Talk:Hippie

Historical Amnesia

Though well-written, the main article lacks analysis which goes beyond the recording of phenomena to assign responsibility for QUALITATIVE CHANGES which the hippies imposed on the stream of American history. Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist. They do, and they are in the majority within policy-making bodies (official and otherwise) in American government and within society in general. To steal a march from the hippies themselves by calling upon Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us!" HIPPIE is not, and probably never was, a length of hair, style of dress, idiom of speech or any other artifact of self-expression; it is, and probably always has been, the sum of motivated actions to undermine and overthrow all that had been standard POV, custom and social practice before the Decade of Dissolution (1960s). This intent is presently expressed and enforced as Political Correctness and countless other forms of mandatoty self-hatred within the United States. Hippies haven't passed into history -- they have simply become "The Man". From what better point to enforce one's Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.197.15 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That may perhaps be a debatable point of view, but being an open-minded and neutral encyclopedia project, we have this thing called "neutral point of view" that we use for handling points of view that are debatable, or opposed to other points of view. Basically, any point of view can be mentioned as such, provided its significance can be verified in reliable sources. So, if you could find any published sources that match your point of view, we could take a look at their appropriateness for mention. And this complaint makes little sense to me: "Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist." Uh, the article doesn't actually assert or imply that the hippies no longer exist, and how could it actively assert something it doesn't "by omission"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said Eulenspiegel. I would add that we contemporary hippies never insist on "political correctness;" the unnamed author above is confused on that point. Perhaps he is thinking of a group that has no official name or historical designation; in the United States they might currently be called "leftist liberals" (with or without the pejorative sneer), though this group knows little of traditional liberalism. He is correct that this group DOES seek to impose its will through intimidation; hippies never did that and still don't. Apostle12 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are speaking of satyagraha, but this was a practice of the American civil rights movement, not hippies. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good word. Though I believe you are mistaken about the absence of this practice among hippies.Apostle12 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Top image of girl in apartment

Pardon me, but is the top image, added rather recently, really a good representation for this article? To get people interested? Looks to me like somebody dressed up kind of hippie style (maybe recently?) in a setting which looks more lite a standard, comfortable apartment rather than any atmosphere one would expect to see. No typical posters on the walls, no shawls hanging from the ceiling, no chimes, no incense, no long shag carpet - bland. And what's that on top of her head? Undiscernable. Just a thought. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a period pic from 1969, which makes it 43 years old. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"And what's that on top of her head?" LOL No doubt, it is some wall-mounted ornament behind her head... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Undiscernable and distracting thing, whatever it is. Cute Italian girl. Nice pinstripes (never saw them on any hippie back then). Inappropriate top image, as I see it. Hope we can find something much more engaging to go there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Read what you've said here. You're basically arguing that we should strive to enforce stereotypes about hippies rather than portray actual people associated with the lifestyle. Is that really what Wikipedia should be doing? Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some would say the photo bears a remarkable resemblance to User:Jeanne boleyn - maybe someone should ask her....  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

V:"You're basically arguing that we should strive to enforce stereotypes about hippies rather than portray actual people associated with the lifestyle." I strongly resent that unjustifiable accusation. Why be rude? There's a big difference bewteen stereotypes and genuine, engaging atmosphere. I should know. Am strongly anti-stereotypes.

G: very good idea, if so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Breathtaking POV

I can't think of a stronger example of POV than the attribution of the long list of social advances to whatever it is this article refers to but I removed the tag from the Legacy § for the usual reason given in the log. It's also amusing to see the typical etymology job on a word you saw come into existence. I doubt any etymology is valid, it was just there at the right time when the subculture emerged that would receive it as a label. Geo. Carlins hippie-dippy weatherman was apparently first performed in '67 and I'm sure Steve Allen and Louis Nye used the term before that. 72.228.177.92 (talk)

Adam Curtis

I'm thinking about adding the critique of the hippie movement from All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (2011), a BBC TV series by Adam Curtis. I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about it. Going from memory, Curtis's criticism starts with several simple observations: the hippies were influenced by system theories popularized by flawed/incomplete computer models of the environment and society, and their experiments with alternative communities failed because the models they used didn't take into account the human tendency to use politics and power to change society. According to Curtis, the hippies attempt to weaken politics and power struggles within their subculture ironically led to more of it, with bullying by stronger members of the group leading to less individuality and more oppression contrary to its stated aims. Of course, this type of problem has less to do with hippies and more to do with the nature of humanity. Nevertheless, this is one of the best criticisms of the hippie movement I've run across, so I would be interested in hearing what others have to say. If you respond, please refer to other sources of criticism if you can. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As you put it, "The hippies were influenced by system theories popularized by flawed/incomplete computer models of the environment and society"....Can this really be true? I spent a lot of time with a lot of hippies, and I can say categorically that even the most cerebral among us never went there. Mostly we were simply naive; we did not understand that political and governmental structures exist to moderate power struggles that are an unavoidable concomitant of the human condition.

Probably the most aware hippie "guru" (though he would certainly reject the term) was Stephen Gaskin. I am not sure bullying and oppression occured at The Farm, an intentional community he founded, though certainly the community went through dysfunctional periods. The Farm still exists, and its forty-year history has been carefully documented. It would be revealing to compare Curtis'criticisms with the realities of life at The Farm.

Do you know where I might review Curtis' work? Apostle12 (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The entire series is available for free online.[1] One does not have to be personally aware of something for it to be influential. Disease is a good example. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The disease analogy might apply if one could demonstrate that the relevant system theories had been sufficiently popularized by the time hippies began their experiments AND that hippies had been exposed to such theories, either by studying them, or because said theories had become major forces shaping 1960s culture. Will watch the series to see if Curtis adequately supports his hypothesis. Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What criticism of the hippies does the article currently contain? Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course criticism of the hippies should be noted, rather than promulgated, by the article. I see that quite a bit of criticism is noted in the section titled "Summer of Love 1967," especially the last paragraph. Reading through the article, counterpoints are also noted. Haven't yet reviewed Curtis' critique, however there may be an appropriate place for it in the article--perhaps in the sections that discuss hippie ideals,especially "Spirituality and Religion."Apostle12 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it. Could you briefly rephrase it in your own words? Based on my review of the literature, there are several critical themes that come up more often than others. These include: sex, drugs, intentional communities, and the legacy of the hippies. From my own reading on the subject, I'm more familiar with the criticism surrounding drugs and the intentional communities, and less familiar with the criticism of sex and legacy. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather quote the article:

"With this increased attention, hippies found support for their ideals of love and peace but were also criticized for their anti-work, pro-drug, and permissive ethos...By the end of the summer, the Haight-Ashbury scene had deteriorated...Haight-Ashbury could not accommodate the influx of crowds (mostly naive youngsters) with no place to live. Many took to living on the street, panhandling and drug-dealing. There were problems with malnourishment, disease, and drug addiction. Crime and violence skyrocketed. None of these trends reflected what the hippies had envisioned. By the end of 1967, many of the hippies and musicians who initiated the Summer of Love had moved on. Beatle George Harrison had once visited Haight-Ashbury and found it to be just a haven for dropouts, inspiring him to give up LSD.[citation needed] Misgivings about the hippie culture, particularly with regard to drug abuse and lenient morality, fueled the moral panics of the late 1960s."

"The events at Altamont Free Concert shocked many Americans,including those who had strongly identified with hippie culture. Another shock came in the form of the Sharon Tate and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca murders committed in August 1969 by Charles Manson and his "family" of followers."

"Starting in the late 1960s, hippies began to come under attack by working-class skinheads. Hippies were also vilified and sometimes attacked by punks, revivalist mods, greasers, football casuals, Teddy boys, rednecks and members of other youth subcultures of the 1970s and 1980s. The countercultural movement was also under covert assault by J. Edgar Hoover's infamous 'Counter Intelligence Program' (COINTELPRO)..."

"While many hippies made a long-term commitment to the lifestyle, some people argue that hippies 'sold out' during the 1980s and became part of the materialist, consumer culture."

"At the same time, many thoughtful hippies distanced themselves from the very idea that the way a person dresses could be a reliable signal of who he was, especially after outright criminals, like Charles Manson, began to adopt superficial hippie characteristics, and also after plainclothes policemen started to 'dress like hippies' in order to divide and conquer legitimate members of the counter-culture. Frank Zappa admonished his audience that 'we all wear a uniform': the San Francisco clown/hippie Wavy Gravy said in 1987 that he could still see fellow-feeling in the eyes of Market Street businessmen who had dressed conventionally to survive."

Clearly the "Legacy" section could use more counterpoints, since the American right always considered hippies degenerates and to this day most conservatives are critical of the hippie legacy. The culture wars that divide contemporary American can be viewed as an afterburn of the straight/hippie dichotomy that began during the 1960s.Apostle12 (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Curtis' analysis could provide an effective counterpoint to this:

"Nevertheless such activism was carried through anti-authoritarian and non-violent means and so 'The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power structures since they are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and freedom...Hippies don't impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world through reason and by living what they believe.'"

Still not convinced Curtis' argument has merit, however it can certainly be noted as relevant criticism. Apostle12 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lot of problems with that text. Let's start with sourcing and attribution. First of all, you are quoting a self-published book by someone named "Skip Stone". It's not appropriate to cite such a source as if were an historical fact. If we can even use such a source, you will need to be mindful of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is one reason this article cannot progress towards Good or Featured status. This kind of poor writing and even worse sourcing needs to be fixed immediately. Also, we don't generally write encyclopedia articles based on point/counterpoint. Most reliable sources on the hippie movement criticize the prevalence of sexism, the failure of intentional community building, the disastrous drug experimentation, and the failure of the hippies to even begin to attempt to change the system they rebelled against. What Curtis (and others) criticize is what they see as the flawed model that the hippies were working with in the first place, a model that Curtis claims is more machine oriented than human. Just to be clear, most critics aren't blaming the hippies for any of these things, but merely noting that these values were inherited from the previous generation. In other words, according to this criticism, no matter how hard the hippies tried to rebel, they fell into the same traps as the people they were trying to rebel against. The problem wasn't authoritarian, violent, and repressive hierarchical power structures, but rather the tendency of all societies, whether straight or hippie, to move towards that direction without proper checks and balances to prevent it. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't chide me as though I wrote the section I quoted from the article. I neither wrote it, nor did I source it. You seem perpetually to want to start an argument. Weary of that. Apostle12 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

To address the quotes you raised above, it is mentioned that hippies were "criticized for their anti-work, pro-drug, and permissive ethos". I would like to see that discussed in depth in their respective sections. It's also a bit misleading. Hippies weren't criticized so much for being "pro-drug" as for being on drugs, all the time. Some of the best criticism about hippie drug use comes from hippies, most of whom decry irresponsible and repetitive drug use. Nevertheless, history shows that government drug policies were also to blame, as private individuals were raided on their own property again and again. The dynamic interplay of individual freedom and social responsibility, love for fellow hippies and hatred for the establishment is where the real interesting criticism can be found. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of differing sorts of criticism to go around, much of it worthwhile. It's a small point, however I think hippies WERE criticized for being "pro-drug," especially with respect to LSD, which most hippies took only occasionally. One of the major losses of the era was the cessation of virtually all controlled scientific experimentation with LSD and other psychoactive substances, experimentation that had become quite promising during the 1950s and early 1960s. Hippies embarked on an enormous, uncontrolled experiment, where millions of young people took these substances, mostly just to see what might happen. Scary stuff for the society at large. Apostle12 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, American society is very pro-drug, so that's not a very specific criticism. What you are trying to say is that the hippies were pro-psychedelic. Also, taking a substance just to see what might happen isn't very wise. Granted, humans are inquisitive, but taking LSD over and over again isn't very helpful, and most hippies will agree with that statement. I think it was Jerry Garcia who famously said that he would take mushrooms once a year just to "clean the pipes out", and there is something to be said for that kind of limited recreational use. Putting aside Garcia's serious drug addiction, one could conceivably use psychedelic drugs safely, but I don't think anyone will agree that the hippies used drugs safely or reasonably. That's not to say it is government's role to regulate personal behavior, and I'm certainly not arguing that side. What I am saying, is that there are different views on the subject from members of the hippie movement. Richard Alpert and others wrote and spoke about moving beyond drugs. I can't remember who said it, but one hippie figure said that once you have had your eyes opened (to become "hip") there's no need to keep using the drugs again and again. The point is to understand the experience and incorporate it into your daily life. Of course, if you compare this with the alcohol and prescription-fueled culture of the establishment, then one can argue that drug use by hippies was of little consequence. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that drug use by the hippies was of little consequence, even by the standards of the 1960s where nicotine, caffeine, alcohol and valium were the drugs of choice among establishment folk. Today the scale of hippie drug use seems almost quaint, especially in comparison with the casual prescribing of SSRIs to more than 30,000,000 Americans (including children) for reasons ranging from minor depression, to anxiety, to weight control, to pain management, to Gulf War Syndrome, to post traumatic stress disorder, to major depression, to psychosis.....the list becomes quite long. In fact, most contemporary SSRI ingestion is also "just to see what might happen," since medical trials are grossly inadequate to predict the ultimate consequences when these drugs are taken by humans of varying ages, with varying genetic inheritances, and with varying physical maladies. I know from the experiences of close family members that monitoring of SSRI patients by medical professionals is amost non-existent.

Among those I knew, Jerry Garcia and Owsley (Bear) Stanley were among those who made a practice of occasionally tuning up their psyches through the ingestion of psychedelics. There are probably multiple hippie figures who observed "that once you have had your eyes opened there's no need to keep using the drugs (psychedelics) again and again;" Stephen Gaskin was certainly one of those, though he has acknowledged that psychedelic drugs are capable doing permanent harm to some individuals. Now that medical trials have begun anew, earlier work that showed a single "trip" could be permanently cathartic is being substantiated. I look forward to the legal availability of these drugs in psychiatric settings (controlled dosages and purity being the big issues) especially for the perspective such drugs can offer terminal patients. Apostle12 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to Adam Curtis. Just watched the first hour of the three-part series. Curtis presents an intriguing, original analysis that I will have to ponder for awhile. So far I see only a faint, oblique relationship between Curtis' observations and the hippie ethos. During the remaining two hours does Curtis become more direct and tie things back to the hippie ethos? Apostle12 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Have now watched all three hours of the Curtis series. This is certainly intriguing work, knitting together as it does so many seemingly disparate threads of the self-deceptions that have prevailed during our era. I suppose every era creates its own self-deceptions, yet one doesn't often get the opportunity to recognize them in real time, even belatedly. As Curtis says, though some of us may have become aware of our errors, none of us knows how we might rectify them.

As to using Curtis' work, and the work of those he chronicles, to improve the "Hippie" article, I think it is quite legitimate to mention that the nearly universal demise of the hippie communes ("The Farm" being one exception, though I am sure others exist) may have been related to the issues Curtis explores. I can also see some legitimacy to the point of view that the hippie ethos sprang, at least in part, from the flawed idealism of "Balance of Nature" thinking--and from all the other related idealisms of our era. I don't think I could adequately summarize the massive amount of data, not the mention the storytelling, that Curtis manages to tease us with during three hours of video and commentary. I will leave that to braver souls, though I might contribute to editing whatever emerges.

One final point: I have not arrived at Curtis' position of...what is it, anyway...pessimism, cynicism, or hopefulness? Perhaps this is only because of my recent exposure to his disease, which I suspect may contain germs of a self-deception that are at least as dangerous as those he chronicles.Apostle12 (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no "failure", and saw no "failure" at the time, in refusing to conform to all the commercial, adult, fanatic, militaristic, divide-and-conquer hypocrisy that we shunned and did our best to isolate ourselves from. That was our conscious choice. It's a bigoted and ignorant failure, big one, to call that a failure. Why quote garbage like that? And how many arrogant rednecks or radical-sheek authorities are we going to quote, in that case? Never saw the slightest trace of bullying either. The only foolishness that could be called a failure was overdoing the drugs, and that was only an idiocy of ours, where some of us didn't see the strong commercial interests and elitist social pollutants behind that part of it too. That was sad. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Watch the Curtis film. He argues that the hippies were essentially tricked into giving up their power (dropping out of society, apolitical ethos). If the hippies hadn't been stoned 24/7 and instead, ran for political office and changed the system from within, how different would the world be today? Curtis argues that the rebellion the hippies engaged in, was pre-programmed by machine-based thinking. According to Curtis, this systems approach threatens the Enlightenment ideal of individuals controlling their own lives. Curtis says, "we have been colonised by the machines we have built. Although we don’t realise it, the way we see everything in the world today is through the eyes of computers. My underlying argument is that we have given up a dynamic political model of the world – the dream of changing things for the better – for a static machine ideology that says we are all components in systems."[2] I don't know if Curtis is aware of it or not, but famous hippie philosopher Alan Watts made a similar criticism, except he spoke of it in terms of "prickles" and "goo". Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that overt "bullying" was never a dominant theme at any of the communes I visited. The closest thing I saw to bullying was at Morningstar, located just north of San Francisco, where criminal black thugs from S.F.'s Fillmore District briefly terrorized other commune members, raping the women and violently assaulting anyone who came to their defense. Strong personalities did tend to dominate most discussions, which is nearly a universal human truth.

I would also challenge any notion that most hippies were "stoned 24/7." That was true of street culture in the Haight, however it didn't last long since the harmfulness of massive drug ingestion quickly became apparent. Also, as the article points out, the use of methamphetamine, cocaine, and opiates was disparaged in hippie settings. Most hippies I knew were recreational drug users for whom drug use caused little difficulty.

Most people left the communes because, in the final analysis, these places were just experiments--they didn't so much fail as they outlived their usefulness for those who participated. Most of us took the lessons we learned from "living in community" and applied those lessons in larger settings; in particular many of us learned invaluable communication skills based on empathy and the desire to create win-win solutions to difficult problems. "Love is all you need" was not just an illusion. My 1960s-70s living-in-community experiences still inform my daily life, to my own benefit and to the benefit of family members, friends, clients, and business associates. Apostle12 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well written, Apostle12! I effectively and beneficially use what I've kept from those times constantly in my social life and my teachings. Why try to blame the maximally hypocritical politics and mighty financial manipulations of today on any "failure" on the part of the hippie. Just another lame but catchy excuse for us to waste time on. Yawn! I always get quite offended by disgusting slurs such as "stoned 24/7" by nasty hippie-haters, and nobody should note and discuss such hogwash seriously. I don't need to watch any movies, especially not with hateful exaggerations that sound about like they come straight out of the 2012 Republican primary campaign. Screw that movie! I was there, what would I need to watch it for? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the first things you learn about exploring reality, is that it helps to have as many POV's to refer to other than your own. That doesn't make them correct, but it allows you to triangulate your position in the universe. The one thing you don't want, is a closed mind that sincerely believes in the validity of their own narrow POV. Questioning the cherished beliefs of others is easy. Questioning your own beliefs is quite another matter. You choose to live in your own reality tunnel. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Garbage is garbage. If you're very impressed by it, by whomever it is that's serving it up, by whatever career or special interest or POV it seems to serve, or by your own imagined cleverness in interpreting it as something more beautiful/useful than that, it's still garbage. Looks like garbage, reads like garbage, smells like garbage, offends like garbage. Teaches us (you, me anyone else) absolutely nothing in the learning we all need to continue to acquire. Just belongs where garbage goes. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You're spouting blind ignorance. The habitual use of drugs by the hippie community is well studied and established and not in question by anyone.[3][4] Sounds like you are experiencing a bit of transference. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

These two sources confirm what was happening in the Haight, especially among those who found their way to the Free Clinic. The hippie phenomenon, however, was much larger and the concentration of habitual users/abusers was much lower than in the Haight. Even for most Haight residents,"stoned 24/7" is an exaggeration with limited usefulness; outside the Haight this exaggeration becomes gross. Would encourage SergeWoodzing to watch Curtis' work for the insight it contains, though for me its relevance to the hippie ethos seems forced. Apostle12 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I was there. That's all you need to know and respect, and that's all I need to tell you, if you really want to turn this into a personal attack. Sounds you like to ignore people (2 of us at least here) who know what they're talking about. Sad, for you and for the article if you prevail. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Exactly what is it I'm ignoring? And what is "sad" for the article? Seriously, try to communicate better, because I have not idea what you are trying to say. With all due respect, you do know about the current research regarding personal memories of events?[5] They are entirely unreliable. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

PS I'd be a bit careful, if I were you, with being too obstinate and showing too much longterm ownership here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that something is garbage without bothering to read or view it is promoting blind ignorance. That's not something I respect. Further, Wikipedia doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony, nor could your strange claims of "I was there" have any relevance in this discussion. If you don't have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion about adding criticism of the hippie movement, then don't respond, but please keep your bizarre rants to yourself. The criticism will be expanded per this discussion. Since you can't tell the difference between writing encyclopedia articles and "nasty hippie-haters" (whatever that is supposed to be) then you might want to leave the heavy lifting to others. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit too much "pompous assism," don't you think V?Apostle12 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And typically disimissive article ownership. Virtually If you don't agree with me, shut up and get out of here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I think its time to dial back the attitude on both sides. I've worked with Viriditas on articles before in this field, and he is FAR from a "hippie-hater" - quite the contrary. On the other hand, whether the phrase "stoned 24/7" was his or Curtis', it was over the top, and contradicted by the very references Viriditas quoted on hippie drug use; and that was, as well pointed out, taken by studying clinic patients at Haight-Ashbury, an EXTREME group rather than a fair cross-section of the movement.

As far as the communes and intentional communities both urban and rural, I agree with Apostle12 and SergeWoodzing, based on my own experiences studying The Farm, New Buffalo, the Lama Foundation, and other examples, and decades of personal discussions with such original members of the movement as Timothy Leary, Paul Krassner, Ralph Metzner, Stephen & Ina May Gaskin, Nicki Scully, Harvey Wasserman and others, and more contemporary members such as Terence McKenna, R.U. Sirius, Jonathan Ott and Ivan Stang, that Curtis' work seems to be skewed towards a negative judgement of the movement and pays a bit too much attention to a handful of famous negative incidents rather than an analysis of the entire movement worldwide. There is something to say for having "been there", and I doubt Curtis was. I wouldn't throw terms like "live in your own reality tunnel" or "transference" around too easily about people you haven't met based on a handful of paragraphs, or "nasty Hippie-Haters" and "pompous assism" either. I think you guys are all on the same side, really (though I don't know about Curtis).

Personally, I think one of two main reasons there were some "failures" in the movement were 1. the naive belief that all you needed was good intentions and a lot of heart; The Farm's biggest challenges were because the members were young city kids with virtually no experience in ANY of the skills and resources to run a farm or a community, and it's greatest strength was that its leader was not only a wise philosopher and natural leader, but an ex-marine with a can-do personality, 2. both the hippie and psychedelic movements (sorry - there is no bright separating line) had many historical precedents, but never in human history had a consciousness-expanding utopian-society movement been a major pop movement with tens of millions of members and significant representation in mainstream society. This was like a magnifying glass on the movement, making it's good and bad features spectacularly evident, and pumped enormous numbers of people into it that were simply not the sort to be a pioneering member of what would normally be a fringe, experimental-lifestyle community thing. Haight-Ashbury is a perfect example; a significant amount of the problems there came from the sheer numbers of runaway and drop-out young people who poured in with no money, preparation, resources, or dedication and little understanding yet of what it all meant, just that "this is where it was at", with some vague belief that they weren't going to need anything but being a joyous seeker (and in many cases, they just couldn't stand to endure their home scene a minute more). The drug use with no information of use vs abuse, the predators stalking so many naive, let's face it, children, the lack of any plan to feed, clothe, shelter, treat when needed, and provide employment (and many would have been happy to have a job; they weren't all lazy, but there weren't anything LIKE enough jobs or anything else to go around) came substantially from the same place the problems at Woodstock came: no one had a CLUE about the numbers answering the call.Rosencomet (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points all. Thank you for weighing in. Though I frequently find Viriditas' attitude disturbing (hence my comment), for many years now we have successfully collaborated in the writing of this article. It is inaccurate to call him a "hippie-hater," and I respect his contributions. Apostle12 (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is some interesting criticism in the Emmett Grogan article that can be added here, and more can obviously be found in Ringolevio and other secondary sources. To get back into this discussion, looking through my notes I see that many hippie figures have accused the movement of failing, so it appears that observations made by Adam Curtis are supported in the literature. Peter Coyote makes a distinction between the political failures of the hippies and its cultural successes: "If you look at all the political agendas of the 1960s, they basically failed. We didn't end capitalism. We didn't end imperialism. We didn't end racism. Yeah, the war ended. But if you look at the cultural agendas, they all worked."[6] Further, Curtis's criticism of communes is drawn from leading scholars of hippie intentional communities, such as Timothy Miller, so I must object to Rosencomet's dismissal of Curtis as somehow unrepresentative of the field. For example, when you compare Curtis with Miller's The Hippies and American Values (2011), his criticism appears to be supported. Regarding my "disturbing attitude" that Apostle12 perceives, nobody can accurately judge or perceive "attitude" on Wikipedia. It seems like you are bringing your own perceptions to this discussion. As always, it is best to avoid painting others with your own perceptual bias and to focus solely on addressing content, not contributors. With that said, I think this "disturbing attitude" that you are perceiving has some basis in reality, and I believe it is rooted in my long-running objection to what I perceive as uncritical hippie apologetics from yourself and SergeWoodzing. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosencomet, for your sound input! I wish it would have been perfectly clear (my fault?) that my comment about "nasty hippie-haters" referred to whomever it was that used the term "stoned 24/7", not at any WP user that I knew of. My second wish is that the powers that be running this article would listen to and respect some of the information that some of us who "were there" have tried to provide in the best possible faith, particularly that there would be no more attempts to include in the article that all hippies did drugs and that most of them were habitual druggies. That's where I was confronted with a "disturbing attitude" first, quite some time ago. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement about hippies being stoned 24/7 is an example of hyperbole, and it is my own. In the same way that comedy is false but often illustrates true stereotypes, I intended this exaggeration to reflect common criticisms of hippies. Their withdrawal from the world rather than attempting to live in it, their escapism through irresponsible use of altered states and substances, and their penchant for pleasure rather than the hard work required to change the system—these are all common criticisms of the hippie lifestyle. This actually relates directly to Curtis's criticism of the communes, as it is often observed that communities that seek to remove themselves from society rather than participate in it have little staying power. One critic resolved to change this by building intentional communities not in rural areas but in the middle of suburban neighborhoods. The idea was that the integration of the commune into the community as a whole would provide stability and serve as a reflexive public model. As for drug use, it is a matter of record that the hippie lifestyle encouraged excess, with many hippies finding inspiration from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Compare, for example, Blake's "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom", with lyrics from a popular Grateful Dead song: "Too much of anything is just enough." And while it is true that we can attribute this to the nexus of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, there's also a bit of left-hand path tantra at work. Whatever the case, this kind of behavior has always contributed to the critical discourse and is fairly open and well known. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for clarifying where that came from! I had no idea when I commented on it and meant no offense to you of any kind. The term you chose to use is offensive and is insulting (as most exaggerations intended as slurs of groups or individuals usually are). Did I see an apology in there? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology?...you dream Serge. What I got from V's postings is that he has been cleverly right all along, and his "disturbing attitude," even his much celebrated "pompous assism," is rooted in our lack of sophistication as hippie apologists.Apostle12 (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What is it exactly I'm supposed to be right about? It would help if you could support your statement. As an added bonus, it will force me to refine any outstanding burden of proof. Thanks for your help. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

George W. Romney incident

Grogan's so-called "kidnapping" of Romney and his wife and their subsequent interrogation by hippies in GGP deserves to be mentioned here. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

hippie communes

what are they — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.122.66 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See intentional community. More should be said in this article, of course. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead-in photo

How do we know the woman in the lead-in photo is actually a hippie? She could be an actor, a poseur or a woman in a period costume. Is this really a good representative photograph?

A better representative photo would portray a widely known figurehead or member of this movement.

I don't know anything about an anonymous woman's would views, politics, etc., but a photo of Dylan, Lenny Bruce, or any of the influential figures of the 60s would hit the point home.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Axatax (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We know because she said so, and she's an editor here. Do you really think Dylan is going to admit to being a hippie? Very doubtful. And Lenny Bruce? Come on. You won't find a source where Lenny Bruce says "I'm a hippie" because he never said he was. Yes, we can improve the use of images; no, replacing it with another image that can't be verified isn't the best option. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"We know because she said so, and she's an editor here."? Isn't that the very definition of original research? How is that verifiable? I've often thought this photo was questionable.

Lenny Bruce may never have called himself a hippie, and he might not have been one, but Stephen Gaskin did so repeatedly; even declared that he puts "hippie" on forms asking his religion to this day. Wavy Gravy has always calls himself a hippie, too. Rosencomet (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dylan and Lenny Bruce may not have been the best examples, but as a person from a much later generation, I have to make assessments based on the resources available to me. The woman in the photograph may portray the quintessential hippie image, but that still doesn't prove she's a hippie. I can dress like a corporate CEO, a Goth or a Metalhead, but this doesn't make me part of any of these sub-cultures. Lacking credibility, I would deserve the label of poseur. --Axatax (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Uploading a photo taken by a Wikipedian to illustrate a topic has nothing to do with "original research", so no, it is not the "very definition". Please read WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Image use policy, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images to find out more. What is "questionable" about the current photo, and which photo are you proposing to replace it with here? A photo of Stephen Gaskin or Wavy Gravy? Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I recommend the collage/mosaic/tile image solution that has worked well on articles about men, women, and various ethnic groups. Please use this space to propose multiple images for use in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)