflection: maybe in forty years time, as they sit with grey hair and reflect, they will be wise, but for now, they are creating both their own environment and culture within it. The mistakes they will inevitably make are not predictable.

The true legacy of the hippies is not that they made their mistakes for the rest of us, but rather that they pioneered a willingness to question, to challenge, to become agile. A short lived empire, nonetheless their ripples, their stories, travel far.

Advertisements

About julianstodd

A learning and development professional specialising in e-learning and learning technology.
This entry was posted in Agile, Change and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Haight Ashbury’s Hippies: Permission to think differently

  1. Pingback: Haight Ashbury's Hippies: Permission to think d...

  2. Julian,
    As a member of that generation, from California (L.A. rather than S.F. but with strong links to the Bay Area), may I amend your excellent account by adding a bit of supplementary information? The whole hippie thing needs to be understood in terms of three major factors that influenced our psyches at the time and which you haven’t mentioned: the assassination of Kennedy (vanished dreams), the lingering cold war mentality (waiting for WWIII, expected to be a full nuclear outing this time) and Vietnam (such a weird war that made no sense and wasn’t even nuclear, and yet we were being drafted to execute it and that worried not only us, but also our Moms). These are the three main factors that are behind “tune in, turn out, drop out”.

    But there was more: civil rights and black power, which our white parents — the ones in control — didn’t know how to handle, and which we youngsters kind of identified will (hey protest songs are cool!) but couldn’t really see where it advanced our own interests.

    In my previous sentence you will find the factor we both completely agree on. U.S. culture is based on the idea of identifying and advancing one’s own interest and eventually grouping with others to do so. You never really know if the cause one espouses (you always need a cause, as the title of the film “rebel without a cause” indicates) represents an attempt at sincerely sharing your interests with others or is simply a way of each individual getting what he or she wants. A case in point: the most prominent of the cultural leaders of the hippie movement, Jerry Rubin. He had an incredible influence on all of us, but it turns out that, even as the radical Yippie, at heart he was a capitalistic opportunistic who ended up as a multimillionaire capitalist, living his true Weltanschuuang: “wealth creation is the real American revolution”.

    I’ve watched the whole Mad Men series to see how later generations believe the 60s played out. That was an incredibly complex time to grow up in (I was 13 at the start of the decade). The representations that later generations have are bound to be skewed, partly because each of us had a profoundly different experience of it based on both loyalties and choices. Everyone could choose their own cultural model which they would “tune into”; with or without drugs you could “turn on” (sex was one option, but even religious mysticism, especially of imagined Eastern origin, was another one), and of course the whole point was to drop out (the only other choice: get drafted!). Kennedy was dead; a meaningless war was beckoning to us. Dropping out was by far the best option.

    In short, it was a time of phenomenal cultural stress. The creativity was fascinating… but very short-lived and quickly channeled into Jerry Rubin style schemes to make millions (for oneself… hey, that’s pretty creative isn’t). American capitalism evolved… by exploiting the so-called creativity of the hippies. Reaganism set the tone ten years on as deregulation became the major legacy of the hippies, totally unintended of course. And that gave us the world we have today, where the rich (creative and just cynical alike) get richer and the rest of humanity is left by the wayside, with a generously extended invitation to be creative and grow rich like those who own the highway (61?).

    • julianstodd says:

      Hey Peter, thanks for adding and sharing your superb narrative. Very interesting! I guess the fascinating part for me is the rapidity with which the culture evolved and your expansion and insights into the forces that shaped it. Thanks for visiting 🙂 best wishes

      Julian

  3. Julian,
    The rapidity was indeed impressive at the time. It was a much slower world we grew up in. Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever else may have had a hand in it) started a process that quickly changed our notions of historical time and scope for action.

    And don’t get me wrong, the creativity was extremely exciting, especially for its richness because we had the impression that we were mobilizing the entire past, the best of all of humanity’s traditions and wisdom to create a more human future. There was a collective feeling that has since disappeared. We felt at the time that our education had a meaning, above and beyond getting a job… which is clearly no longer the case. In spite of our seemingly casual irreverence, we respected everything intellectual and cultural that claimed to command respect.

    Although there was something magic about it, I feel no particular nostalgia for the period. On the other hand, I feel depressed about the evolution of education in the past 40 years, not that it was a viable model, but at least it encouraged certain humanistic ideals.

    The politics of the time (i.e. war) screwed up my life plan (which actually went through Oxford for a while, before being rudely aborted). I can see to my dismay that the politics haven’t changed since then, which highlights what I said above. Rather than the destroyers of culture some think we took as our mission, we were perhaps the last generation to believe that we could confidently deconstruct the past, learn from it and do better. Once the Vietnam fiasco would be over, we were sure we would know that that was a path that would nevermore be trodden and that there better things to accomplish.

    And then came W. Bush, who actually was one of us… but I think he was too turned on to actually drop out, which he wouldn’t have done anyway given the family he came from!

    So there is my potted history of the 60s in America. In 1972 I left England for Paris, where I’ve pretty much been ever since. And have dedicated those years to rethinking education.

  4. Pingback: Haight Ashbury’s Hippies: Permission to think differently | Worldwide Hippies

  5. cotatikid says:

    The neighborhood is universally known as the Haight Ashbury, never as the “Ashbury Haight.”

    You can’t rationally discuss the significance of the “Hippies” without focusing on the music, art and literature that played such a huge role in coalescing so many of us into a new culture.

    • Peter Isackson says:

      Cokatid, nobody can rationally discuss any of it today, since there so much of it had nothing to do with rationality. It was downright weird. Speaking of the literature, we read “prophets” like Jerry Rubin, who sold out as soon as he lost his audience (became a huckstering entrepreneur), but we were reading classics like Hermann Hesse, Kafka, Mann (lots of Germans!), as well as Ken Kesey, Anthony Burgess, Eldridge Cleaver and and in fact — hell! — all of western and eastern literature. Enough people were curious about everything, which no longer seems to be the case. I remember crowds of us in the evening browsing in the Sausalito bookshop nextdoor to the No Name Bar. That’s where I bought a book by Jung on psychology and religion. Did our generation kill literature? Did we all become Jerry Rubins? Because apart from the followers of Stanley Fish and Harold Bloom, literature has disappeared from the cultural landscape in favor of the commercial cultures of TV, facebooking and a generation of pop music that has none of the provocative excitement of that era, whatever the type of music. I personally stayed faithful to jazz, while most white musicians — culturally excluded by black power — migrated to the wild rock scene, like my great friend and bass player John Kahn who ended up with (and like) Jerry Garcia… within a year of Garcia’s demise, he shared the same sad fate. Jazz (i.e. black music) later morphed into rap/hiphop, a culture of arrogant blingbling and global celebrity whereas the rock of Zappa, Morisson, Clapton and all the Brits morphed into… whatever it is today that people get stoned on. Taylor Swift?

  6. Pingback: “Nuevas” formas de aprender en el trabajo | Mariano Sbert

  7. Pingback: Reflections from mLearnCon: geolocation and exploration | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  8. Pingback: The battle for the soul of San Francisco | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  9. Pingback: Writing: Milestones | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  10. Pingback: Unleashing Creativity: getting fit for the Social Age | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  11. Pingback: Radical Change: engaging communities | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  12. Pingback: Skills for the Digital Learner | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  13. Pingback: Familiarity: never stop exploring | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  14. Pingback: To Thrive in Chaos and Ambiguity | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  15. Pingback: The CEDA Model: checking the vitality of Social Learning communities | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  16. Pingback: CIPD Show 2015 Day 2: Power and Control | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

  17. Pingback: Sunlight | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s