COUNTERCULTURE IN MEXICO

COUNTERCULTURE IN MEXICO
ORIGINS, DEVELOPMENT, AND
RESISTANCE

DIEGO ANTONIO JUAREZ ROMERO

“To be young and not be revolutionary is a biological contradiction.”
—Salvador Allende (1972)

INTRODUCTION

Counterculture is understood as a response of rejection toward the dominant or hegemonic culture. Its origins can be traced back to the 1950s, although it was during the 1960s that it became more visible and began to be recognized as a distinct cultural phenomenon. It carried political undertones and was largely condemned to widespread social rejection because of the dominant culture’s traditional and hegemonic opposition at the time.

Throughout history, counterculture has taken on different forms and interpretations, determined mainly by the sociopolitical context in which it develops. Eventually, it is embraced by the masses and sold as disposable rebellion. One example of this disposable rebellion is the rock and blues movement that represented the 1960s. Although it was seen as rebellious music in its original context, today it is viewed more as part of popular culture.

If we fully follow Foucauldian thought and its idea of a network of different factors that determine what kinds of social behavior are permitted, we can understand how the system adapted and reconstructed counterculture into a kind of mask that can be put on and taken off to attract the attention of a few people. It can also serve as a shield against the verbal vomit directed at the way one dresses, acts, and thinks.

Today, the situation of counterculture is somewhat contradictory and confusing, mainly because capitalism, in its eagerness to commercialize absolutely everything and grow ever richer, has adapted and sold it as “commercial counterculture.” From the perspective of Fernández Gonzalo, this resembles a kind of zombie that does nothing but wander the streets, seeking only to spread the infection of commercial counterculture.

However, something unusual happens in Mexico. For various reasons, factors, and contextual circumstances, commercial counterculture has not fully found a place in which to take root. At least in the United States, it is normal to see a person or group belonging to a counterculture without being judged as harshly as they would be in Mexico, especially in rural or less urbanized areas (speaking from personal experience, if you’ll allow me to be honest).

This essay examines counterculture from the perspective of the average Mexican, considering above all its origins and how it evolved. It begins in the 1960s, reviews the student movement, and ends with the Zapatista movement of the early 1990s. These were periods when counterculture reached its greatest momentum and activity, as well as an intense presence in social movements and demonstrations.

DEVELOPMENT

LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE MOVEMENT: PACHUCOS AND JIPITECAS

PACHUCOS

The beginnings of counterculture in Mexico can be traced to the Pachuco movement (Agustín, 1996). This movement emerged along the border between Mexico and the United States in the 1930s, growing out of the migration of Mexican American youth to densely populated U.S. cities. These migrations were driven by events surrounding the Mexican Revolution, English-speaking expansionism, and economic activities (Cummings, 2011).

Looking more closely at the symbols of resistance maintained by this countercultural group, music stands out. Although it sometimes had a provocative tone that portrayed the pachuco as violent and/or arrogant (Daniels, 1997, p. 212), it also reinforced the criminal prejudice directed at them. At the same time, however, it protested the racism and discrimination to which they were subjected (Macias, 2001).

In 1942, a young Mexican American named José Gallardo Díaz was killed at Sleepy Lagoon. After the incident, the police arrested 24 young people who were at the scene, 17 of whom were imprisoned, heightening racial tensions in Los Angeles. In addition, sensationalist newspapers and news reports labeled Mexican American youth as murderers and criminals, provoking a form of social segregation that remains present today.

JIPITECAS

But pachucos were not the only group important to this movement. Another group was also significant in laying the foundations for the origins of counterculture in Mexico: the jipitecas, the original hippies, or—more commonly in studies of this subject—the beatniks, better known as the Beat Generation (Osegueda, n.d.). They were characterized by various expressions in favor of peace and were heavily influenced by literature.

Their beginnings date back to the late 1940s, with the publication of On the Road, the novel written by Jack Kerouac that endured over time and later served as a starting point for this movement. It became a model for young people in the 1960s, whose central cause was opposition to and the ending of the Vietnam War. These ideas also inevitably found a place within Mexico’s countercultural collective.

As discussed in the section on pachucos, incidents involving this group damaged the movement’s image and intensified the stigma and prejudice surrounding it. One of the best-known cases involved William Burroughs, an American writer and a leading figure in this movement, who shot and killed his wife in the head following an incident involving alcohol and drugs. In 1951, he was a fugitive in Mexico before later being arrested and imprisoned in Lecumberri.

Although counterculture has been surrounded by prejudice and stigma since its inception, for various reasons and circumstances, we can also see the sense of unity these groups generated and how their struggle continues to this day.

Now that we have understood and examined the foundations of the countercultural movement in Mexico, we can turn to its development in the country and its principal movements.

MEXICO 1968 — “THE FACT IS THAT IT FELL HERE… HERE…”

It was the 1960s, and Mexico was experiencing social change. The country was undergoing massive urbanization, which accompanied a degree of economic stability that had been building since the so-called Mexican Miracle of the distant 1940s. Education was expanding, hospitals were being built, dirt roads were disappearing, and much more. Everything seemed to be moving in the right direction—but if that had truly been the case, we would not be discussing this chapter of Mexican history.

Young Mexicans’ discontent with the government began in a somewhat curious way: a soccer match between a private school and a vocational school ended in a brawl, prompting the army to intervene. However, the way it did so was far from appropriate. Soldiers began beating, attacking, and insulting young people, entering schools and arresting students. This led to protests, which will be discussed below.

This was when demonstrations protesting and denouncing the militarization of the country and its schools began, led mainly by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN). Most of these demonstrations ended with the arrest of young people and their supporters because the Olympic Games were approaching; the arrests were presented as a precautionary measure.

Fed up with militarization, the two largest universities of the time joined forces to develop a plan of action against the government’s conduct. They met clandestinely in classrooms at UNAM’s School of Philosophy and Letters. The protesters were then caught by the armed forces and attacked; both that faculty and Preparatory School No. 3 came under assault (History Latinoamérica, 2026).

The movement gained strength through the intervention of Javier Barros Sierra, the UNAM rector at the time. His intervention included a silent march on August 1, 1968. After gaining the necessary public attention, the National Strike Council (CNH) began organizing what were known as brigades. These involved going into the streets to explain the demands of the student groups (History Latinoamérica, 2026).

The marches toward the Zócalo marked a turning point for the movement because they emphasized its growing momentum. However, they also contributed to the negative stigma attached to it. It was not until August 28 that the authorities openly adopted a repressive stance, bringing in tanks and military equipment—and, more importantly, snipers—creating a hostile and provocative environment for the student movement as a whole.

Some time later, the CNH called on supporters to attend a rally on October 2 at the Plaza de las Tres Culturas. The purpose of the rally was to clarify that the Olympic Games would be allowed to proceed normally. At that moment, the army began surrounding those gathered in the square, creating a tense atmosphere, especially considering that the site had already been occupied by the army beforehand (History Latinoamérica, 2026).

Helicopters and troops began covering more ground. It was not until around six in the evening that the first flare was fired from the sixteenth floor of the Foreign Affairs Tower. At that moment, soldiers began moving from Eje Central toward the Plaza de las Tres Culturas and then started shooting at those attending the rally from various strategic positions.

The Olimpia Battalion was later identified by its white gloves and handkerchiefs. This also revealed poor coordination on the part of the state, since it later appeared that the shooting had begun because of a misunderstanding between the two sides. The rally’s participants suffered the greatest consequences: in addition to being caught in crossfire, they were also subjected to abuse and inhumane treatment by the army and the Olimpia Battalion.

October 2 remains an open wound in Mexico’s history. It represents everything that the counterculture of the time had tried to change through peace, love, and respect; even so, the response it received was filled with violence, death, and hatred. Perhaps more anger or courage was needed, or a response of equal or greater magnitude against the repressive government of the time. Perhaps they needed a revolutionary leader to guide them according to their principles.

ZAPATISTAS — “EVEN IF IT MEANS DYING”

The movement emerged in a context in which Indigenous people faced precarious conditions, including limited access to healthcare and education, agrarian conflicts, and many other hardships. At the same time, Mexico was undergoing economic and political transformations, particularly those associated with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This situation raised troubling questions for Indigenous communities about their land and their prospects for building a better future together.

From the outset, the movement had clear demands and principles, presenting them in its manifesto on the very day it appeared before the world. It demanded rights to work, land, housing, food, healthcare, education, freedom, democracy, justice, and peace. It also made clear the symbolic principles and legacy of Emiliano Zapata and the peasant struggles over land, while grounding its position in Indigenous autonomy and power relations.

We move from the urbanized area of Mexico City to the Sierra Madre of Chiapas, where, amid jungle and vegetation, a group began to emerge in the 1980s. It was made up mostly of Indigenous and mestizo people, as well as members of armed forces who came from guerrilla organizations and followed a political and social system of organization. However, it was not until January 1, 1994, that their armed movement made itself known in opposition to injustices committed by the Mexican government.

There were two years of ongoing clashes, during which the Indigenous struggle continued in the face of presidential authoritarianism. In 1996, a ceasefire was reached and the San Andrés Accords were signed. These agreements sought to guarantee Indigenous rights, as well as liberation and autonomy. Their failure to be implemented led to distrust among the Zapatista people, who consequently intensified their resistance to the government (Zolla & Zolla Márquez, 2004).

It was only a matter of time before Zapatismo extended beyond armed conflict, opening spaces for dialogue, meetings with civilians, political initiatives, and cultural exchange. In this way, it moved beyond the idea of a purely political struggle and gave rise to a form of resistance that protested not only indifference toward Indigenous peoples, but also capitalism, racism, and the centralization of power.

Although the struggle was supported by various sectors of Mexican society, many others labeled Indigenous communities as being easily influenced by outside leaders, including Subcomandante Marcos. This portrayal depicted them as incapable of organizing themselves or making their own political decisions, as well as lacking autonomy and being ignorant. Nevertheless, these views could not simply be ignored, so the Zapatistas persisted in carrying out their struggle and asserting its legitimacy.

Like the other movements discussed in this essay, their protest had its own symbols of resistance. These included collective identity expressed through cultural symbols such as ski masks, bandanas, embroidery, the red star on a black background, and, of course, the historic figure of the caudillo of the south, Emiliano Zapata. Since the movement gained recognition, these symbols have continued to live in the minds of young revolutionaries.

After years of being largely forgotten, the EZLN recently signaled, in 2023, a reorganization of its autonomous system, including the disappearance of autonomous municipalities and Good Government Councils (Canal 14, 2024). Although its struggle has become less visible over time, Zapatismo remains a point of reference for Indigenous autonomy, social justice, and the struggle for land—an ongoing presence in the heart of every young person yearning for social change.

CONCLUSION

Having analyzed, examined, and revisited the most important moments in the history of counterculture in Mexico, it is important to emphasize that despite the passing decades and the many ways it has been adapted for mass consumption, commercial counterculture has not found a way to become fully established in Mexico. It remains one of the few countries where belonging to an original counterculture can still mean putting yourself at risk by speaking openly about what makes people uncomfortable.

I know that many young people who long for change will agree with this essay. Only those who have personally experienced the social marginalization that comes with thinking, believing, and looking different will understand how sad it is to be a stranger in your own surroundings: to be the invader, the foreigner, the forgotten one, the odd one, the emo, the punk, the dark, the goth, or whatever label fits the limited vocabulary and narrow perception of reality someone happens to have that day.

It is a desolate and repressive feeling, one that inevitably leads people to wonder whether originality is the root of their problems, and whether they should simply think like everyone else—even when they know that these hegemonic cultural ideologies cause harm, especially when they come from a primary social environment such as the family. This is where one begins to question whether what one is doing is right, or whether one is gradually becoming what society has said one should be and who one should become.

But, as we have seen, every revolution began with an outsider, a black sheep who refused to follow the herd and chose to leave it in order to find other black sheep—some more rebellious than others, some more pacifist, younger, or more revolutionary. Together, they end up forming a community that understands one another: a community that understands social discontent, anger, helplessness, and sadness, but also hope, justice, and love.

That is why we must not forget our roots. As mestizo Mexicans, our Indigenous ancestors were themselves countercultural, and they endured censorship, erasure, and the near extinction of their original cultures. We must honor the national heroes who also went against the culture of their time and gave their blood to secure a free and sovereign country. We must honor the young revolutionaries who paid with their blood for the mistakes of a bad government.

That is why counterculture in Mexico is, and will continue to be, a symbol of struggle, resistance, and constant revolution. Above all, we will continue to be mestizo, Indigenous, young, students, guerrilla fighters, Zapatistas, farmers, marginalized people, protesters, the oppressed, teachers, workers, laborers, jipitecas, pachucos, or whatever else we identify with. But beyond everything that others have tried to instill in us, we will always and forever be Mexican—the original countercultural individual.

REFERENCES

Agustín, J. (2023). La contracultura en México / Mexican Counterculture. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial.

Albores, A. [@armandoalbores6975]. (n.d.). documental Chiapas [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from

Catorce, C. [@CanalCatorcemx]. (n.d.). Reportaje 14 | EZLN: 30 años de rebeldía [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from

History Latinoamérica [@HistoryLA]. (n.d.). ¿Qué pasó realmente en Tlatelolco? La masacre que México no olvida - Documental completo [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from

Mapu, N. [@NukeMapuMarrichiwew]. (n.d.). Documental: El Fuego y la Palabra (EZLN, México) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from

Pachuco – subcultures and sociology. (n.d.). Grinnell.edu. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/subcultures-and-scenes/pachuco/

Pregunta: Los pueblos indígenas de México: 100 preguntas. (n.d.). UNAM.mx. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from https://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/100preguntas/pregunta.php?num_pre=48

Wikipedia contributors. (2026, September 25). Sleepy Lagoon murder. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sleepy_lagoon_murder&oldid=1376680402

(n.d.-a). Com.mx. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from https://www.mexicodesconocido.com.mx/beat-culture-en-mexico.html

(n.d.-b). Local.mx. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from https://www.local.mx/ciudad-de-mexico/cronica-ciudad/cuando-william-burroughs-mato-a-su-esposa-en-la-roma/

THE FACT IS THAT IT FELL HERE… HERE…