The late 1970’s in America, consisted of a time where many began to sigh in relief after the tensions of a terrible war with Vietnam. This is not say that the scars were already healed by that time. But, the late seventies gave rise to the harmony nurtured by the ‘free love’ and ‘peace’ movements of the 1960’s. Yes, tainted by drug use, but successful in expanding the free choices of the common person it was.

What does “counter-culture” mean? Is it implicitly “bad”? Is it a characterization confined to teen-age rebellion? In this analysis (excluding comment about drug use), free speech is still today a wonderfully powerful virtue – enabling human beings to exist as more than mere pawns of established authority, commercial ideology, and social constructs.

“Counter-culture”, specifically, is using free speech to speak out against trends that are conventionally boring, problematic to the survival of the human species, and/or even harmful to the survival of society at large (as well as to individuals) if it is left an unchecked force.

Some conventional media outlet producers today, express in their TV programming (explicitly observed as feeling threatened by such freedom exercised), going blatantly on the attack against individuals and groups who use free speech. Going even so far, they publicly shame individuals, as opposed to having the subject deal with it as their own responsibility. Ruthless and insensitive, such producer of programming, aims to suppress freedom and to make money in the process. Proposing conformity, it does, in order to please a segment of society that has the same aim to suppress. It claims to be moral judge and upright, but is not.

When income depends on perpetuation of conformity (using tools of social pressure and marginalization), such thinking leeches into the everyday life of otherwise free people – making them less free in some great ways; and, ultimately leaving the judge blind to a wisdom that inherently belongs to every human being. Now, who exactly is the bully? That becomes increasingly clear when conformity is imposed on a family, and/or the perceived rebel(s) acting against an authoritative regime. Counter-culture is actually the antidote for blind allegiance to counterfeit ideals, and its dire consequences when wielded by an assault.

But see, income should be spread among differing viewpoints. When product is the branding of ideas in a context of interesting story (TV show, movie, book, period piece), we need opposing ideas. There is not a single “narrative” that serves a whole country, particularly in works of fiction. Yes, I’m saying that movies should contradict one another. One movie stands on its own; competing with the ideas of another movie and yet being similar to those presented in other movies. The best movies will conform to the themes that audiences are most responsive to. That kind of resonance is clearly and adequately addressed properly (we hope), by critics and box office sales figures. The best ideas “win”. But, what if the gate-keepers of product production stack the deck, delaying marvelous voices for years and years? What if shoddy work gets the attention of multiple professional re-writes and box office success (while important work that is counter-culture sees no exhibition)? The point that I’m making here is that unfair discrimination against ideas (regardless of what ethnic group they are made by), is in effect bigotry. Can we demand of movie moguls to allow more independent films to be financed? Can we stretch the boundaries of “mainstream”?

You see, bigotry is narrowness. Some may call faith in God “bigotry”, because it is unwavering. But you see, faith in God, is not speculative. Contrary to faith in God, creation of movie scripts – is speculative, can be provocative, can document, can entice fantasy.

The celebration of diversity by a society, when practiced right – is learning to discard group-think; and, learning to develop an open mind and tolerance for “counter-culture” speech. An open mind is truly open, when it considers controversial speech, without being fearful of its implications and impact. No matter how ridiculous a statement may seem, the very practice of expressing it, invokes creativity and growth.

So, what do you do about your dissatisfaction about what is said, anywhere it might come from? Tune it out and engage speech elsewhere. Don’t sponsor it, don’t buy it, don’t consume it. That’s all you can do. Put your bruised ego and over-sensitivity up on the shelf; develop a thicker skin. Then, when you’re wholly and eventually dissatisfied with the generic conformity, maybe it’s not too late to personally reconsider your irrational past determination. Go back perhaps to the substantive… with a fresh attitude and free mind (consuming that, which angered you before) with a little more wisdom and fresh eyes. Then maybe put into practice, an adopting of what was said.

Or, don’t. It’s up to you.

If you can do that though, you can find your common humanity with others. You can nurture understanding for two seemingly opposing sides. Then, expand your horizons to experience freedoms you did not know existed. And, you will feel less inclined to diminish the dignity and freedom of the person you previously disagreed with, were embarrassed by, or felt some inordinate need to suppress.