Introduction Much has been written about the literary works and life-histories of key figures of the Beat Generation: Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, Gregory Corso, William S. Burroughs, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, John Clellon Holmes, Gary Snyder, and others (for overviews, see Charters, and Penguin Book of the Beats). More recently, lesser-known figures the literary Beat movement (including women and black Beats) have also been studied more closely from such a perspective (Knight; Lee, Beat Generation). Many intimate details about the vicissitudes of daily life within the inner circle of the Beats, and their interactions with the outside world, have been disclosed. These historical facts are now well established, but little has been done terms of assessing the movement sociologically. With the benefit of historical hindsight based increased scholarly understanding of cultural developments the United States during the 1950s and early 1960s, it may be worthwhile to look back at the Beats from a sociological perspective,1 despite the explicit admonition against such sociologizing written by a Beat poet 1959 (JOY). On the other hand, we will seek to go beyond an observer's view at the time who found it hard to imagine that Kerouac's writings in the far future would be read for anything except sociology: what it was like to bum around the country with junkies and supposed Zen addicts; this what it was like to live a typical Beatnik's pad; this what it was like to be sent by a Charlie Parker record, and so on (Moore 385). Undoubtedly, the writings of Kerouac and other Beats can stand their own, having intrinsic literary merits, but this essay not concerned so much with the aesthetic qualities of Beat artistic products. Instead, the primary focus the Beat subculture and its constituting enclaves and scenes. Borrowing partly from contemporary sources and critical studies of autobiographical and selfreflective writings by participants, an analysis will be made of the basic sociological characteristics of the Beat underground. First, I will introduce the Beats as a Bohemian subculture and expressive social movement. Second, I will take a closer look at the intricate interplay between the media images and the real identities of the Beats, because of the former's impact the Beats' life-world. Third, I will elaborate the Beats' ethos (beliefs, values and attitudes), through a critical revisit of a sociological analysis of the Beats done at the time. This will be followed by a similar analysis of the substance of the Beats' cultural practices. Last, I will present my conclusions about the Beats as a complex sociocultural phenomenon. A Bohemian Subculture and Expressive Social Movement From a historical and sociological perspective, the Beats were a part of post-World War II Bohemian culture the U.S. and constituted a subcultural movement that opposed square, bourgeois culture; the Beats dubbed people squares whom previous Bohemians called Philistines and bourgeoises (Moore 378). In various respects, the Beats were a continuation of a Bohemian movement that has an extended history itself. More generally, Bohemians can be defined as persons who as writers or artists are living an unconventional life usually a colony with others (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 124). Bohemianism as such has always had a strong affiliation with the development of avant-garden as movements within art; significantly, Bohemia has been called the underworld of art (Snyderman and Josephs). Historically, there have also been interrelationships between artistic and sociopolitical vanguards which have tended both to converge and to diverge from each other. The Bohemian culture itself is characterized by an active, though perhaps, irregular communalism and group dynamic. In this sense, the Bohemian subculture can also be read terms of a movement, or an interwoven artistic community (Allan 257. …
Read full abstract