Stuck on Woodstock

Wow – I guess I thought that Woodstock really was “history” and that people would be willing to just let it be. But my hopes were dashed – as usual. For weeks now, we've been treated to an endless stream of talking-head speculations as to the “significance” of Woodstock, and whether its effects can still be felt today, and was it the end of something or the beginning of something else, and so on and so forth. And given that it's the summer “silly season” when columnists are notoriously underemployed and desperate to find any topic – anything! -- to write about in order to “make deadline”, it's still surprising to me to find so much attention devoted to this topic. The reason, I guess, is that I saw Woodstock as not so much a cause as an effect – not so much a key historical event as a symptom. OK, given, it was a high water mark of sorts – probably the largest single gathering of the powerless, disenfranchised, and stoned of that generation. And it was a musical high water mark as well – as any viewing of the movie will make abundantly clear. Any musician who was anyone was there, and at the top of their game. That alone would make it gratifying enough – and worth all the mud, rain, overflowing toilets, yeast infections, etc. (I wasn't in attendance myself, having accepted an invitation to spend a couple weeks on a yacht traveling up the Intracoastal Waterway -- but I did read the papers.) And I guess it was also just plain surprising in that, “OMG”, who knew there were that many unemployed hippie kids wandering around the Northeast in the summer of 1969? That had to have scared the crap out of not a few “establishment” types – what if these people really got together behind some cause, like... like getting us out of Vietnam, for example? After all, the Chicago convention just a year earlier had provided a preview. But really, the truth was – and I knew some of these hippies, although I was not of their number – for every political activist there were 100 people who just wanted to get stoned and, once in a while, try their hand at being “creative”. But in the meantime it was about getting stoned and listening to music. And having sex, OK. And that was about it. So Woodstock was about as much of a threat to the Establishment as nude beaches are to the clothing industry. And yet, the event acquired instant icon status... and, I suspect, some of this was because it didn't have all that much competition. I mean, the hippie movement was kind of, let's say, decentralized, despite some obvious areas of concentration like San Francisco. It happened all over the country, in fact... it was a true cultural phenomenon, and not just a media creation, and not just the latest craze of some elite. Was it really about millions of people all getting the same ideas about the same things at the same time? Well, obviously there were many cultural trendsetters involved – musical groups, artists, writers... as well as, needless to say, the influence of psychoactive drugs of all varieties. And yes, there were the exploiters... the people out to make a buck... the demagogues... the charismatic cult leaders and psychopaths; all of this is inevitable when you're dealing with a grass-roots movement. I daresay the same phenomena accompanied the Third Great Awakening.

But did it have real, tangible causes? Well, certainly the Vietnam war and the draft were two huge, huge influences. They were what turned rock 'n' roll from fun into politics, basically. Drugs were huge influences. And there were movements of all sorts in music and academics that had their impact – as did trends in style (clothing or the lack thereof) and even personal grooming. And let's not forget “the pill”! So in a sense the hippie movement was a “perfect storm” -- a meeting of many powerful forces.

But did it have real, tangible effects? On politics – negligible, except maybe in the short run, to the extent that it contributed to Lyndon Johnson's decision not to run again in 1968. This, in turn, paved the way for a Democratic defeat and a Republican victory and... seven more years of war! Wow, so much for that as an effective political movement. Did it have any tangible influence on drug policy? Only in that it enabled it to become even more entrenched and dogmatic. OK then... how about on, let's say, things like marriage and child rearing? Now that's an area where the movement really did have an impact – not only in making marriage optional, but in turning child rearing into a kind of peer relationship rather than a parent-child relationship.

But in another “domestic” arena, my theory has always been that the hippie movement gave rise directly to the feminist movement. And why was this, since the hippies represented freedom... liberation... equality... and all that. Or did they? Well... on a day-to-day basis, my observation was always that the hippie movement was total duck soup for the men, but not so hot for the women. The men could have sex with anyone they pleased at any time... but it was the women who had to worry about contraception, yeast infections, and so on. And I think that, after a while, the gals got tired of it, and felt like they'd been ripped off by all those lazy hippie dudes, and – lo and behold! -- the feminist movement was born. Yeah, it's simplistic, but I think there's a lot to it.

But I haven't even gotten to the main event as yet. Let's talk about the whole galaxy of things that is variously described as “the human potential movement”, “self-actualization”, “holistic health”, “New Age”, and so on. Things of this sort were floating around prior to the 1960s, no doubt – but the hippie movement tied rockets onto all of that and sent it soaring into what is now, basically, the mainstream. Take something as simple as yogurt, for instance. (Bear with me, OK?) I remember quite clearly when THE ONLY PLACE TO GET YOGURT was a hippie “co-op” and the yogurt was in fruit jars and came in one flavor -- “plain”. I can walk into any supermarket in the land now and find an entire aisle devoted to yogurt, with no fewer than 200 flavors and flavor combinations. And who gets all the credit for this? The hippies. And don't even get me started on vitamins and supplements of all sorts. When I was a kid it was “One a Day”... now it's an entire section of the drug store... or an entire store. And how about camping, hiking, and “trekking”? Did those pastimes not get a major shot in the arm by the back-to-nature hippies? And did not many of the hippie communes turn into high-tech farms that now supply the billions-a-year “natural” or “organic” food business? I mean, can you say "Ben and Jerry's"... or "Celestial Seasonings"... or "Burt's Bees"? And so on.

I honestly don't understand all these “experts” who claim that the hippie movement was a flash in the pan... a momentary fad... and that it has had no lasting effects. Maybe it's because the effects are so pervasive, and universal... or maybe it's because they forget what things were like before (or are too young to remember). Every city of any size in the country has its enclaves of artistic, “sensitive” types who are also vegetarians, or vegans... who are politically aware (if not astute)... who are anti-war... who are into urban gardens, natural/organic foods, natural materials for clothing, natural cosmetics, natural soap, natural... just about everything. And many of them are, lo and behold, raising kids the same way. And guess what, none of them was alive at the time of Woodstock – and yet they are the true heirs. The hippie culture, of which Woodstock was a prominent, but ultimately narrow and limited, manifestation, has now become the American culture, for a significant minority... and at least a part of the general background for everyone else. So I say to these pundits – quit obsessing about Woodstock and its significance; the truth is, it never really ended.