|
by redstar
An op-ed in the New York Times, forwarded to me by a relative, reminded me of some of the low-frequency cultural noise I was hearing a couple of weeks back when in Paris. As simple math would have it, 1968 was 40 years ago today, and elements of the generation which produced it then are now commemorating it now. (As an aside, why do we now mark the importance of events at 20, 30, 40 year intervals? when was the old fashioned half-or full-century deemed insufficiently contemporary? Commercial reasons?). And so, the so-called "paper of record" in America would have it's word to say, for the benefit of those few literati and glitterati in America who still have some material basis to be referential to Paname, on an event which largely missed the US.
When reading, please note the religious (re-)conversion of the author, J.-C. Guillebaud, a journalist of some reputation. This is important for reading certain aspects of the article, which might also explain its publication in this American newspaper. As is often the case, what the Grey Lady in charge at the New York Times sees as fit to print tells us more about the Grey Lady, and what she thinks her readers want to read, than about what is being covered.
Wondering aloud why 1968 is being accorded such importance today, forty years later (a fair question indeed...) Guillebaud attempts to answer his question:
Even after four decades, it retains an ambiguous character, enough to satisfy the French taste for polemic and debate. The word "ambiguous" is apt: the "revolution" of mores that we ascribe to May '68 had, in truth, already been accomplished. The great judicial reforms concerning the rights of women and family law (divorce, contraception, sexual relationships outside marriage, etc.) had been made between 1965 and 1967. That two-year period has even been baptized by legal scholars the "legislative spring." Marching in the streets in May '68, we were merely marking a change that had already occurred. Guillebaud is of course more or less full of shit here. Crime of omission, of course, but as we all know, the march to continuing progress in rights of women and sexual minorities is ongoing, and in the EU and even in France. And it is patently false to say the major reforms were concluded by 1967. What of abortion, made safe and legal in France in 1975? Is this religion polluting the analysis? What of equality in the workplace? Gender pay equity was seriously addressed in....2004. That's a long time after 1967.
...The real legacy of May '68, as we see in France today, is individualism, the rejection of civic sense and ideology, the rehabilitation of the idea that personal and financial success is a worthy pursuit -- in short, a revival of capitalism. To borrow an expression of Lenin's, we were useful idiots. Indeed, the uprising was more a counterrevolution than a revolution. This is a variation on the right-wing theme often sounded against hedonist baby-boomers protesting Vietnam in America, and I have to say as a line of argument, it is a very tempting one for this lefty. This being said, it seems to me that Guillebaud is more or less blaming the idealists for the actions of the opportunists (both participants and observers) who milked the event to their own benefit in the event's aftermath. Speaking this way is a bit like blaming Robespierre for Fouché.
The second explanation lies in the subsequent success of the leading figures of May 1968, notably in the press, advertising, film and politics. This generation of baby boomers largely controls the news media and cultural life. The majority of broadcast chiefs and newspaper, magazine and book publishers and senior editors "did" May '68. They are simply indulging their own nostalgia. The media flood is less political than it appears. In ordering up a special issue, a film or TV program, the boomers are first and foremost celebrating their own youth -- whether younger generations find it interesting or not. Have to say Guillebaud nails it here.
Third reason: after 40 years, the French have ended up convincing themselves that May '68 was a sort of Parisian exception, even though it was part of a worldwide effervescence. Comparable uprisings took place in Japan, Latin America, Germany and Britain. Today, we mention those foreign examples only in passing, without making them part of our collective memory. For us, May '68 remains a French phenomenon. Something like this actually happened in Britain? I hardly believe it. Anyone have a good link?
In truth, the only distinguishing aspect of the French events was that the student demonstrations ran alongside a powerful social movement involving a general strike, the occupation of factories and the participation of unions and leftist parties. It was the strike, not the student revolt, that truly paralyzed the country for three long weeks. The paradox is that these two movements never encountered each other. The students marching toward the factories to "meet the workers" found the doors closed. The unions didn't want them: the workers found the students disorganized and irresponsible. And this is the true lesson, I think, for us in the future. The focus on these events tended to be on the students, but the real story was the back story. As we remark on falling standards of living, of workers putting their arms down, of rising inequality, we should look at the pivot point, in the west, for the rise in the gini coefficient. It happened right about 1968-1972, right about the time that Paris saw long, well observed general strikes (illegal in the US and, I believe, the UK) for the last time. In France, in the OECD for that matter. When their profits are no longer under pressure, and importantly, when ideological opposition has been stifled, ridiculed, discredited, it is then that Capital begins to show its true colors. It is then that everything goes. The other distinguishing feature is that, unlike much of northern Europe and the English-speaking world, France has held out for so long. (But how much longer?) Guillbaud concludes:
The last factor is the current situation in France. With a society that is less forgiving and still more precarious than that of 1968, with a fading left and bleak prospects, the French want to turn toward a time when we had hope that the future would be brighter. The commemoration and the wallowing in mythical memories is an alarming symptom of a search for consolation in a country that no longer dares to think about what is to come. spoken like someone who himself has put his arms down. Probably for good.
|
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . Search . Search (Google) . Archives (Wiki) Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country Login
|
||
|
Soixante-huit, veille de l'année érotique... | 96 comments (96 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||
