Major Project Progress

With my major work finally completed i feel it's appropriate to evaluate my success. I'm very proud of my final product, it has required a lot of patience and persistence but it is finally completed. Looking back, my project has certainly developed into a much more complex, comprehensive and evaluative piece than I initially intended. At first, I had hoped to look at the sixties in general, this changed to the revolution of the sixties and eventually led to an interest in the Sixties drug culture. However, it continued to develop from there and I ended up finding a really interesting question which focussed not just on drug use but on the intent of drug users. I was really proud of this because it's something which a lot of people would overlook, it seems circumstantial at first but then you realise just how important it is. It has HUGE effects. So, from there my project began to evolve into something really exciting - my historians became three dimensional as I began to research their motives and started really understanding how history had developed. I had quite a bit of difficulty actually starting my essay and once i'd finally committed myself to the task, I'd overcome a massive obstacle. Similarly, when it came to beginning my conclusion I was struck with inaction. This was also a big challenge as I was asked to summarise something which I had spent MONTHS working on. I consulted Mrs Russo about this and finally worked up the courage to attempt it. My first draft was dismal, to say the least, but it meant that I had at least written something and I was able to rework it into something I was proud of. My biggest challenge has been my persistently over-the-top language and inability to be succinct. I really think the project has helped me to overcome this problem as I was forced to cut out chunks and chunks and chunks of my major. Eventually, I had to start using my words a lot more wisely and it really gave my essay a lot more emphasis. All in all, I am very proud of what I have achieved and it will feel very nice to hand it in tomorrow.

Major Project Progress

Last night I cut my project down by 250 words and today I got rid of another 100. I have nominalised my sentences in order to make the most of the word count and create a more succinct piece. I think this has added rather than detracted from my major as my idea are much clearer and every sentence is relevant. This has taught me to maximise the power of my words, communicating emphatic idea in a much simpler way. Today, sir went through my essay one last time and pointed out (rather cruelly!!) that my last sentence was a little contrived. Thus, I have altered my last paragraph so that it flows better and seems less pretentious. I have also reworded my first annotation in order to create a more concise evaluation of its reliability and usefulness. I reworked my synopsis and am now happy with its flow and simplicity. I have altered my proposal so that is correlates with my essay and have checked to make sure that I answered all focus questions in my essay. It seems as though everything is finally coming together and all that is left to do now is a few read-overs, printing off my blog and then off to officeworks to have it bound. The end is so close I can almost taste it yayayay.

Major Project Progress

Sir had asked me to improve my first annotation and edit a small portion of my synopsis. Apart from this, all the feedback has been quite positive. I am working on cutting down my essay which has proved quite laborious but will hopefully assist with the succinctness of it all. So, what needs to be done:

1. First annotation must be reworded so that it is more direct and informative, less vague etc etc. I will do this by remaining succinct and avoiding generalisations.
2. The synopsis is perfect (okay, a bit of an overstatement but at this point it's nice to be positive) except for the last sentence which sir found a little patronising. I agree so "This will allow the reader to gradually develop a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of the intent of sixties drug users whilst simultaneously highlighting the discrepancies between historical works." Will either be edited out or changed to something more sophisticated. Perhaps I will merge the last two sentences to create, "Each source will be compared and contrasted progressively throughout the essay in order to highlight the discrepancies which exist between different historical works. " Hopefully, this will work.
3. I need to nominalise my sentences, pronto!!

Major Project Progress

I must cut down my major by 598 words! I thought it would be a lot worse so this seems completely doable. Now just to continue the editing process and hopefully bring it back to within the word count in the next couple of day. I haven't received any feedback from Sir or Mrs Russo yet so I haven't been able to alter the other components of my task however I have edited them slightly.

Major Project Progress

I am very, very. very happy right now. I've finally completed all components of my HEX major project! This leaves me the rest of the week to polish each aspect and hopefully end up with a reasonably comprehensive major project. The main aspects which need improvement are the synopsis and my conclusion. These are my two weakest points and will need to be reworked throughout the week. I am quite content with my annotated bibliography although I may alter the language in order to create a more emphatic analysis. I'm also quite satisfied with my method of footnoting, it looks a lot neater now that I have incorporated the op.cit. shortcut. I have sent each component to Mr Carragher in order to get feedback and tonight I think I will take the big step of asking my dad to edit my essay. That is terrifying, I haven't asked my dad to edit anything since about year 8 because - being an editor - he tends to unceremoniously crush my dreams with a red pen haha but, in the name of HEX, I will suffer the wrath of grammatical perfection and annoyingly flawless syntax in order to end up with a polished essay!
The things I do for you!
Hopefully everything will work out by next Friday.

Major Project Progress

Today I finally finIshed my conclusion but I still need to edit, edit, edit. I'm happy with the overall idea but i'm hoping to get it a little more concise before the evening is out. Also, I've finished my bibliography and am in the middle of finishing my annotated bibliography. I need to go back and fix my referencing and also begin my synopsis, reword my proposal and GET THE WORD COUNT DOWN!! So much to do, so little time... I hope everything works out!

Major Project Progress

Met with both Mrs Russo and, later, Mr Carragher today. The main points from these meetings were:

1. I'm actually on the right track with my conclusion! Yay. I've got to summarise my arguments by explaining the insight each argument has provided me and then I go onto my "broader theme" which links to the Q. This should be doable - which is quite an improvement from last time we met.
2. Now, the question! After talking with Sir, I can now see the benefits of a precise, accurate, well-worded question - It gives me something to answer. Generally, that's a good quality for an essay to have! That completely explains why I've had so much trouble with my intro and conclusion - it's hard to relate to a question which remains non-existant. So, I've been working on this and have come up with:  Examine how the intent of sixties drug-users has been debated in historical works and demonstrate how this has obscured the historical legacy of the psychedelic experience. Before you judge, I know it's not yet perfect but it's a huge improvement from "How has the historiography of the psychedelic experience developed since the 1960s?" So, I'm quite content! :)
3. I need to have my synopsis, annotated bibliography, bibliography, blogs and footnoting completed and polished ASAP. Off to work!!

Major Project Progress

This is driving me crazy! Not only am I struggling to finish my conclusion but I have that whole "What's your question?" thing going around and around in my head. I'm sort of confused -  the way I understood it was that my question was too simple, but it's not my question that should be complex, it's my essay! My question was simple, I know that, but I was tackling drug use in an entire decade!! That's a pretty vast topic. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to have a quite simple question? If my question were complex, it would have led me down a thousand different, chaotic paths. This way, I started off with on central line of thought - what intent did sixties drug users bring to their drug taking - which led to several different answers and forced me to question other thing - what was the drug culture like? what sort of environment was it? considering all this, what is the legacy of this tumultuous, permissive and controversial aspect of sixties culture? Looking at it that way, I think I HAD to have a simple question, otherwise i never would have answered a question at all!

Major Project Progress

After talking with Mrs Russo two things were clear:

1. Both my introduction and conclusion need to be longer and stronger. My question needs to be interwoven throughout the piece, especially in the introduction and conclusion - which forces me to ask "WHAT IS MY QUESTION?" Sir has asked me to write my focus question on the top of the essay. Simple? NO. It is so complex, it has developed so much! I know what question I set out to ask, that's easy "How has the historiography os the psychedelic experience developed through time, focussing on the intent, extent and legacy of drug-users." However, it is so much MORE than that now, which is why Mr Carragher was so underwhelmed by that question. He pointed out that I was "selling my arguments short" which is a fair comment but that question is essentially what I set out to do. That was the question I wanted answered. That's what I was interested in. Of course, as the project developed it became a multifaceted and complex piece which can't really be summed up in a sentence - but I guess that was my original question. It may be hard to sell that to Mr Carragher though, so I might have to try to think over my idea. Maybe I will try to think up a title or something more refined. 
2. Miss wanted me to look into the theory of New Social Movements which delves into the idea that once the sixties came, people began fighting less for their economic wellbeing and more for less materialistic qualities of life. This is useful for my project as drug-use could be seen to combine quite nicely with this idea, particularly Leary's idea of the "fifth freedom - the right to expand your mind." Modern historians understand that the psychedelic experience wasn't a unique and revolutionary call for freedom but one aspect of a much wider atmosphere of social movements (gay rights, pacifism) which also pursued less materialistic endeavours. I want to continue readng up on this and perhaps try to fit into my last argument / conclusion.

Okay well, must get to it!

Major Project Progress

I've been working on my drafts but I'm finding it very difficult to stand back an actually take it all in! I'm way too close to my project and it's getting really hard to judge my progress, hopefully other people's opinions will help me to view my work more objectively. I would really, really like to have my conclusion down pat HOWEVER I need to get a better view of my project - it's so hard to sum it up when I'm stuck on finite details. Will try to distance myself and get my conclusion completed!

Major Project Progress

Up to about the 5th or 6th draft now and everything's finally beginning to fall into place! I've had the introduction and first couple of arguments approved, so i'm quite happy with my progress. I still need to conclude my last paragraph which shouldn't be too impossible once I force myself to JUST DO IT. It's a pretty daunting task! 

Also, I'm beginning to think about the other aspects of the project - the synopsis, the annotated bibliography, footnoting etc. I'm glad I've been 'footnoting' as I went because it would be an unmanageable task if I had not. I'll just need to check with Mr Carragher and then correct what I have written. I'll also have to find out about the synopsis because I'm not quite sure what's required.

Another issue is the word count, I don't think Sir will be too strict and I'll be relying on that leniency - I'm way over the word count at the moment! If not I can try to conceal some points in the footnotes and slash the adjectives.  

I'll be working on it again today and will receive advice from Mrs Russo on Tusday so until then - fingers crossed that everything works out!

Major Project Progress

I'm working on the issues identified in my last meeting with sir but I'm beginning to really worry about the length of my major and how I will cut it down. At the moment it all seems very crucial but I'm hoping that by the time is it polished I will be comfortable enough to cut out a substantial amount. I'm also hoping to enhance the modality of my essay - I need to make an impact on the reader. Okay, back to work!

Major Project Progress

Yesterday I met with Mr Carragher at recess to receive feedback on my second draft for my major. Overall, it was a lot more positive than last meeting and I seem to have made quite a bit of leeway. My major is beginning to become a lot more complex and the arguments are no longer one dimensional. I was pretty excited that my introduction has been given the okay, so that's one aspect of my major done! The major issue was my final argument and the way that the essay flows.

• Flow of the essay: After removing the headings which originally demarcated my arguments, the essay has become increasingly static and jumpy. It doesn't quite flow in the way I would like it to and at times this can be frustrating for the reader. Also, due to the complexity of my topic, the structure can be a little overwhelming for the reader - remembering that they will be essentially ignorant of my topic. I will tackle this issue by adding a couple concluding sentences to the end of each argument. These sentences will serve to sum up the argument and remind the reader how the history has progressed thus far. It will provide the essay with a better flow and allow the reader to collect their thoughts and really take in the arguments. Hopefully, this will solve the problem.
• Final argument: As I'd expected, my final argument isn't quite up to scratch. My writing style diminishes and I don't explicate important details. This really comes down to its positioning in the essay, I was so eager to complete my essay that I didn't do a very good job. It is a very difficult argument to structure as essentially these historians utilise all arguments indiscriminately and temper them to suit their needs. Sir pointed out that this is in actuality going to serve two purposes; it will express my final argument AND sum up all previous arguments in order to conclude the essay. Therefore I will need to place the majority of my evaluation in this section and really finalise the project. This will be the most challenging aspect of my project, though I hope it comes together well.

I have fixed the minor issues I discussed with Sir - such as syntax and emphasis - and I will get to work fixing the bigger issues immediately. Hopefully, my third draft will be in by Monday and then I will complete a fourth draft and begin workshopping it with Mrs Russo.

Major Project Progress

I have continued working on my major though I am still at a loss as to how i can improve mny arguments. i really need to solidify my points of view and make sure all claims are backed up by substantial evidence and historical references. I have worked on expressing the legacy proclaimed by the revisionist historians though i feel my argument remains quite "loose" and requires greater emphasis. I am trying to make a huge point - that the overall legacy of the sixties drug culture is that it allows the era to be manipulated to aid  political agendas. The happenings of the era may be easily vilified or vindicated in order to further political ideology. In this way, the sixties counterculture and the use of psychedelics has had a lasting legacy which may rightfully be understood as a political as well as cultural legacy. This is a huge point and - with a dwindling word count - a very difficult one to make. Therefore, I may need to condense previous arguments in order to provide room to actually communicate explicitly the extent of this legacy.

Major Project Progress

I need to work a lot faster if i'm going to get this major to Mrs Russo and end up with a polished, succinct task. Mainly, I need to start using my words more wisely. With a ridiculously limited word count - every syllable counts! Also, Mr Russo suggested I read my project to myself or someone else in order to get a better judgment of the breaks etc, so I'll try that soon. I'm finding the whole project a little overwhelming at the moment but I've got to soldier on if I want to hand in anything worth marking.

Major Project Progress

I have been working on improving my draft for the last couple of weeks, rectifying problems and attempting to make sense of any discrepancies. Unfortunately, Sir and I were only able to get through my first two argument the last time we met. Therefore, it is difficult to pinpoint the aspects of my major which need work. I have addressed the issues identified in my last blog, however I'm quite unsure how to improve my project further - though I'm certain it still needs a LOT of work. I feel as though my essay is still very airy and general at a stage when it needs to be precise, succinct, condensed... you get the point. I really need to back up my arguments, add substance and make sure I'm expressing my views in an accurate way. This is very difficult as I feel as though no matter how hard I try to get the words out, it still lacks emphasis. I will continue working on my second draft and hopefully everything will become a lot clearer.

Major Project Progress

This will be brief.
I received a reply from Jay Stevens (writer of Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream) today. I needed to know a little more about his purpose, perspective etc as a historian in order to support my claim that he is i line with other 'revisionist' historians.

Natasha

Born l953 in Vermont ---so not a participant in the 60s.  Came of age in its shadow (of course a great deal of what we think of as "the 60s" happened from l969 - 72).  Approached it as a straight piece of of historical writing  ---well, maybe not so straight.  Interviewed the participants.  Hit the archives.
 Jay

Yay, it seems he fits perfectly with the likes of DeGroot and Farber and even points to my earlier query (how can the revisionists claim to be detached when they are clearly very interested in their subject). Also, provided a little details about his construction and methodology so that should be helpful. Will reevaluate these issues when I complete my second draft.

Major Project Progress

I handed in my first draft on monday and met with Sir for feedback today. It was very interesting and (surprisingly) comforting as the issues he pointed out were aspects which i was already aware lacked substance. The major areas which require refining are:

1. I must use my intro to explain WHO the drug-users were. I state that it's educated college students but that is a pretty big statement - who are they? why did they turn to drugs? how did they turn to drugs? More specifically, what contextual issues led them to drug use.
2. I need to explicate my definition of "drug" use in the Sixties. I explain what psychedelics are- LSD, marijuana and magic mushrooms- but I don't explain to the reader that what the hippies/youth/counterculture viewed as drugs (hallucinogenics which allowed mind expansion) varied greatly from what Western values dictated as drugs (and therefore what the elder society viewed as drugs) which was along the lines of "marijuana leads to LSD which leads to cocaine which leads to heroine" and lumped all illegal substances together as "BAD DRUGS." This shows how the drug culture challenged the basic values of western culture, sets the basis of my argument and establishes the idea of a counterculture from the beginning of my work. I guess this flaw comes down to the problem that I've read my sources so many times I've begun assuming the audience KNOWS what I am insinuating. This is BAD! I will need to reread my project with this in mind and remember that my audience will approach my major with very little previous knowledge. It is my job to elucidate the issues and make reading it easy.
3. Sir pointed out that I have not really explained what I mean by "parental society" and once he had identified this I realised it needed attention. I will have to formulate a succinct explanation of this group and evidence my reasoning (Roszak should come in handy here- it's definitely his area).
4. I need to put in a sentence which explains that Timothy Leary was in a qualified and well-credentialed position to influence the youth. It's important to show that the drug culture didn't just appear - it was very much a product of its times and the characters present.
5. Might need to adjust some of my qualifiers... a bit too emotive at times.
6. I need to shift my explanation of "turn on, tune in, drop out" from the last argument to the first - silly girl.
7. Sir agreed with my idea for the conclusion. I will depict the recent exploitation of the "good sixties" and the "bad sixties" for political agendas - yay!

That's all that has come up so far, but I suspect once I've corrected some of the holes in my earlier arguments it will have flow-on effects for the rest of my project. I will begin altering my draft and hand in a revised copy early next week. 

Major Project Progress

I was determined to finish my draft today. Unfortunately, life had other plans. I ended up losing 4 hours and so I'm still missing my last section. I'll hand in what I've done in class tomorrow and then hopefully finish the first draft by Friday night - then email that to Mr Carragher. 

The main difficulty i'm facing at the moment is my word count. I'm fairly certain I'm already cutting it pretty slim (even with large parcels of text meticulously hidden in unsuspecting footnotes). I'm not sure how i'll overcome this - I already cut a huge section out of three of my arguments ( the part on the sheer criminality of the drug scene - an aspect I found really interesting... I might try to reincorporate it later). Also, I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time refuting the claims made by earlier historians. It's beginning to cut into the amount of time I can spend actually explaining how the histories have been modified and evaluating the reasons for the change. 

I really want the whole project to become more succinct and I'm going to have to cut down on the descriptive language. Lastly, I'll have to prevent myself from going off on tangents - I really need to put every word to good use.

Hopefully, everything works out.

Major Project Progress

I'm getting fairly frustrated with my progress. Although i'm devoting 98.9999% of my time to HEX, it doesn't seem to be influencing my word count!! So far, I have my first three sections pretty much done... "done" in the weakest sense of the word. I'm already horribly behind schedule, over my projected word count and underwhelmed with my achievements! I'm really hoping it all comes together soon but there have been a few hiccups.

1. Turns out I only have one prominent historian for my second argument. What?? I had a million! But then they somehow leaked into my other arguments or were eliminated from the project... so now I'm searching for other recognised historians to accompany lonely old Roszak. Right now I'm looking into a historian called Os Guinness who is supposed to be ultra-conservative and anti-counterculture (sounds perfect... might have to refer to he neoconservatives though because I think he's a lot later but it works well because he's i the nineties so I can maybe talk about clinton/bush and the whole 'legacy of the sixties in politics' thing.)
2. I'm struggling to pinpoint the projected legacy of the baby-boomer historians... they are so freaking indecisive! At the moment it looks like the generation gap... which makes sense because they were the youthful dissenters and their parents didn't "get" them. You know how it is

My blogs have been kind of mediocre lately... sorry sir! I'm actually doing work now so i don't have as much time to spend procrastinating on blogs. Perhaps that's a good thing.
Edit: Yep, turns out Os is ultra-conservative AND ultra-Christian, should slide in nicely with Roszak who is a moderate-conservative. He has an earlier work called "The Dust of Death: A Critique of The Establishment and The Counterculture and The Proposal For a Third Way" Oh wow... he really goes all out. Also, it was published in 1973... only 5 years after Roszak - so it's safe to say that they were reacting to similar external influences. Lucky I found him, my second argument was really starting to lose its focus. 

Timothy Leary - Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out

This isn't "the" BBC interview, but Leary advocates a similar theory here (plus, it's available online).

Major Project Progress

I am very happy at the moment as David Farber, one of the historians most integral to my project, replied to my email.

Natasha,

Good to hear from you.  You might take a look at the essay I wrote on the use of LSD in the Sixties era published in ImagineNation (Routledge), edited by Michael Doyle (someof the footnotes ight be useful, too).  You might also look at the essay by Doyle in the book I edited called the Columbia Guide to America in the 1960s.  I have not seen a good historiographical essay on drug use on the 60s - so you have picked an excellent topic.

Did you know that I just came back last night from Australia after having served for two weeks as a visiting scholar at the U. of Melbourne?!?

thanks,

David Farber

Although I have already read his essay, he's provided an interesting lead with the Doyle essay. This will help immensely with my project and, above all, it's nice to know I've chosen a topic which requires historical attention. I'll let you know if I receive any other replies (I also emailed DeGroot, although he  hasn't replied - as yet!)

Title The Columbia guide to America in the 1960s / David Farber and Beth Bailey with contributors.

STATE LIBRARY
location: open access lg2 
call #: 973.923/ 24
status: check shelves

Major Project Progress

OH MY GOODNESS I NEED TO TRACK DOWN THIS SOURCE!!!!

Author	Roszak, Theodore, 1933-
Title	The making of an elder culture : reflections on the future of America's most audacious generation / Theodore Roszak.

I CAN NOT BELIEVE I HADN'T FOUND IT YET!!!! IT'S ROSZAK... 40 YEARS LATER!!!! THIS WILL BE SO SO SO SO SO INTERESTING!


This isn't a very academic post but... it is exciting! I may have overdone it with the exclamation marks.

Major Project Progress

Although there were a couple of obstacles, today I actually made a little leeway on my draft!

I may have spent the morning collecting my new Macbook (nyum-nyum-nyum) but I've convinced myself that this was, essentially, an educational exercise. All of a sudden, I was compelled to begin my draft (because it meant staring at my new-found love, in all its LED-display glory). So, although I may have lost a few hours - it was worth it Mr Carragher!

Anyhow, back to the draft. I also found some really great new sources to support my first argument (filling in the gaps I noted in my last blog). Particularly, an article written by Leary and Alpert in 1963 entitled "The Politics of Consciousness Expansion" which was published in the Harvard Review (Volume 4). I also found a BBC interview with Leary from 1967 which shows his views on the legacy of the drug culture of the Sixties.
"Our Supreme Court will be smoking marijuana within fifteen years. It's inevitable because the students in our best universities are doing it now. There'll be less interest in warfare, in power politics. You know, politics today is a disease-it's a real addiction."
I'm hoping to have my first draft complete by Wedneday or Thursday - I don't have much hope in anything sooner but I am making progress!

Major Project Progress: Profiles of Major Historians

Profiles of the Major Historians Used in my Project Thus Far:

Todd Gitlin
Source used: The Sixties: Days of Hope, Years of Rage  (1987)
History:

• In the 1960s, Gitlin was a political activist.

• In 1963 and 1964, Gitlin was president of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

• He helped organise the first national demonstration against the Vietnam War on April 17, 1965 (25,000 participant)
• He helped organise the first civil disobedience directed against American corporate support for the apartheid regime in South Africa (a sit-in at the Manhattan headquarters of Chase Manhattan Bank) on March 19, 1965.

Nick Brommell
Source used: Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s.(2000)
History:

• Nicholas K. Bromell (Ph.D. Stanford 1987) is Professor of English and American Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• His fields of expertise include American popular culture and American intellectual history.  
• Born in 1950 in rural Virginia - A teenager throughout the 60s.
• Taught at Harvard and Princeton 

Godfrey Hodgson
Source used: America in our Time: From WWII to Nixon -- What Happened and Why. (1976)  
History:

• British historian who graduated from Oxford
• In 1956, was invited to stay in Montgomery US by a friend. "The first Sunday in Montgomery, we went to church with John, and Dr. King was the preacher. We met and talked. King had just come to national attention because of the bus boycott and because his house had just been firebombed."
• From 1956 to 1959 worked as a junior reporter for The Times in London. 
• On the first day of 1960 went to work for The Observer, and in 1962 sent me to Washington as a correspondent until 1965.
• An expert on American culture and politics - lived through the decade but NOT as a teenager

George Lipsitz
Source used: Essay entitled "Who'll Stop The Rain: Youth Culture, Rock 'n' Roll, and Social Crises" (1994)
History:

• An American Studies Scholar and a Professor in the Department of Black Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
• He is a lead scholar in social movements, urban culture, inequality, the politics of popular culture, and Whiteness Studies.

Theodore Roszak
Source used: The Making of a Counterculture Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition. (1968)
History:

• Born in 1933 - Would be 35 by 1968 - Not a part of the "youthful opposition"
• is professor emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay.
• Roszak received his B.A. from UCLA and Ph.D. in History from Princeton University. 
• He taught at Stanford University, the University of British Columbia, and San Francisco State University before joining California State University. 
• During the 1960s, he lived in London, where he edited the pacifist newspaper Peace News ( a highly political magazine).  ^.

David Farber
Source used: An essay entitled "The Intoxicated State/ Illegal Nation: Drugs in the Sixties Counterculture" from the collection "Imagine Nation: The American Counterculture of the 1960's and 70's" (2001) AND "The Sixties: From Memory To History" (collaboration of essays which he edited) (1994)
History:
Education:

• 1979 University of Michigan, B.A. with high honors and distinction, History and English
• 1981 University of Chicago, M.A. with honors, American history
• 1985 University of Chicago, Ph.D., American History (Well after the 60s - objective?)

 Teaching positions:

• Professor, History, Temple University, July 2004 
• Professor, History, University of New Mexico, January 1997 - June 2004
• Assistant Professor, History, Barnard College, Columbia University, July 1990 - December 1996
• Visiting Assistant Professor, History, Barnard College, Columbia University, July 1989 - June 1990
• Visiting Assistant Professor, History, University of Kansas, January 1988 - May 1989
• Assistant Professor, History, University of Hawaii, August 1986 - December 1987

Gerard DeGroot
Source used: The Sixties Unplugged: A Kaleidoscope History of a Disorderly Decade (2008)
History:

• Teaches 20th Century British and American History at the University of St Andrews School of History (since 1985)
• An American by birth, de Groot came to the UK in 1980.Lived through the 60s in America? Yet detached?

Jay Stevens
Source Used:  Storming Heaven: LSD and The American Dream (1998)
History: 

• is a journalist, social historian, and novelist living in Vermont. (It was very difficult to find details on Stevens so I have emailed his website).

Major Project Progress

My first argument for my major needs redefining. I realised this morning that I hadn't explained in my blog that the immediate reaction from the left is not only the idea of psychedelic drug use in search of a higher political consciousness (Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman - Yippies) but also the search for heightened spiritual awareness (Timothy Leary, Aldous Huxley, Richard Alpert and Ralph Metzner - Hippies?). These ideals were in direct conflict and are expressed in the early histories. However, they may be discussed in the same argument as both sides of the discussion acknowledge the presence of the other. They express an understanding that there were two main groups who used psychedelic drugs for two very different purposes during the sixties. 


SOURCES:

Political-

We Are Everywhere - Jerry Rubin (1971)

Author	Rubin, Jerry.
Title	Do it; scenarios of the revolution. Introd. by Eldridge Cleaver. Designed by Quentin Fiore. Yipped by Jim Retherford. Zapped by Nancy Kurshan.
Publisher	New York, Simon and Schuster [1970]

LOCATION	CALL #	STATUS
Fisher Research	323.2 106	CHECK SHELF

Author	Hofmann, Albert, 1906-2008.
Uniform title	LSD, mein Sorgenkind. English
Title	LSD my problem child : reflections on sacred drugs, mysticism, and science / Albert Hofmann ; translated by Jonathan Ott.
Publisher	Boston : Houghton Miffin Co., 1983.

LOCATION	CALL #	STATUS
Medical	615.7883 13	DUE 14-06-10

Spiritual-

The politics of ecstasy - Timothy Leary

Author Stevens, Jay. Title Storming heaven : LSD and the American dream / Jay Stevens. Publisher London : Heinemann, 1988, c1987.

LOCATION	CALL #	STATUS
Storage (Sydney)	DF 054193	CHECK SHELF

 

 Boomers-

Author Miller, Timothy, 1944- Title The hippies and American values / Timothy Miller. Publisher Knoxville : University of Tennessee Press, c1991. Edition 1st ed.

LOCATION	CALL #	STATUS
Fisher Research	305.568 12	DUE 05-05-10

Title From Camelot to Kent State : the sixties experience in the words of those who lived it / Joan Morrison, Robert K. Morrison. Publisher Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2001. Edition [2nd ed.].

LOCATION	CALL #	STATUS
Fisher Research	973.923 12 A	DUE 15-06-10

Major Project Progress

I haven't blogged in a while since I've been really trying to get on track with my major project. After visiting the Fisher Library on Saturday and collecting three more resources (Imagine Nation by David Farber, From Memory to History by David Farber and America in Our Time by Godfrey Hodgson) I've filled in a few crucial gaps but am still lacking in pivotal areas of my research. Prominently, I realised that all the sources I've collected relating to the immediate reaction from the New Left are actually commentaries by historians critical of their views. I NEED to track down SUPPORTING sources in order to clearly state this historical depiction. This is troubling but hopefully I'll have it fixed by this weekend. Gosh this is getting difficult!

Major Project Progress

I need to track down a few things before I can really consolidate my research, though it's all taking pretty good shape so far. I'm waiting on:

• Imagine Nation: The American Counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s - Peter Braunstein and Michael William Doyle (essay by David Farber)
• The Sixties: From Memory to History - David Farber
• Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s - Nick Bromell
• The Hippies and American Values - Timothy Miller

So hopefully when I get my hands on this I can add a little more substance to my arguments. I also want to find a more specific history by either Leary, Kesey, Ginsberg or anyone of that mindset.

Major Project Progress

Another common depiction of drug use in the Sixties comes from the late recollections of leftist Boomers, the generation which lived through the psychedelic experience. This includes historians such as Nick Brommell and Todd Gitlin who, interestingly, both take a similar stance on the reasons and impact of drug use in the Sixties. They pursue the intriguing question of how the interaction between drugs and music in the Sixties caused the transformation of a generation's consciousness. Gitlin's text, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage delves into this idea through an almost biographical recollection of the era. The personalisation of his history is characteristic of Boomer historians (particularly of the Left) who tend to contextualise the major events of the Sixties within their own experiences.This also occurs when recounting the psychedelic experiences, with much of his history being related to personal encounters. Not surprisingly, this presents a very different history to that presented by either the immediate reactions form the right or the later revisionists. He strays from the historians who propose drug use was an attempt to expand "political consciousness" whilst also rejecting the idea that drugs were a symbolic rejection of parental society.

Gitlin explores the perspective that drugs were used by the youth counterculture in the Sixties in order to better understand the cultural changes of the era. "The word got around that in order to 'get' the song, and others like it, you had to smoke this apparently angelic drug. It wasn't just peer pressure; more and more, the get access to youth culture, you had to get high. Lyrics became more elaborate, compressed, and obscure, images more gnarled , the total effect nonlinear, translinear. Without grass, you were an outsider looking in." This establishes the psychedelic experience as a cultural phenomenon rather than an attempt to expand political consciousness or reject the parental society. This is further exacerbated by Gitlin's emphasis on the sheer recreational use of drugs "The point was to open up a new space, an inner space, so that we could space out, live for the sheer exultant point of living... the tension of a political life dissolved." This directly opposes the ideals held by earlier historians that drug use was a feeble attempt by the youth to expand political consciousness. This is explored in greater detailed further on in his work, where he identifies the opinions of the politicos. "Even if they feared that the Haight-Ashbury stood for an unsupportable 'flower-child innocence,' that drugs 'divorced the will from political action,' the force of acid itself could not be denied." Gitlin shows that, although political activists may have dabbled in drugs, it was not seen as a medium towards achieving their goals and hence its use was purely recreational. In fact, drug use was seen, quite correctly, as an obstacle to achieving political progress. Gitlin further reinforces this perspective by quoting drug advocate Ken Kesey at a 1965 Vietnam march. "who showed up in Day-Glo regalia.... and announced that 'you're not gonna stop this war with this rally, by marching.... That's what they do,' marching was their game.... and told the fifteen thousand anti-warriors the only thing that would do any good was to 'look at war, and turn your backs and say... Fuck it'" This shows Kesey expressing a rather apolitical stance and urging the crowd to merely disregard the political issues of the time. This does not seem to be a state of "expanded political consciousness" and definitely supports Gitlin's claims. However, Gitlin does acknowledge that "despite these tensions, there was a direct line from the expressive politics of the New Left to the counterculture's let-it-all-hang-out way of life. Some of the SNCC 'floaters' followed it, in fact, when they shifted to LSD; SDS's prairie-power generation of 1965 saw no barrier between radical politics and drug culture." Here, Gitlin accepts that although largely unsuccessful, there were attempts to make the drug culture of the Sixties of political importance. Largely, Gitlin agrees with other historians that although some leaders of the counterculture were politically aware, the majority of youth were apathetic. "A few old beat-turned-counterculture hands, especially Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder, believed devoutly in a confluence of politics (on behalf of the outside and the future) and psychedelia (on behalf of the inside and the present), but the Haight-Ashbury merchants, rock impresarios, and dope dealers who financed the Oracle, and the hip influentials who starred in the media, were anti-political purists."

So what does Gitlin propose as the reason for explicit drug use in the Sixties? As mentioned earlier, he states it was simply the natural cultural merger between drugs and music. He presents drug use as a recreational activitivy with no higher purpose other than enjoyment, freedom and exploration. This is emphasised by Gitlin's reference to the Merry Pranksters and their bus tour on FURTHER. "'Freak freely' was the idea: drop acid, smoke grass, eat speed, whatever drug was around, paint your faces, paint your scene, change everything, go after cosmic unity... but whatever happened, go with it in hot pursuit of the old bohemian vision, enlightenment by any means necessary." Here, drug use is seen as a simple mind expanding exercise without any real goals.

Gitlin's history also differs greatly from the immediate reactions of the right (Roszak etc) in his depiction of the criminality of the movement and the personality of Timothy Leary. "For every Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert, or Ken Kesey there were a dozen of the unfamous. Cloistered at first like monks preserving ancient rites in the midst of the Dark Ages, they later took their shows on the road to bring enlightenment to the young: today the Haight-Ashbury, tomorrow the world." Hence, the leaders of the movement are seen as mystical shaman and revolutionaries. They are shown as the leaders of a revolution and not simply entrepreneurs seeking financial gain. Gitlin presents a positive perspective of the aspects which Roszak had depicted in a sinister, unflattering light. The drug dealers are shown in Gitlin's history to be sensitive, cultured people hoping to better humanity. "Expert chemists... were not in it just for the money ; they kept their prices down, gave out plenty of free samples, and fancied themselves dispensers of miracles at the service of a new age-'architects of social change' with a 'mission...to change the world,'" This completely opposes Roszak's perspective that the psychedelic movement was highly commercialised and largely a profitable investment. Gitlin neglects to mention any commercialistion of the movement and does not allude to capitalist endeavors, instead presenting a Utopian history of selfless drug-dealers attempting to "change the world." Without straying towards cynicism, I think it is safe to say that this aspect of Gitlin's history has been at least mildly romanticised. He does not back this up with any statistics or evidence, merely stating his idealistic take on the era. He validates the later sadism of drug-lords and organised crime which sprouted from Sixties culture by attributing this to later eras. "small-scale entrepreneurs first dipped into the marijuana or acid trade as true believers helping their friends; only later did some of their businesses grow into the impersonal operations of big-time dealership." Hence, drug use in the Sixties was, according to Gitlin, free from the menace of later decades. Gitlin goes as far as to attribute the establishment of "counterinstitutions" to the drug culture of the Sixties. "'counterinstitutions' mushroomed, offering excitement, collectivity, and employment: underground newspapers [etc]"

Major Project Progress

This is an offshoot to the previous post, Roszak also delves into the personality of Timothy Leary - the "promoter, apologist, and high priest of psychedelia nonpareil." In most histories I have read so far, Leary is portrayed as the mystical shaman of the counter culture. He is shown to be a religious believer in the power of the psychedelic experience. However, Roszak's history portrays Leary from an entirely different perspective. Roszak attributes Leary's profound advocacy of psychedelia to little more than a greedy pursuit of financial gain. He states, "It was not until his academic career had been washed up (he was dismissed from Harvard in 1963) and he had twice run a-foul of the narcotics laws, that he blossomed forth-and then almost overnight-as a self-proclaimed cultic swami. This rather makes it difficult to avoid seeing more than a fortuitous connection between Leary's legal entanglements... and his subsequent claims to visionary prophecy." This is backed up by Roszak when he states that Leary's first 'psychedelic celebration' occurred within 6 months of the time his lawyer appealed that one of his convictions be reversed as a violation of religious freedom. This seems a rather uncompromising coincidence and certainly provides a new perspective on Leary's depiction in history. Roszak does not go as far as to condemn Leary as a complete hack, stating that Leary may have begun his endeavors halfheartedly but soon lost himself "in an eccentric identity." This is important in considering Roszak's perspective of drug use/abuse in the Sixties as it differs immensely from the opinions of the 'left'. Most prominently, the historians who look fondly upon Leary are the Boomers who lived through the Sixties and seem to view it through rose-tinted glasses. It will be interesting to contrast the two perspectives once I get my hands upon a copy of "Imagine Nation" and more particularly "Tomorrow Never Knows".

Major Project Progress

After my third reading of the chapter The Counterfeit Infinity: The Use and Abuse of Psychadelic Experience from Theodore Roszak's The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition Roszak's ideals have become increasingly prevalent. Roszak highlights the basis of his view in the first chapter, stating that "psychedelic experience participates significantly in the young's most radical rejection of the parental society. Yet it is their frantic search for the pharmacological panacea which tends to distract many of the young from all that is most valuable in their rebellion, and which threatens to destroy their most promising sensibilities." Here, Roszak identifies that the core reason for drug use in the 60s is merely "rejection of the parental society" and states a similar opinion to DeGroot by identifying drug use as an obstacle which inhibits counter cultural progress. Roszak goes on to acknowledge the stated motive of the counter cultural leaders "if we accept the proposition that the counter culture is, essentially, an exploration of the politics of consciousness." However, Roszak highlights the feebleness of such an attempt as "a limited chemical means to a greater psychic end,"

Roszak establishes his opinion of drug use in the 60s as a corrupting, menacing force quite early in the text, "they have been sucked into the undertow of a major social movement-and in this context, their influence has been far from wholesome." Roszak states his opinion that although the psychedelic experience and higher "political consciousness" would be beneficial to intellectuals, it is wasted on the youth movement. "the experience has... been laid hold of by a generation of youngsters who are pathetically a-cultural and who often bring nothing to the experience but a vacuous yearning." Roszak goes on to make prolific statements about the 60s youth, dismissing the counter cultural movement as purely recreational and selfish. Roszak goes as far as to condemn 60s drug users as "a giddy child out to 'blow his mind'." This view is further explored as Roszak dismisses the political and religious components of the psychedelic experience stating that, "for them, psychic chemistry is no longer a means for exploring the perennial wisdom; it has become an end in itself, a source of boundless lore, study and esthetic elaboration." Hence, drug use in the 60s is recorded not as an existential religious experience but rather as the chaotic degradation of humanity. It is shown in his history to be mere youthful decadence, hidden behind the mask of a "greater meaning". The 60s youth were "trying strenuously to inflate the psychedelics to the size of an entire culture."

Roszak goes as far as to state that the psychedelic movement was a reflection of the very American commercialism which it aims to reject. He provides clear examples of how the media and advertising world latched onto the youthful counter culture through a "narrow obsession with psychedelic problems and paraphernalia." He shows how the psychedelic experience was exploited as a target audience with the media "more dependent on a local hip economy most of whose wares... are designed to be perceived through a narcotic haze, or... go a long way toward glamorising the psychedelics, deepening the fascination or the need." How is it possible that the psychedelic experience could be both a selfless movement aimed toward heightening religious understanding and instigating political consciousness and a commercialised media outlet? Was the 60s drug culture merely a gluttonous, selfish experience instigated by excessive commercial exploitation or was it, as Leary and Brommel state, something greater?

Roszak further emphasises the corrupting nature of drug abuse in the 60s by portraying it as nothing more than excessive self-indulgence, "There is a word we have to describe such fastidious immersion in a single small idea and all its most trivial ramifications, such precious efforts to make the marginal part stand for the whole of culture. The word is "decadent."" This is a sweeping statement which pretty much condemns the use of psychedelics in the 60s as corrupting and immoral. He then wages into more reasons why the 60s drug culture was immoral and selfish, identifying the criminality of the movement, "Money is still what it takes to survive in an urban environment, even if one is only eking out a substance... whatever else they may take themselves to be, the hippies constitute, willy-nilly, 'the biggest crime story since prohibition'." This is further exacerbated by his focus upon the menacing drug lords and capitalist motives hidden behind the 'flower child' exterior, "their communities have nevertheless become a market more and more dominated by hard-nosed entrepreneurial interests that have about as much concern for expanding consciousness as All Capone had for arranging Dionysian festivals." Thus, Roszak brings to prominence the seedy, unflattering aspects of the 60s drug culture and exposes it as, most prominently, an illegal drug trade with capitalist motives and self-indulgent tendencies.

This was an immediate reaction (published in 1968) from the extreme right and aimed to paint an unflattering political portrait of the era. Roszak was adamant in his ideals and presented a strong front against the drug culture of the 60s. This effectively portrays the drug abuse of the Sixties as a chaotic regression in American morals. Evidently, Roszak's history is starkly different from Leary and Brommel's view of drug use and is a more radical approach than DeGroot.

Major Project Progress

The readings from Gerard DeGroot have been very interesting, he seems to be the most unbiased historian I've found so far - in that he considers the ideas of the left and the right before making his own judgment. DeGroot acknowledges the counter-cultural aspirations of psychedelics, "By facilitating freedom of thought, the drug was supposed to inspire enlightenment." However, DeGroot also identifies the nativity of such a notion by revising the ideals expressed in earlier histories "Liberation could come entirely through the mind. All this tended to give indulgence the aura of noble purpose, encouraging the assumption that the individual tripper was engaged in self-improvement and contributing to social progress." DeGroot notes that early historians were correct in their assumption that LSD advocates such as Leary, Kesey and Ginsberg were sincere in their aspirations, however he notes the inconsistency of these ideals throughout the counterculture. "For Ginsberg, acid was never simply recreation, yet for the multitude that is all it ever was."

Continuing with his revisionist take on the counterculture, DeGroot addresses the idea of the "politicisation of a generation" through drug use. "they seemed the perfect elixir for a culture devoted to the abandonment of traditional values. It was easy, therefore, for the user to convince himself that he was engaged in meaningful rebellion. Due to their illegality, drugs were also a delightful way to defy authority - an enjoyable act of insubordination." This is followed by the opinions of Free Speech Movement activist Michael Rossman who "argued that drugs, by making the user a "youth criminal against the state," politicised a generation." This was extended further when DeGroot quoted a "favourite mantra" of the revolution "They have the atomic bomb and we have the acid." This was an explicitly political statement and highlights the views of some member of the counterculture.

DeGroot also touches on a different perspective, stating that drugs were purely an expression of the baby boomers' endless faith in science. This is a fascinating take on the issue and one which I have not heard often. I am interested in looking further into this insight as it is merely a passing statement made by DeGroot.

In concluding this chapter, DeGroot identifies the drawbacks of the political aspirations of the psychedelic revolution. "Political commitment had given way to karma and mantra. Some people took these ideas seriously, but most of the time they were bastardised, diluted, and bumperstickered." He states that one of the major flaws lay in the very personal nature of the drug experience, which did not exceed internal enlightenment. "For most people who sought rebellion through drugs, the crusade went no further than their own heads." DeGroot points out that drug taking is, in essence, a selfish act taken for one's own pleasure. In contrast, political action is a group activity which requires engagement with reality. This is emphasised by the observation that "devoted druggies, for all they might have fantasised about political change, found it difficult to contribute materially to change." Also, DeGroot highlights the misinterpretation of Leary's mantra "turn on, tune in, drop out" by counter cultural youths. "They did not understand that changing the world involved something more fundamental than simply turning on, and that dropping out actually required serious thought and effort."

Lastly, DeGroot discusses what he sees as the reasons for the lack of action by counter cultural advocates. "In the end, the drug rebellion was defeated by its own excess and by the contradictions inherent in the act of turning on... The foot soldiers of this fantasy revolution were usually too high to take directions and the commanders too distracted to give them."

I found this reading to be extremely beneficial. DeGroot highlights the aspirations of the counter cultural leaders (which are expressed in the early histories of the new left) whilst also identifying the inherent flaws in these ideals (emphasised by the revisionist histories of the extreme right) and chooses not to affiliate with either. Instead, DeGroot formulates a new, revisionist history by stating that although the aspirations of the left were political and aimed for self-improvement, the innately selfish nature of drug-use prevented any real action from occurring. The political aspirations of the counterculture appear a mere pipe-dream (haha) and, despite their good intentions, would never really eventuate in anything substantial.

Major Project Progress

Sir still hasn't replied so I can't really do anything which is frustrating... Hopefully he does today.

P.S If you're reading this, ANGRY!

Major Project Progress

Haven't been able to do anything since Wednesday BECAUSE MY TEACHER HASN'T REPLIED TO MY EMAILS. Just a subtle hint! Hopefully I can continue with everything today... fingers crossed.

Major Project Progress

This is an excerpt from the text Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s by Nicholas Knowles Brommell. As you can see, Brommell identifies two historical perspectives on the psychedelic revolution by referring to "those academicians who have written about the 1960s without an attempt to seriously or analytically relate drug consciousness to the events of th 1960s..."(similar to Sharon Monteith) and a "second class of books" who "simply attack it" and "tap into our profound... fear" to further "conservative political agendas" (similar to Theodore Roszak). This line of thought supports my original findings and reinforces the strict divisions in historical thought regarding the cause/impact/legacy of drug use/abuse in the Sixties. Whilst explaining the contrasting ideologies, Brommell alludes to his own opinion that drug use was inextricably connected to the revolutionary atmosphere of the Sixties and was beneficial to the generation by stimulating change and a 'new consciousness'. Brommell states that the use of drugs by Sixties youth was not mere escapism, but a vital public philosophy. This is a similar, albeit much less radical, view as Timothy Leary.

The stats in this text are presented in quite a different light to those provided by the website I found earlier, although they claim to use the same source.


The above source presents information collected from college students and whilst the website uses stats from the same survey, they focus upon adult drug use. Clearly, the major drug users of the Sixties would be the youth of the counterculture and not the adult conservatives. Hence, the website below provided a deceptive and bias portrayal of the Sixties in order to lessen the stigma attached to the decade. Are other historians exploiting information in a similar way?

P.S Recently found an essay by David Farber titled The Intoxicated State/ Illegal Nation: Drug Use in The Sixties Counterculture which can be found in the collection Imagine Nation: The American Counterculture of the 1960's and 70's. I am eager to get my hands on a copy as the first couple of pages were very interesting.

Major Project Progress

I found a reference to a Timothy Leary essay in a footnote of Making of A Counter Culture: Reflections on The Technocratic Society and Their Youthful Opposition written by Theodore Roszak. The essay is called 'A Molecular Revolution" and is taken from the book The Politics of Ecstasy. Here Leary, an acclaimed advocate of hallucinogens, discusses the presence of psychedelic drugs in the sixties as being a medium for "transcendence" and likens it to a "religious experience". This is a very different perspective than the picture painted by many modern historian such as Monteith who reflect on the "exploitative drug scene". Is Timothy Leary validated in his claim that the youth of the Sixties were a generation seeking transcendence by making the personal political?



Leary presents his statistics in a way which emphasises the growing popularity of drug use in Sixties, whilst the website discussed earlier dismissed it as a trivial, concentrated aspect of the era.


There seems to be a clear rift in the way that history views drug use in the Sixties, namely:

• A belief that it was less prevalent in the era than popular culture suggests - The website earlier, Monteith etc.
  
• A belief that use was widespread, but used to reach "transcendence" and reach "enlightenment" - Leary, "the portable sixties reader" etc.
• A belief that drug use was widespread and corrupted the generation - Roszak
• A belief that recreational drug use was used for personal enjoyment and although many youth idealistically hoped to "make the personal political" it was largely a selfish activity. - DeGroot.

I've only really been going into detail on this over the past couple of days and might email sir soon to see if it's alright or if he thinks I should go back to looking at the Sixties as a general concept. Although that was equally enjoyable, I think looking at a specific issue is much more 'doable'. However, if he believes the focus questions I've been concentrating on aren't practical, I'll happily switch to another aspect of the Sixties as it is all quite intertwined. I've also been reading up on the impact of the media which is interesting.

Major Project Progress

Recently, I've been focusing more intently upon drug use and the "radical" movements of the sixties. Looking back on my proposal, this strikes two major chords:

• According to historians, what affect did recreational drug use have on the sixties? How did this affect the way society expressed themselves and ensuing events? Was rampant drug use the driving force behind the revolution of the sixties?

• Are the sixties correctly memorialised as the era of “sex, drugs and rock and roll” or is this simply a figment of our collective imaginations?

I will continue to focus upon this issue as it provides greater scope for an in-depth analysis of the sixties.

P.S Gerard DeGroot's book arrived today! Very excited to see what he has to say in the portion of the book entitled "sex, drugs and rock and roll" in the Sixties.

Major Project Progress

More on drug use.

This website has provided an interesting insight by denying the severity of drug use in the 60s. Interestingly, their claims are supported by statistics, which forces us to wonder - are other historians exaggerating and romanticising the explicitness of the sixties OR has this website used unreliable data to support an incorrect thesis

The 1960s brought us tie-dye, sit-ins and fears of large-scale drug use. Hippies smoked marijuana, kids in ghettos pushed heroin, and Timothy Leary, a Harvard professor, urged the world to try LSD. In popular imagination, the 1960s were the heyday of illegal drug use -- but historical data indicate they probably weren't. In fact, surveys show that drug abuse was comparably rare, as was accurate information about the effects of illegal drugs. In a 1969 Gallup poll, only 4% of American adults said they had tried marijuana. Thirty-four percent said they didn't know the effects of marijuana, but 43% thought it was used by many or some high school kids. In 1972, 60% of Americans thought that marijuana was physically addictive (research shows that it is generally not physically addictive because regular users rarely show physical withdrawal symptoms, but marijuana can be psychologically addictive).

Alana Anderson, a child custody officer, graduated from college in 1969. "My generation was told that marijuana caused acne, blindness, and sterility," she said. "It was a scare tactic rather than an education tactic."

Teens of Anderson's generation were as observant as they are now. They noticed the difference between parental warnings and actual fact. So, many of them stopped believing anti-drug messages in general. "Scare tactics are a big disaster," said Gary De Blasio, executive director of Corner House Counseling Center for Adolescents and Young Adults in Princeton, N.J., "They don't work, especially if you use them on kids who have used drugs."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from-60s-70s.aspx

In addition, a book I read called American Culture in the 1960s by Sharon Monteith also failed to address the "drug crisis" of the 1960s. Although mentioning it where relevant, Monteith did not designate a great proportion of her novel to drug use. Instead, she focussed upon issues such as music, performance, poetry, fiction, media etc.

I can't help but wonder - was drug abuse as big of an issue in the sixties as some historians would have us believe?

Major Project Progress

This will be brief but I've had another little light bulb moment.
I'm still considering how I will demarcate my history project, which you may find worrying but I believe this will take shape organically when everything fully makes sense and I'm unwilling to force an answer. However, I do believe that the differen't historians' perspective on recreational drug use is fundamental to identifying how the 60s is portrayed. For example, how can a historian excuse the explicit and repeated use of recreational drugs by such a young demographic? If they are able to euphemise this area, what else are they romanticising? It may seem a trivial aspect but it is something which goes largely unnoticed as a "normal", "understood" aspect of the era. Why is this? When considering other eras of such heightened drug use, for example during the opium trade, it is depicated as dark and menacing - a blotch on the page of history. Why is it accepted in our understanding of the 60s?

Major Project Progress

I have just come across a book called "The Portable Sixties Reader" by Ann Charters. Although I am not certain of the value of its content, I was interested to discover how she has demarcated the era. I believe the segregation of the sixties culture into specific topic headings and chapters is an interesting reflection of the historian's views. Charters has chosen to organise her selection of essays, poetry, and fiction under:

• Civil rights
• Women's rights
• The sexual revolution
• Environmental issues
• The antiwar, free-speech, and black-arts movements
• The use of drugs in pursuit of enlightenment.

I believe the final point is an interesting concept, has the historian taken a romantic, euphemistic view of rampant recreational drug use as "the pursuit of enlightenment." Does this make the 1960s an era of wise martyrs, or common thugs? This is pretty interesting and shows how the simple use of language can provide an implicit meaning. I am beginning to see how the historians writing about the sixties designate their sympathies.

Major Project Progress

Just a very brief thought: Within the pile of post-it notes, I found these quotes by Monteith quite interesting, "Branding sixties heritage began early" and "Events, pulse through time as places are examined through a historical lens, whether romanticised, revered or researched." This provides an interesting insight into her beliefs regarding the representation of the 60s. However, her readings do not come across as revisionist or cynical? Where does she stand on the historiographical spectrum? Clearly, she is not as forthrightly revisionist as Degroot, yet she appears to share aspects of his sentiment. Although I hope to avoid branding the historians completely, I would like to develop a greater grasp of their perspectives on 60s culture.

Major Project Progress

I am trying to delve through the piles of post-it notes on my desk at the moment in order to structure a possible draft in the next two weeks. However, I feel as though my research is not complete and I am waiting on "The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage" By Todd Gitlin and more particularly "The Sixties Unplugged: A Kaleidoscopic History of a Disorderly Decade"by Gerard De Groot, a professor of modern history at the University of St. Andrews. De Groot offers a post-modern revisionist view of the 60s and is closely aligned with my own views at this point. As publishers weekly explain, "The commonly accepted history of the decade, DeGroot insists, is a collection of beliefs zealously guarded by those keen to protect something sacred. In the end, DeGroot envisions the '60s as a trivial period of self-indulgence on the part of the West and a bitterly tragic 10 years as they played out in other theaters (especially the Middle East and Southeast Asia). DeGroot deconstructs virtually all key icons of the era—Woodstock (a festival, yes; a nation, no), the Beatles, Dylan, student radicals, Haight-Ashbury, the sexual revolution and even Muhammad Ali—finding that their legends loom far larger than their realities. One might disagree, but DeGroot's book comprises a fascinating revisionist polemic. "
I am very excited to begin my readings of these texts and eagerly await their arrival... hopefully amazon delivers soon!

Major Project Progress

Slowly progressing though the multitude of information and attempting to write up a first draft. However, it is very difficult to find the time to work on my MP during the exam block.

Major Project Progress

I'm having a little difficulty tracking down topic-specific sources amongst the plethora of general sources available about the sixties . It is very difficult to wade through all the information available on an entire decade. However, I am finding this easier as I narrow my search down to a few central topics.
I'm still contemplating which areas I'll focus on. Most historians are adamant about the impact of music/performance, politics etc but their have been some interesting suggestions from historian Sharon Monteith who emphasises the significance of "pseudo-events" in the sixties. I am currently pursuing this idea and questioning how they may have impacted upon historians' respresentations of the sixties as a revolutionary era of change and rampant progress.

An interesting excerpt from American culture in the 1960s By Sharon Monteith:

New Proposal

History Extension Proposal- The Renaissance of The 60s

The 1960s were an iconic era of revolutionary change and rapid progress. Throughout this decade, an explosive counter-culture was established amidst a social-revolution. Vibrant, new ideas of the era were exuberantly expressed in sixties art, music and literature. The libertine, flamboyant attitudes of the decade were epitomised by rampant recreational drug use and casual sex. This dramatic change in social morale was accompanied by the commencement of the Vietnam War and the ensuing Anti-war movement. Rapid technological development culminated in the US/USSR space race. The fast-paced nature of the sixties was emphasised by a succession of high-profile assassinations, adding to the frantic chaos of the age. Consequently, a sense of ‘change’ resonated throughout the period and created the historical image of the revolutionary ‘Swinging Sixties’.

Through my history project I hope to explore this culturally dynamic epoch and divulge the various reasons historians attribute to the astounding rate of change. Additionally, I hope to discover the ideologies of the historians in question in order to establish how it affects their history.

Focus questions-

• What impact do historians believe music/literature/arts had on society in the sixties? Why did this differ from other decades? Was this responsible for the unparalleled rapidity of change in the sixties?

• According to historians, what affect did recreational drug use have on the sixties? How did this affect the way society expressed themselves and ensuing events? Was rampant drug use the driving force behind the revolution of the sixties?

• Are the sixties correctly memorialised as the era of “sex, drugs and rock and roll” or is this simply a figment of our collective imaginations?

• How do historians believe the Vietnam War affected society in the sixties? Why did this war instigate such revolutionary opposition? How did the exposure to images of war affect society? Did this instigate a counter-culture?

• What were the prominent ideologies influencing the historians of the subsequent decades? Did this affect the way they wrote their history?

• Were the sixties really a period of unparalleled change, rapid revolution and utter chaos or did the historians writing about this decade represent it in a different manner to previous historians, thereby warping it into a frantic myth?

• Was the turmoil of the sixties simply extinguished by the arrival of the seventies? If this is not so, why are the sixties represented as intrinsically different to all other decades?

Available resources-

• The Sixties- Eoin Camron
• The 1960s- Timothy Maga
• American culture in the 1960s- Sharon Monteith
• Sixties- Terry H. Anderson
• The Sixties Unplugged: A Kaleidoscopic History of a Disorderly Decade- Gerard J. DeGroot.
• The Columbia Guide to America in the 1960s (Columbia Guides to American History and Cultures)- David Farber and Beth Bailey
• The Age of Great Dreams: America in the 1960s- David Farber
• The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage- Todd Gitlin
• The 1960s: American Popular Culture Through History- Edward J. Rielly

Major Project Progress

To my great relief, I have finally decided upon a new area of focus for my history project; The renaissance of the sixties.
Through my project I hope to investigate what historians believe instigated the fast-paced change of the sixties. I will focus on central areas such as arts, science, society (drug use, anti-war movements, feminism) in order to fathom the reasons behind this new liberalism and sense of revolution. Additionally, I will attempt to decipher whether the sixties indeed experienced a higher rate of progress and change or if perhaps the ideal of the "swinging sixties" has been constructed by the way in which modern historians write their history. As well as this, I will attempt to discover whether the sudden increase in resources and greater availability of information in the sixties affected the writing of its history.