Historicising ‘1968’

Contemporary European History

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 177-187

  Mausbach, Wilfried ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008546348     PISSN: 09607773     EISSN: 14692171     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0960777302001108     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. The reference is from a chapter that - like most others in Kraushaar's book - is the revised version of an earlier article: Wolfgang Kraushaar, ‘Der Zeitzeuge als Feind des Historikers? Neuerscheinungen zur 68er-Bewegung,’ Mittelweg 36 8, 6 (1999), 49-72. See also Schildt's reply and Kraushaar's response, 9, 1 (2000), 62-4.
2. Ralph H. Turner, ‘Collective Behavior and Resource Mobilisation as Approaches to Social Movements: Issues and Continuities’, Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 4 (1981), 1-24.
3. Ingrid Gilcher-Holtey, Die Phantasie an die Macht: Mai 68 in Frankreich (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1995).
4. Neidhardt and Rucht, ‘The Analysis of Social Movements’, 450.
5. Likewise Ingrid Gilcher-Holtey, ‘May 1968 in France: The Rise and Fall of a New Social Movement, in Fink, Gassert and Junker, 1968: The World Transformed 253-76, 254. This is actually a slightly shortened English translation of ‘Mai 68 in Frankieich’, in Gilcher-Holtey, 1968.
6. Ron Eyerman and Andrew Jamison, Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).
7. On the crucial, if increasingly uneasy, relationship between the Frankfurt School and the West German Student movement see also Wolfgang Kraushaar, ed., Frankfurter Schule und Studentenbewegung: Von der Flaschenpost zum Molotowcocktail 1945-1995, 3 vols. (Hamburg: Rogner & Bernhard, 1998), which is noteworthy less for the essays and comments by movement participants in the third volume than for the meticulous chronology and, above all, for the superb collection of documents in vols. I and II.
8. This argument of course loses its validity for the early 1970s when a considerable number of German activists joined the industrial work force in order to incite its revolutionary conscience. (See Koenen, Das rote Jahrzehnt, 319-25). It thus illustrates once more the fallacy of focusing exclusively on the cognitive orientation of the movement. Workers were certainly as wary of Maoists as they had been of Adornites.
9. On the concept of cross-national diffusion see Doug McAdam and Dieter Rucht, ‘The Cross- National Diffusion of Movement Ideas’, Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Sciences, 258 (1993), 56-74; Donatella della Porta, Hanspeter Kriesi and Dieter Rucht, eds., Social Movements in a Globalizing World (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
10. See Claus-Dieter Krohn, ‘Die Entdeckung des “anderen” Deutschland in der intellektuellen Protestbewegung der 1960er Jahre in der Bundesrepublik und den Vereinigten Staaten’, Exilforschung, 13 (1995), 16-52; idem, ‘Die westdeutsche Studentenbewegung und das “andere Deutschland” ‘ in Axel Schildt, Detlef Siegfried and Karl Christian Lammers, eds., Dynamische Zeiten: Die 60er Jahre in den beiden deutschen Gesellschaften (Hamburg: Christians, 2000), 695-718.
11. This fascination was furthered, to be sure, by Western intellectuals.
12. Ingrid Gilcher-Holtey has utilised these insights in her monograph on the French May events. While she has not extended them to the subject of terrorism, she points out in a recent textbook that the militants and terrorists of the 1970s in fact renounced both the New Left's basic values and its strategy for the transformation of society. See Ingrid Gilcher-Holtey, Die 68er Bewegung: Deutschland - Westeuropa - USA (Munich: C.H.Beck, 2001), 122-3.
13. See Robert V. Daniels, Year of the Heroic Guerrilla: World Revolution and Counterrevolution in 1968 (New York: Basic Books, 1989); George Katsiaficas, The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of 1968 (Boston: South End Press, 1987).