Support ITT by donating used Apple computers. Please e-mail donatecomputers@inthesetimes.com!
PrintDiscuss
Features » August 1, 2008

In Defense of the ‘60s

The pursuit of happiness is a dream for all generations

By Peter Marcuse

On May 6, 1968, students battled police in the Rue Saint-Jacques in Paris.

For the first time in history, the possibility of achieving the goals of the 18th century revolution existed, and the protesters of '68 were the first to raise it in the arena of political and social action
Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller

The protests of 1968 — symbolically, the occupation of the Columbia University buildings, the student uprisings in Paris and the street protests in Berlin — are now in danger of being denigrated as the actions of spoiled, confused, if not neurotic, students and rebellious youth who were “finding” themselves in making trivial demands of their uncomprehending and benevolent societies.

An April 23 op-ed by Paul Auster in the New York Times calls 1968 “the year of the crazies.” Another op-ed, by Jean-Claude Guillebaud, on May 24, calls the protesters “useful idiots,” and the current attention on them a “frenzy of nostalgia.”

In the process, the serious changes brought about by the events of ‘68, the substance of the protests, the reasons for the discontent, and the desire for change, are either ignored or superciliously dismissed as childish daydreams.

Even Slavoj Žižek, in the July issue of In These Times, quotes with approval French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan’s comment about the students of ‘68: “As revolutionaries, you are hysterics who demand a new master. You will get one.”

That that much was, in fact, achieved is beyond doubt.

The Columbia protests stopped both military research at the university and the construction of a gym in a park that was seen by Harlem and its black residents as an insult by a rich, dominant institution.

Internationally, the ‘68 protests changed the character of post-war politics, helped end the Vietnam War, and legitimized concerns about peace, welfare and democracy beyond the prevailing mainstream consensus.

Underlying the student protests was a deep dissatisfaction with things as they were: the acceptance of violence, the discrimination, the consumerism, the competitive pursuit of wealth and power, the false virility, the hypocritical sexual mores, the environmental degradation, the commercialization of art and imagination, the production of one-dimensional people. The desire for love as a central component of life — love both in its erotic and in its humane sense, brotherly and sisterly love among all people — was a powerful motivating force.

But the nature of the dissatisfactions and the aspirations behind them deserve a closer examination.

Surprisingly, those aspirations for a just and humane society are not far from those on which the United States and the French revolutions were based more than two centuries ago: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and “liberty, equality, fraternity.” These claims have run through the history of the modern world, and have been the sources of major protests against the three great social evils of exploitation, domination and discrimination.

In the American Revolution, “life” meant the satisfaction of material needs. That’s what motivated the Boston of Sam Adams and what roused, in the spirit of equality, the colonial farmer.

“Liberty” in the United States meant freedom from domination from abroad, and in France meant freedom from an entrenched feudal system.

“Fraternity” — later “sorority,” or better yet, “solidarity” — spoke to relations between people, not simply formal justice but also human relations. It was this claim of fraternity, coupled with a belief in equality, that lay behind the slave rebellions, the Civil War and later the civil rights movement, in which the exploitation and domination that racism supported were necessarily also targets of the struggle.

“The pursuit of happiness,” however, added something different. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is Thomas Jefferson’s modification of philosopher John Locke’s phrase “life, liberty and property” — a solidly liberal and now conventional formulation.

It is stretching a point to think that in writing “the pursuit of happiness,” Jefferson might have had in mind the claims of the ’60s protesters. But while the connection may be more logical than historical, it is nonetheless symbolically provocative.

The ’60s did add a new ingredient to the conventional liberal demands of the earlier centuries — claims made possible by technological promises of plenty and prosperity that were based on a system in which exploitation, domination and racism were concealed but nevertheless central.

The ‘68 movement targeted the one-dimensionality that was the result of a system in which profit was derived from never-ending competition and never-ending growth.

The protesters thought there was hope for revolutionary change because this system contains the means for its own undoing: It produces technologies that enable the fulfillment of authentic human needs to an extent never before possible — and without the necessity of manufacturing inauthentic needs for material consumption to keep the system going.

With this new awareness, new demands were expressed in action. (Historically, those aspirations were not new; the Lawrence textile strikers in Massachusetts put “Bread and Roses” on their placards in 1912.) These new claims took seriously the “pursuit of happiness” both as a social goal and as a personal one. They were the foundations of the ’60s protests.

The earlier claims were included: the right to equality in opposition to discrimination was successfully addressed with broad civil rights legislation and political reform. The acceptance of more widespread democratic participation in politics extended liberty. And opposition to domination ended the Vietnam War under the claim for justice and liberty.

Separately, these were each major reforms. They came together as anti-colonial revolutions in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The students occupying Columbia University buildings — protesting a university gym preempting a public park, accepting the leadership of African-American youth, and opposing the use of university resources for research into technologies of death — symbolized the earlier and the new sensibility.

The students were deeply disturbed at the difficulties of providing an adequate material life, in the face of the reality of increasing inequality in the distribution of goods and services. But they added to that a demand to expand the possibilities for the pursuit of happiness, both as individuals and collectively, although the claim was often rather inchoate, and expressed more theoretically and philosophically than politically.

So, no political revolutions resulted from the actions of the demonstrators in the streets of Berlin, New York and Paris — or in Detroit, Los Angeles and Montgomery. Major reforms, yes, but the idealistic aspirations were abortive.

They responded to the one-dimensionality of the world around them, and linked their dissatisfaction to the antiwar and civil rights movements, but not politically to the third source of protest — exploitation.

Symptomatic of this was the attitude of the police in the Columbia buildings occupation. They treated the students as elitist brats enjoying the luxuries of an expensive education that a working policeman could never aspire to. The common nexus that connected the students’ aspirations for freedom and happiness to the limits on material opportunities of exploited workers did not come together.

In France, workers were directly engaged, but the bulk of the trade union leadership withheld support from the broader aspirations, refusing to see connections where doing so would have interfered with more pragmatic considerations.

Next page »Page 1 of 2
  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Peter Marcuse is professor emeritus of Urban Planning at Columbia University and was involved in the demonstrations at the University of California-Berkeley in 1968. His father, Herbert Marcuse, was a founding sponsor of In These Times and was one of the philosophers who provided a theoretical basis for the 1968 protest movements and the New Left.

More information about Peter Marcuse
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    The attempt to provoke revolutionary change is often framed as a failure as the “cracks in the edifice” are often quite small. Marcuse reminds us not to be so cynical in our analysis of 1968, to understand where the potential for a larger movement was arrested, and hints at how we might move forward. I’m not sure about Marcuse’s choice in the end to focus on Obama as an agent of change, though of course I would welcome it.

    Posted by bfrancisp on Aug 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM

    Many who followed the 1968 generation (I graduated college in 1980) see them in fact as indulged children ‘finding themselves’ through revolutionary posturing.  Consider Mr. Marcuse’s statement

    “Internationally, the ‘68 protests changed the character of post-war politics, helped end the Vietnam War, and legitimized concerns about peace, welfare and democracy beyond the prevailing mainstream consensus”

    It’s easier to postulate than actually argue.  The 1968 protesters ushered in Pres. Nixon and six more years of war.  The Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia showed that it had no impact on generating peace or democracy.  The nature of post-war politics was, in fact, unchanged.  The French chose de Gaulle.  The East Bloc kept Sovietism.  The Mexican government was unchanged.  The Cold War continued.

    Posted by sobieski on Aug 3, 2008 at 4:07 PM

    I’m so depressed. Not only does this article by Peter Marcuse (son of…) conclusively disprove that evolution in the human species is inevitably progressive, but Marcuse and son equally conclusively are physical refutations of the theory of intelligent design. Back to the drawing board….

    Posted by gavin on Aug 3, 2008 at 6:12 PM

    Puhleeeaase!!!  A son of the 60’s attempts to defend the “Failure of his Fathers”.  Consider a few of these contribtions of the “boomers” and their life of “sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll”:  Drug use and abuse to the point of death; sexual promiscuity leading to rampant STD’s and AIDS, and aborted (killed) babies; destruction of family and denegration of “family values” - see rampant divorce rates, destruction of a once world leading educational system, selling off the long fought gains of American corporations and their workers - such as strong retirement and medical benefits, and decent job security; exporting of American jobs while importing illegal aliens, destruction of our banking and financial system, bankrupting of the American government due to excess spending, bankrupt America due to excess spending, greedy lawyers destroying the true “rule of law” and prudence/respect…NEED I GO ON????  Thank you Mr. Marcuse for setting America straight!  What a joke…as if the boomers were not destructive enough, NOW, we get their narcissistic, slacker kids…

    Posted by JoeK on Aug 4, 2008 at 1:42 AM

    First, the most egalitarian advances of our time were in the 90s rather than the 60s. This was through the invention of the Internet and print-on-demand publishing. Suddenly, little people have a voice. We’re hearing the opinions of lots more people these days.

    Second, not only did the left try to change society during the 60s. It changed itself. Prior to the 60s, its main goal was helping labor. Now, labor is way down the list. It comes in seventh place after (1) race, (2) gender, (3) sexual orientation, (4) the environment, (5) the Third World, and (6) the disabled.

    These days I snicker when leftists try to get a class war going. How can you legitimately claim to stick up for the poor when you want gas to be $9/gallon? Giving labor such a low priority is the reason why we’ve had a string of Republican presidents. It’s because the white working class no longer trusts the left.

    Posted by JFP1 on Aug 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.