In the Prologue to the 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky describes the disillusionment some young people in the United States felt:

Today’s generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world. Most of them are products of the middle class. They have rejected their materialistic backgrounds, the goal of a well-paid job, suburban home, automobile, country club membership, first-class travel, status, security, and everything that meant success to their parents. They have had it. They watched it lead their parents to tranquilizers, alcohol, long-term endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration, and the disillusionment of “the good life.” (xiv)

By this point, the American suburbs of the postwar era had existed for roughly two decades. The growing communities outside major cities had typically catered to middle-class white residents who sought a particular vision of the good life with a home, some space, and opportunities for their children to succeed (plus multiple reasons for leaving cities).

But Alinsky is hinting at how some who lived in these suburbs or grew up in him did not find them to be the good life. Their experiences suggested the suburbs were found wanting. The answers the suburbs supposedly had did not materialize or they were not the right answers. The suburban life could not address particular and/or difficult social issues.

On the other hand, many Americans continued to move to the suburbs even as some suburbanites were disillusioned. The percentage of Americans living in suburbs continued for multiple decades after Alinsky wrote the book. How many young adults rejected this suburban way of life and turned to something else? The percentage might have been small compared to the mass of suburbanites, even as Alinsky’s work proved influential.