Reichardt and Siegfried's solid, generally very impressive collection of articles provides a thoughtful introduction to a significant aspect of recent (West) German history. They and their contributors cannot agree on whether the subject is a milieu, or milieus, or countercultures, however.

In their introduction, Reichardt and Siegfried reject characterizations of the alternative culture as “heterogeneous” and argue instead that its members recognized themselves as part of a single milieu and shared ideal and practical elements. The similarities included not only dress, hairstyle, and idioms, but also forms of housing, consumption, and political participation. Especially influential, they argue, was an emphasis on authenticity rooted in a critique of modern industrial societies. Reichardt and Siegfried recognize that concerns with authenticity, in various forms, date back to the Romantics and that a rejection of consumerist and technocratic forces and demands for immediacy also characterized the “Life Reform Movement” of early-twentieth-century Germany.

The first article in the collection is Michael Vester's overview of “Alternative Movements and New Social Milieus.” Vester challenges the widely accepted view that individuals in the alternative scene were “decoupled” from their social class and driven by “post-materialist” and “universal” values. He acknowledges that one cannot rely on purely economic position but must work from the habitus (à la Bourdieu) that classes develop. He identifies five “sub-milieus” (e.g., humanistic, holistic) that he associates with different elements in the transformed class structure of the Federal Republic of Germany (e.g., educated—Bildungsbürgertum, higher tertiary sector). He sees here “not a dissolution, but rather a modernization of class conflicts.” He bases his argument on extensive surveys of members of the various milieus.

Dieter Rucht also provides an overview of “The Alternative Milieu.” He sees it as a left-libertarian orientation that rejects the market as well as public and private bureaucracies and favors participatory democracy. He nonetheless emphasizes that “the alternative milieu” is “far from homogeneous,” as there are “diverse streams” despite some commonalities. He sees a decomposition or decay of the alternative milieu from the mid-1980s, as differences became obvious and as various groups came to terms with the predominant culture.

Anja Schwannhäusser, in discussing underground newspapers, chooses to use the concept of counterculture rather than “alternative milieu.” She wants to emphasize the close interconnection of a social group with the popular-culture media it uses. She also wants also to connect to the use of counterculture in British Cultural Studies as an empirically specifiable social group. She also uses the contemporary term “underground.” At another point she cites Stuart Hall's assertion that a “counterculture” comes from the bourgeoisie while a “subculture” arises from the proletariat.

The contributions that discuss the alternative milieu and new social movements tend to see an overlap of the two rather than some fundamental identification of new social movements with a specific milieu or milieus. Ilse Lenz speaks specifically of overlap and interplay of feminism and the alternative milieu. Jens Engels emphasizes the conservative roots of the ecological movement and the continued role of conservatives within it, even as alternative milieus also provided supporters. Tim Warneke, in discussing the peace movement of the 1980s, distinguishes between a broader movement that agitated in the classic John Stuart Mill mode of rational argument and a radical pacifist core with a more empathetic, arational mode of action. For some (West) Germans, joining an alternative milieu served as a substitute for political action and the effort to secure significant social change, and we need to be more conscious of this as we attempt to situate new social movements relative to alternative milieus.

These examples illustrate a fundamental problem, not only for Reichardt and Siegfried but also for any attempt at analyzing the alternative milieu(s), as the range of definitions, and even terms, deployed suggests fundamental disagreement on the nature of the object of study. Part of the problem is lumpers vs. splitters, but it is more fundamental. That there are similarities and differences among the millions of (West) Germans who rejected the mainstream culture is obvious. Less obvious are the analytical advantages and disadvantages of emphasizing similarities as opposed to differences. Even a lumper such as Rucht ends up acknowledging that his alternative milieu is not homogeneous. Even a splitter such as Vester sees class as an underlying unitary explanation for the phenomenon of alternative milieus.

Reichardt and Siegfried's attempt to use “authenticity” as a unifying element within a non-heterogeneous alternative milieu is both illuminating and misleading. Millions of (West) Germans clearly sought to live a meaningful life independent of a consumerist culture that they saw as deceptive and dishonest. Not all of them, though, were self-reflexive enough to think in terms of authenticity. More importantly, marketers worked diligently, and arguably successfully, to turn key elements of alternative milieus into consumption choices. Moreover, it is not clear how, for example, Vester's “hedonist” sub-milieu fits into any discussion of authenticity.

Reichardt and Siegfried have done a service bringing together a number of well-researched and thoughtful articles on an important element in recent (West) German history. The collection does, though, also serve to highlight the need for further research and discussion on how to define the nature and roles of the alternative milieu(s).