All posts by R.M.Shurmer

Uncategorized

Final Assignment: Soundtrack of an Era

3 Comments

For your final project we’d like for you to find a song (or musical composition) from the 1960s that, in your opinion, epitomizes some aspect of the historical era. Please write a 1-2 page essay that introduces your song AND locates it in the historical era. To make this an essay that muses upon history and the era, you should use specific information that you have learned throughout the semester in your explanation of how this song ‘speaks’ to you of the 1960s.

  • We have been listening to a good deal of music, but there is so much more for you to discover. So please, try to steer clear of songs that have been used during class.
  • If you look at the top of the header, you will find some of the songs that we’ve showcased during the semester with write-ups that model this assignment well.

You must either hand us a written copy of your essay or email it to: SWoods@cathedral.org, RShurmer@cathedral.org. YES, this includes seniors, who should have the completed essay submitted by 11am on Thursday (28 May) morning. Or if you prefer to post your essay in a comment to this post, that’s fine too. All non-seniors may simply bring your essay with you to the final exam period.

Uncategorized

‘The Global Disruptions of 1968’ by Jeremi Suri

Leave a comment

The entire world shook in 1968. Across cultures, people of all generations recognized the significance of the moment. A global wave of urban protests produced a crisis of authority in nearly every society. Many of the demonstrators who took to the streets in 1968 were young citizens, angered by what they perceived as a stagnant political status quo. Domestic revolution threatened to undermine the international balance of power — what one scholar calls a “long peace” — that had ensured stability among the great powers after World War II.

The revolutions of 1968 did not begin with a vanguard party or a workers’ uprising. The upheavals grew from less glamorous political and social difficulties. Nuclear stalemate between the great powers, unresolved alliance disputes, and the increasingly impersonal nature of domestic institutions alienated citizens from their governments. The growing university population in each of the largest states had the resources to translate discontent into active protest. The brutality of the Vietnam War catalyzed public anger, contradicting the promises of “development” and “progress” espoused by national leaders.

These circumstances gave rise to a global disruption. A very wide chasm — one that still exists today — opened up between the aims of established elites and of social activists in every major society. Cold War divisions between communist and capitalist, East and West, and “developed” and “developing” lost much of their meaning. “National security” had always included international and domestic components, but after 1968 the latter gained importance over the former in many states [countries, not U.S. states]. The urban crowds of protesters created serious anxieties for the most powerful political figures. By the end of 1968 the politics on the streets had changed the politics of government, but not as any of the protesters had hoped.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

During the 1960s one factor was preeminent in igniting the flames of revolution. Leaders promised their citizens more “progress” than ever before — through education, material consumption, and individual equality. Even in China, Mao had pledged that through the Great Leap the impoverished state would soon surpass Great Britain. The government in Beijing consistently repressed freedoms on the mainland, but it did so in the name of a higher communist cause that many, including the chairman, believed would bring a better future for all citizens.

A number of societies — particularly in North America and Western Europe — were remarkably successful in creating affluence during the second half of the twentieth century. They failed, however, to meet the rising popular expectations that they inspired. The rhetoric of both capitalism and communism became harmfully exaggerated in the context of Cold War competition. A perception of “false promises” among young and ambitious citizens pervaded the language of dissent and contributed directly to protest activities in nearly every state… Resistance to perceived police brutalities provided angry men and women with an apparent link between their local grievances and what they came to perceive as a larger “culture” of government repression.

Attempts by authorities to limit popular demands and prohibit public unrest only contributed to more of the same. From a small number of relatively isolated places, violence spread throughout many of the largest states… As protests escalated, the demonstrators in various societies became more united in their attacks on the existing order, but also more divided on what should come next.

Protesters never had to reach a consensus on the future. Despite the violence on the streets, governments managed to maintain their control over domestic society, with the notable exception of China during the height of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1969). In the United States and Western Europe, domestic order required virtual military occupation of entire cities. In Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and China, governments used even great force, including foreign invasion, mass arrests, and forced migrations. Leaders repressed revolution, but they also contributed to a cycle of violence that deepened the chasm between public expectations and official authority.

The global disruption of 1968 grew from the declining ability of leaders to manufacture consent at home. Events during the year made this problem far more intractable. Political elites displayed their determination to retain power through the use of force, but they did so at the cost of their domestic legitimacy. No longer could political figures attempt to lead largely by persuasion. Order and unity now relied more heavily on police activities.

[Suri goes on to prove his point by focusing his analysis upon the following specific locations:

  • Berkeley, California
  • West Berlin, West Germany
  • Washington, DC
  • Paris, France
  • Prague, Czechoslovakia
  • Wuhan, People’s Republic of China]

As the 1960s came to a violent close the leaders of the largest states still controlled most of the guns, finances, and communications media. The protesters on the streets remained relatively weak. The weak, however, now had momentum. The strong were on the defensive. Political power had lost its social component — its ability to command domestic obedience without force, in short its legitimacy.

Leaders in 1968 had to work much harder than in previous years to fight off challenges from their own citizens. University sit-ins, urban riots, and acts of assassination became almost normal occurrences. Public mobilization behind government programs was now increasingly rare. If the 1950s ended with widespread despair about conformist “organization men” who wore grey flannel suits, the 1960s closed with the commonly sung lyrics to the Beatles’ “Revolution” and John Lennon’s solo “Power to the People”.

Think This Guy Came out of the 1960s? This is a real presidential campaign ad:

Leaders in the United States, West Germany, France, the USSR, and China managed to keep their states running, but they never recovered the allegiance of many citizens. The legitimacy and prestige that had made the nation-state the accepted form of political organization for at least three centuries now confronted an unprecedented number of detractors. Leaders could no longer count on persuading the population at home to support their programs. Most often, they could expect the opposite from skeptical citizens. Leaders now had to formulate policy against their constituents…. The endeavor [to find new sources of power abroad] became the foundation for what contemporaries called the politics of “detente”.