The year 1967 is famously known as the “Summer of Love,” a period when an estimated 75,000 to 100,000 young people converged on San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district. This neighborhood, previously a quiet enclave for artists and bohemians, suddenly became the global epicenter of counterculture. For many, the Summer of Love evokes images of a cultural revolution driven by American youth embracing ideals of peace, love, and freedom of expression.
People in park during Summer of Love
Even fifty years later, the idealized vision of the Summer of Love persists. However, underground newspapers, such as those within the Reveal Digital’s Independent Voices Collection, reveal a more complex and often darker reality beneath the surface of that iconic summer. An advertisement in the June 23rd edition of the Berkeley Barb, for the Berkeley PROVOS, illustrates this point starkly. While seemingly aligned with the Summer of Love’s spirit, the ad is essentially a desperate cry for help: “We still need food, clothes, places to stay, beds, sheets, soap, blankets, coat hangers and HELP.” This plea highlights the immense strain the influx of people placed on the Haight-Ashbury community, suggesting the summer was not solely a peaceful utopia.
In reality, the hippie movement and the widespread media attention on hippie culture that coalesced during the Summer of Love were met with significant controversy and mixed reactions, rather than universal acceptance. Even among participants, there were diverse understandings of the event’s meaning and purpose. While a sense of transformative change was palpable, it was far from a simple, unified embrace of peace and love by American culture. The Summer of Love was a much more nuanced and multifaceted phenomenon.
The Powerful Role of Mass Media in Shaping the Summer of Love
For many within the counterculture, the Summer of Love was an unintended consequence, largely fueled by the burgeoning influence of mass media – music, television, and magazines. As the countercultural scene in Haight-Ashbury began to attract attention, media outlets started documenting its activities, especially following the Human Be-In event in January 1967. According to Chet Helms, a key figure in the San Francisco music scene, the Human Be-In served as a catalyst. A relatively small group of counterculturally inclined individuals in Haight-Ashbury extended an invitation for young people to come to San Francisco. They formed the “Council of the Summer of Love” to organize events in Golden Gate Park, attempting to channel the anticipated influx.
Articles depicting the “new” hippie lifestyle began appearing in mainstream publications like the New Yorker. Adding to the momentum, the hit song “San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)” became an anthem, solidifying the idea that San Francisco was the place to be in the summer of 1967. By most accounts, the massive influx of young people was less a result of the Council’s planning and more an unforeseen outcome of popular culture’s amplification of the movement. The media, in essence, played a crucial role in constructing and disseminating the very idea of the “Summer of Love” to a national and international audience.
As the summer unfolded, it became increasingly apparent to many within the Haight-Ashbury community that the media was not just reporting on the Summer of Love; it was actively defining it, and by extension, the very concept of a “hippie.” This realization led to growing suspicion and even hostility towards “the media,” encompassing photographers, newspaper and magazine reporters, and documentary filmmakers. Columnist Joan Didion famously recounted being labeled a “media poisoner” by members of the Diggers, a radical activist group within the counterculture.
Jef[f] Jassen, writing in the Berkeley Barb, reminisced about a pre-Summer of Love Haight-Ashbury, stating, “Nowhere was a camera visible.” Perhaps the most potent symbol of the media’s complex relationship with the Summer of Love was the “Death of the Hippie Parade,” intended to mark the end of the season. Documented in underground papers like the Berkeley Barb, the event featured a funeral procession through Haight-Ashbury. Participants carried a coffin filled with hippie symbols – beads, mandalas, and hair – signifying the death of the media-created stereotype. A funeral notice circulated in the neighborhood declared: “Funeral Notice / HIPPIE / In the Haight Ashbury District of this city, Hippie, devoted son of Mass Media…” This demonstration aimed to challenge the media’s role in shaping the “hippie” image and replace it with the idea of a “free man.” Jassen wryly commented, highlighting the tension and internal disagreements:
I didn’t appoint the Chronicle to label me a ‘hippie.’ Similarly, I didn’t appoint the Oracle, Happening House, the Diggers, or anyone else to free me from whatever plastic coating society is trying to seal me in. If precious time has to be spent now to release people from the name of ‘hippie’ then I can only wonder about those same people who spent countless hours telling me that there is no such thing as a ‘hippie’.
Jassen’s words expose not only disdain for mass media’s influence but also the internal conflicts within the counterculture regarding the very definition and significance of being a “hippie.” The media, therefore, was not just a chronicler of the Summer of Love; it became a central player, both in its creation and as a target of criticism from within the movement itself. Underground newspapers of the era provide invaluable primary source material for understanding this evolving and often contradictory relationship between the counterculture and mass media. For anyone studying the cultural impact of media, the Summer of Love offers a compelling case study.
Performance and Protest: Guerrilla Theater in the Summer of Love
The counterculture’s skepticism towards the media was further complicated by another significant trend: guerrilla theater. During the Summer of Love, groups like the San Francisco Mime Troupe utilized street theater as a potent tool for political expression and social commentary. Known for their provocative and thought-provoking performances, the Mime Troupe aimed to critique social and political norms, often directly engaging with public audiences in unconventional spaces. The theatrical activities and opinions of Mime Troupe leaders like R.G. Davis and Peter Berg were frequently featured and discussed in underground newspapers, showcasing the intersection of performance art and countercultural activism.
Following the Summer of Love, R.G. Davis continued to explore guerrilla theater, collaborating with media-savvy figures like Abbie Hoffman on various demonstrations. These actions were strategically designed to harness the power of mass media to promote countercultural messages and goals. The Summer of Love, in this context, became a pivotal moment where counterculture participants began to recognize and experiment with innovative ways to leverage media influence for their own purposes, even while remaining critical of its mainstream representations.
The Shadow of Late Capitalism: Commercialization of the Counterculture
A common narrative surrounding the Summer of Love is that the counterculture’s initial idealism began to erode as corporate America recognized and capitalized on “hippie” culture. This perspective argues that profit-driven businesses and advertisers, with little genuine interest in the counterculture’s values, moved to exploit its symbols, aesthetics, and trends for commercial gain. These entrepreneurs and advertising agencies co-opted the visual and cultural language of the authentically revolutionary counterculture, arguably diluting its original meaning and impact. According to this critical view, the Summer of Love’s perceived “failure” wasn’t simply due to logistical challenges of accommodating a massive influx of people in Haight-Ashbury. Instead, it was the influx itself that attracted commercial interests, ultimately undermining the community’s original ethos.
Chester Anderson’s pamphlet, Uncle Tim, passionately condemns these entrepreneurs, holding them responsible for the darker aspects of the Summer of Love. While potentially hyperbolic, Anderson’s pamphlet delivers scathing critiques of “HIP merchants,” blaming them for many of the difficulties experienced during that summer. His targets included not only commercial entities but also countercultural publications like the San Francisco Oracle, the Council for the Summer of Love itself, and even LSD advocate Timothy Leary. The intensity of Anderson’s critique underscores the deep divisions and passionate disagreements within the counterculture regarding its direction, its communal identity, and ultimately, the true meaning and legacy of the Summer of Love.
In Conclusion
The Summer of Love was far more than just a carefree celebration of peace and love. It was a complex and transformative period marked by the powerful influence of mass media, internal tensions within the counterculture, and the looming shadow of commercialization. While the utopian ideals associated with the summer continue to resonate, understanding the full story requires acknowledging the darker, more complicated realities revealed by voices from within the era itself. The Summer of Love serves as a crucial historical moment for examining the intricate relationship between counterculture, media, and the broader forces of social and economic change in the late 1960s.
