The 1960s Social Revolution: A Misguided Pursuit of Self-Interest?

 

The 1960s are often hailed as a time of radical change, a period where societal norms were challenged, and a "counter-culture" emerged to question the foundations of the American way of life. There was the Civil Rights Movement, feminism, anti-war protests, and the general spirit of rebellion that saw the young generation opposing their parents' conservative views. However, a growing perspective argues that the 1960s social revolution was less about societal change and more about self-interest. This viewpoint postulates that once the pressing issues, such as the Vietnam War, were out of the picture, many so-called revolutionaries reverted to middle-class lives. The decade is criticized as being mainly about the "Me" generation.

The initial years of the 1960s saw genuine concern for societal issues. There was a strong push against racial segregation, and the anti-war sentiment was genuine. The Kent State shootings in 1970, where the National Guard killed unarmed college students during a peace rally, became emblematic of the tension and division in the country.

However, after the Vietnam War ended and the media spotlight shifted, many activists lost their fervor. The war's end removed a central rallying point, and many young people focused more on personal advancement. This transition from activism to personal ambition raises the question: was the social revolution truly about change, or was it merely a temporary phase until personal comfort could be achieved?

In his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," Robert H. Bork delves deep into the cultural decline of America. He argues that the liberal ethos of the 1960s and its emphasis on individual freedoms without societal responsibility is at the heart of this decline. Bork's analysis suggests that the 1960s revolutionaries, rather than actual agents of societal change, were more about pursuing individual liberties without the accompanying responsibilities.

The outcomes of this emphasis on personal freedom were hedonism, radical individualism, and a decline in moral standards, as observed by Bork. The revolution's remnants could be seen in increased drug use, sexual liberation without responsibility, and a focus on personal gratification.

While the 1960s started with a bang, with activists advocating for significant changes, by the 1980s, many of these individuals had seamlessly transitioned into middle-class lives. The rebellious student who once protested against the system was now a part of it, seeking the same comforts and securities their parents had.

This shift underscores the criticism that the 1960s revolution was less about effecting lasting change and more about a temporary period of rebellion before settling into the system they once opposed.

While it's crucial to recognize the genuine efforts and sacrifices made during the 1960s by many individuals, it's highly critical to analyze the lasting impacts of the era critically. The transition from activism to middle-class comfort by many once-radical individuals suggests a self-interested underpinning to the revolution. And, as books like "Slouching" and Towards Gomorrah" highlight, the unchecked personal freedoms celebrated during the time might have had long-term societal costs. The 1960s, though revolutionary in many ways, warrants a closer look to discern(or disdain) its true legacy.