COUNTERCULTURES- in search of the same features of communi-
ty, idealism, antimaterialism, mysticism, transcen-
dence to a higher plane, and ‘‘a spiritual way of
life, which stands outside the traditional institu-
tions found in America’’ (Rochford 1985, p. 44).
Its primary values conflicting with mainstream
culture include the rejection of (1) material suc-
cess through competitive labor; (2) education to
promote that end; (3) possessions for sense gratifi-
cation; (4) authority favoring the status quo; (5)
imperialistic aggression; and (6) the hypocrisy of
racial discrimination (Judah 1974, p. 16). After the
death of its American spiritual master, Srila
Prabhupada, in 1977, however, the movement
peaked and became more commercialized, trans-
ferring its emphasis from self-expression and
uniqueness perpetuation of the sect, thereby be-
coming more of a mass phenomenon.
In contrast to the religious and value compo-
nents of the Hare Krishnas’ rejection of main-
stream culture, the punk or punk rock countercul-
ture of the late 1970s and early 1980s was more of
a style movement (Hebdige 1981). As Fox (1987, p.
349) has noted, ‘‘The punks created a new aesthet-
ic that revealed their lack of hope, cynicism, and
rejection of societal norms.’’ This was expressed in
both their appearance and their lifestyle. The punk
belief system was antiestablishment and anarchis-
tic, celebrating chaos, cynicism, and distrust of
authority. Punks disdained the conventional sys-
tem, with its bureaucracies, power structures, and
competition for scarce goods (Fox 1987). Mem-
bers lived outside the system, unemployed, in old
abandoned houses or with friends, and engaged in
heavy use of drugs such as heroin and glue. Hard-
core commitment was usually associated with
semipermanent alteration of members’ appear-
ance through tattoos, shaven heads, or Mohawk
hairstyles (Brake 1985). The musical scene associ-
ated with punks was contrary to established tastes
as well and often involved self-abandonment char-
acterized by ‘‘crash dancing’’ (Street 1986).
In contrast to the hippies, Krishnas, and punks,
the survivalist counterculture was grounded in
exaggeration of right-wing beliefs and values. While
some of the former groups preached love, survival-
ists were characterized by hate. Formed out of
extremist coalition splinter groups such as neo-
Nazis, the KKK, the John Birch Society, fundamen-
talist Mormon Freemen, the White Aryan Resist-
ance, and tax protesters from Posse Comitatus,
survivalists drew on long-standing convictions that
an international conspiracy of Jews was taking
over everything from banking, real estate, and the
press to the Soviet Politburo, and that the white
race was being ‘‘mongrelized’’ by civil-rights legis-
lation. A cleansing nuclear war or act of God, with
‘‘secular’’ assistance, would soon bring the Arma-
geddon, eradicating the ‘‘Beast’’ in their midst
(Coates 1987). Members thus set about producing
and distributing survivalist literature, stockpiling
machine guns, fuel, food, and medical supplies on
remote farms and in underground bunkers, join-
ing survivalist retreat groups, and attending surviv-
alist training courses (Peterson 1984). Within their
retreat communities they rejected the rationali-
zation, technologization, secularization, and
commodification of society, creating an environ-
ment of creative self-expression where an individu-
al could accomplish meaningful work with a few
simple tools. In their withdrawn communities and
‘‘utopian’’ future scenario, men would reclaim
their roles as heads of the family; women would
regain mastery over crafts and nurturance. Theirs
is thus a celebration of fantasy and irrationality
(Mitchell, n.d.). Yet while they isolate themselves
in countercultures composed of like-minded indi-
viduals, they try to influence mainstream society
through activism in radical right-wing politics as
well. Their actions and beliefs, although rejecting
the directions and trends in contemporary society,
arise out of and represent frustrations felt by
embattled segments of the Moral Majority (mainly
fundamentalist Christian, white groups).
Scholarly treatment of counterculture move-
ments is not limited to the United States. In the
field of new social movements research, many
European scholars have looked at organizations
that are designed to mobilize forces against na-
tionalistic cultures. These studies, ranging in top-
ics from nuclear weapons, ecology, squatters’ rights,
gays, women, and other countercultural groups
(i.e., Autonomen or terrorist organizations), have
explored the common denominators inherent in
all new social movements. Using quantitative data
from protest events collected from newspaper
sources in France, the Netherlands, Germany, and
Switzerland, Hanspeter Kriesi and others (1995)
outlined the ‘‘new cleavage’’ that exists in these
Western European societies.Countercultures thus stand on the periphery
of culture, spawned by and spawning social trends