You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Heilbrunn's report of two cases will not be discussed here per se. His formulations regarding the psychodynamics in these two cases may be correct but I consider the information too sketchy. It is, however, in respect to his extension of this material on the whole genre of the beatnik culture that I would comment.
One may fall into the error, as I believe the author has done, of grouping together a number of subcultures. Then to proceed by describing a beatnik culture of the 60's which was more characterized by a beatnik culture of the 1940's is to make a further error. This is again compounded by using psychodynamic formulations which the author has gained from
the study of the two cases and in which he has made far-flung generalizations applying to a whole group of subcultures. The hubris of this method can not only detract from a scientific evaluation of the social phenomena under consideration, but it also lacks convincing validation and may even do an injustice to many members of the subculture or of related subcultures.
Dr. Robert E. Gould1 speaks further to the point of the beatnik culture as it exists in the 1960's. He describes how the activist youth of today may fall in some ways into the nonconformist group which merges with the beatnik. The relationship may apply in dress and appearance, and it should be noted that the energy which these students expend in their range of activities and involvement is at the very opposite end of the spectrum from the passive dependent type which Heilbrunn describes.
On the subject of dress and appearance I am reminded of the work of W. A. Lessa,2 Professor of Anthropology at UCLA, who says the making of decisions on the basis of personal appearance is a kind of fortune-telling that can be cruel and unfair. Further, “some employers hand out jobs too much on the basis of how people look and so do some personnel managers. You can't really tell by a man's appearance whether he is loyal, trustworthy, or hardworking. Appearances