Origins of the 1960’s Counterculture: Drugs as Tools for Institutional Change

Written by Ali Shana

A Psychedelic-Induced Bellwether

Drugs have always played a role in U.S. culture, and likewise, many drugs have been adopted by the country’s most powerful institutions. WWII soldiers were given stimulants - amphetamines in particular - to aid in their militarial pursuits. The union man continues to pour coffee every morning, drink alcohol in the evening, and perhaps smoke a cigarette on his break. And of course, the rise of Big Tobacco tells a story of U.S. capitalism, advertising, and international trade. Indeed, these drugs have been embraced by American institutions of industry, national defense, and leisure.

But drugs in the 1960s radically break from this narrative. In particular, psychedelic drugs challenged the aforementioned institutions, making the period from 1964-1972 a bellwether of sorts. Instead of upholding the status quo, psychedelics were used as tools of institutional change. Why is this era - a melting pot of political revolution, civil rights activism, sex & rock n’ roll - so inexplicably tied to psychedelic drugs? Most importantly, what can we learn from psychedelics’ role in the 1960s counterculture as we embark on our own psychedelic medicine revolution?

To properly explore these questions, we must consider the origin of both psychedelic drugs in Western culture and the remarkable youth-led counterculture that came about as psychedelics left academia and entered student-led strikes. 

How Psychedelics Escaped Labs and Entered Recreational Circles

The earliest glimpses of psychedelic research were not rooted in America. In 1896, it was German pharmacologist Arthur Heffter who studied the peyote cactus and its psychedelic alkaloid mescaline (1). Then, in 1938, it was Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann who synthesized LSD (2). Heffter and Hofmann continue to inspire today’s psychedelic research, with much of it coming from the Heffter Research Institute. 

However, following the groundbreaking work of these two men, American curiosity in psychedelia stemmed from an institutional interest. The nation’s predominant interest in LSD was its potential to be used as a CIA interrogation tool. “In 1953, Project MK-ULTRA was formally approved, to investigate the potential of a wide range of drugs as possible truth serum. The CIA quickly concentrated on LSD as the prime candidate, and after securing a supply from Sandoz, the Chemical division, led by Sid Gottlieb, began conducting research,” (Williams, 1999).

The unethical nature of MK-ULTRA was not a sustainable effort, and researchers spent the better half of the 1950s studying psychedelics as potential therapies for disorders of mental health, predominantly addiction. For example, ethnobotanist Gordon Wasson popularized inquiries of the effects of psilocybin - the major psychoactive component in “magic mushrooms” - and the chemical was quickly integrated into an array of mental health therapies (3).

These inquiries wouldn’t last long. As trailblazers from various fields of academia began to write about psychedelics, including Aldous Huxley and later Harvard psychologist Timothy Leary, many lesser known psychiatrists began to let friends and family sample psychedelics (4). In many ways, the powerful nature of a psychedelic experience may have been too awe-inducing to keep behind closed doors. The once clinical supply morphed into a recreational supply, becoming quite popular in Los Angeles. In one example, would-be fixture of the counterculture Ken Kesey volunteered as a research subject for medical trials in 1959 that tested the effects of LSD and psilocybin. He would later travel around in a bus distributing LSD to anyone interested in the experience. By the mid-1960s, the government responded to this shift in supply usage by banning the manufacture and sale of psychedelic drugs. 

Psychedelics in American Counterculture 

The important thing to understand about psychedelics in the context of 1960s counterculture is that they dissolved interpersonal boundaries at a time when the societal narrative was fixated on “us versus them.” The youth at large rejected the status quo on racial segregation and the Vietnam war, making the government an enemy of their social agenda.

Likewise, the popularity of substances banned by the government raised questions. Why aren’t we allowed to experience these powerful drug-induced trips? This echoed similarly relevant inquiries: Why should we be ashamed and quiet about our sex lives? Why should we be expected to fight for a war we didn’t ask for? Why must we center our lives around work rather than pleasure? What religious frameworks might be more accepting of our lifestyles?

While there is much to learn about the underlying mechanisms of a psychedelic trip, researchers like Robin Carhart-Harris have shed some light on this topic. Under the influence of psychedelic drugs, the brain's default-mode network (DMN) is allocated less governance. In turn, other parts of the brain are granted more governance, resulting in a different interpretation of stimuli, and ultimately, a different way of thinking. In other words, the psychedelic state of mind lends itself to seeing things in a way they have not been seen before. This makes it a great adjunct to therapy, considering that those in mental health crises may be stuck in detrimental thought patterns (e.g., addiction, obsessive suicidal thoughts, recurring images of traumatizing events).

Put simply, psychedelic drugs “shake the snow globe” of thinking. So, while a generation of activists and pleasure seekers were straying from conventional lifestyles, they were introduced to substances that facilitated a new perspective on the world around them. Everything from religiosity to political affiliation was reconsidered in a major way - a revolution of mind amidst a revolution of law. The two were a match made in heaven.

The Major Takeaway from 1960s Counterculture

As we continue to integrate psychedelics into our therapeutic regimes, we ought to consider the psychedelic forebearers from this period of U.S. history. To be clear, it is not inherently therapeutic to give the masses powerful drugs. While many in the psychedelic community are frustrated by its scheduled status, we now have an opportunity to introduce psychedelics in partnership with authority figures. By bringing psychedelics back to academic and clinical practices, psychedelic advocates can learn the following lesson from the 1960s:

It is of utmost importance to distribute educational literature on psychedelics to the public. The 1960s illustrates what happens when institutions assume entitlement to psychedelic inquiry and struggle with transparency. 

Harm reduction tactics, in the form of open access, easy-to-digest material regarding safe use of psychedelics, should be emphasized. Even if practitioners’ use is strictly clinical and clearly licensed, those privy to psychedelic information cannot operate as an “insiders club.” 

When the masses experimented with psychedelics all at once, institutional power was threatened. They responded with an oppressive ban that hindered developments in psychedelic research, which ultimately stalled groundbreaking therapies. One of the best ways to prevent such a ban from happening again is to keep the safety of any user - patients and recreational users alike - in mind. This is not a rebranding exercise, but rather an opportunity to reintroduce psychedelics to the public as what they truly are: groundbreaking chemicals and tools for change.

References 

1) Stevens, J. 1987. “Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream”. Heinemann.

2) Hofmann, A. 1983. “LSD: My Problem Child”. J.P. Tarcher

3) Williams, 1999: https://maps.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5468

4) Grinspoon, L. and Bakalar, J.B. 1979. “Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered”. Basic Books.

5) Novak, S. 1997. “LSD Before Leary: Sidney Cohen’s Critique of 1950s Psychedelic Drug Research”. Isis Vol. 88.