I really enjoyed the post on the whole issue of "awakenings" -- what one
might call a process of intense politicization or radicalization -- as
activists in the 60s and subsequent generations of activists experienced
them. It's a vast subject, so here's just a few initial points:
1) There seems, based on my research (which concerns especially the "armed
struggle" wing of the movement) a kind of master narrative of the awakening
process (within, say the New Left), and there are certain common themes that
appear in so many of the biographies I have tracked. Core features are: an
early (often childhood) orientation to basic issues of justice and fairness,
often inculcated by the values of the parents; an early curiosity about the
civil rights movement and a certain sense of awe in witnessing the courage,
pathos, and sacrifice of CR activists and leaders; limited involvement as an
adolescent in forms of activism (often related to issues of race) that
educated one in the depth of racial and economic inequality and gave one a
taste of "people power"; a growing concern over Vietnam and attraction to
like-minded young people actively redefining their lives and identities
around dedication to issues of social justice; an alienation from
"mainstream" culture and the sense of "finding oneself" -- or having access
to a higher, truer, deeper experience of the self -- through partipation in
communities of ethical and political concern (fellow SDSers, activist
friends, some kind of collective or grassroots organization); a
disenchantment, often profound, with mainstream American liberalism and its
democratic party representatives; a fascination with "deviant" ideologies --
Marx, Mao, Marcuse; more or less total immersion in movement culture and the
adoption of certain patterns of style, speech, dress, thought; a fascination
with, and even the glorification of, various forms of otherness -- the lives
and activism of blacks and other minorities, the Vietnamese, other oprressed
groups; intense and often painful reflection on what it means to "make a
difference" and experiemntation with increasingly militant forms of political
action . . .
Beyond this point, people went in so many different directions
2) Within this general model -- a kind of generic template -- there was so
much variety, such that any individual's experience represents significant
variation of the common pattern. What's so fascinating is tracing the
differnt roots people took and understanding the choices they made, relative
to their peers
3) I don't think the "extremism" of the late 60s was as media-driven as
people often claim. In my research I am fascinated to learn why some poeple
took that radical leap into organized violence. There is, so far as I can
tell, no (objective) determinant of why person x would take such a leap, but
not person y. For the most part, the folks I study represent one distinct
variation on the above pattern, and it was a combination of existential,
ethical, ideological and experiential factors that brought them to the point
of violence. Yes, the media may have given them an exaggerated sense of
their importance and agency, but mostly I detect a sincere (if often
misguided) desire to do the hard and risky work of making revolution and,
from a moral standpoint, to take a militant stand against the immorality of
the US gvt. and broader "sstem." This too, is of course, a simplification --
I provide the necessary detail in my manuscript.
4) The process of "awakening" has remained remarkably similar over time. In
the 80s I went through a series of shocks and transformations as a young
activist eerily similar to what 60s folks experienced (of course the Vietnam
war and CR movement receded as reference points; new, but related issues
concerned us). Based on what I know of the new "anti-globalization"
movement, certian constants remain.
5) By all accounts, the new book by Naomi Klein "No Logo" gives a rich
account of the sensibility of the younger activist crowd.
All for now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 16 2000 - 23:29:06 CUT