University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Looking Back After Coming Down: Conformity And Commitment In Campus Protest

(USC Thesis Other)

Looking Back After Coming Down: Conformity And Commitment In Campus Protest

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Z eeb Road
Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106
:|
I
74-23,562
ALLEN, Melanie Rhea, 1939-
L O O K IN G B A C K A FTER C O M IN G D O W N : C O N F O R M IT Y
A N D C O M M IT M E N T IN C A M P U S PR O TEST.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1974
Psychology, general
University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan
©Copyright by
MELANIE RHEA ALLEN
19714
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
LOOKING B A C K AFTER COM ING DO W N :
CONFORM ITY A N D CO M M ITM EN T IN CA M PU S PROTEST
by
Melanie Rhea A llen
A D is s e rta tio n Presented t o the
FACULTY OF THE GRADU ATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P a r t i a l F u lfillm e n t of the
Requirements fo r th e Degree
D OCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
June 197^
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
T H E GRADUATE SC H O O L
UNIV ERSITY PARK
LO S A N G ELE S, C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
/ H i i o . r \ /tA ca ( l t * \
under the direction of h*:!h... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Dean
Da te^uji. . I . I t /
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
To L ez lle and Debi
and
to a l l my stu d e n t-frie n d s
who asked q u e stio n s,
attem pted answ ers,
and shared w ith m e
the an x iety
and e c sta sy
of th e Odyssey
through th e l a s t decade.
Som ething's happening h e re ,
What i t is a i n 't e x a c tly c l e a r . . .
S top, c h ild re n , w h at's th a t sound?
Everybody look w hat's going dow n...
Stephen S t i l l s
(fo r th e B uffalo S p rin g fie ld )
W e walk proudly
in our w in te r-c o a ts ,
Wearing sm ells
from la b o ra to rie s ,
Pacing a dying n a tio n .
W e a re s ta r - d u s t,
W e are golden,
And we've got to
get ourselves
back to th e Garden.
Gerome Ragni & Joni M itch ell
James Rado
Won't you p lease
come to Chicago
ju s t to sing?
Graham Nash
I t ' s been a long tim e cornin'
I t ' s g o in ' to be a long tim e gone.
And i t appears to be a long tim e,
Yes a long, long tim e before the dawn.
David Crosby
(fo r Crosby, S t i l l s , & Nash)
ii
A CK N O W LED G EM EN TS
I am deeply g r a te f u l to my d o c to ra l committee fo r
allow ing me th e freedom to openly explore a com plicated
and e lu siv e phenomenon w ithout the c o n s tra in t of hypoth
eses or t r a d i t i o n a l methodologies. Because they allowed j
me to "form my own form ," th is d is s e r ta tio n was t r u l y a
le a rn in g experience, so much more than an " i n i t i a t i o n
r i t e " or a f i n a l fo rm a lity . Thank you, M ilt Wolpin,
Steve P ran k el, A1 Marston, and Barbara Myerhoff.
Previous to t h e i r leaving USC, Herman Harvey and A li
B anuazizi served on my Guidance Committee. Dr. Harvey :
f a c i l i t a t e d th e development of m y e n tir e approach to ]
c o lle g e education, one in which teach ers jo in in th e liv e si
j of t h e i r stu d e n ts, in c la ss and o u tsid e . This o r ie n ta tio n
i
| was a key to m y involvement in the events described in
th is book, leading to a n a tu ra l ev o lu tio n of in tim ate
p a rtic ip a n t-o b s e rv e rs h ip . Dr. Banuazizi shared w ith me
j a deep concern in th e unfolding tragedy of our n a tio n 's
j ■ |
p o lit ic s and t a c t i c s . His own personal e th ic was d ire c tly !
j
re sp o n sib le fo r m y eventual focus on th e n atu re of com- j
mitment in g en eral and the questions I would l a t e r come
| to ask as to the degree of my own commitment.
; Because the concept of the development of moral
i Judgment is c e n tr a l to th is in q u iry , I would lik e to
I
! acknowledge the c o n trib u tio n of Lawrence Kohlberg, whom
I have never met but whose work has highly influenced both i
my thought and my personal l i f e . Charles Hampden-Turner j
is a good frie n d and a colleague who has been s ig n ific a n t
in providing ideas which la te r led to "a-ha ex p erien ces." j
I very much a p p re c ia te th e thorough reading of th is
; d is s e r ta tio n by Fred H alstead. He has provided me with
I im portant d e t a i l and r e f le c tio n , p a r tic u la r ly in r e la tio n j
^ to the h i s t o r i c a l development of s o c ia l p ro te st in the
j s i x t i e s .
| Many other people in the hum anistic psychology move-
i ment have in d ir e c tly influenced m y " n o n -tra d itio n a l”
; in te r e s ts and procedures. S p e c ific a lly , I am indebted to
my f i r s t mentor, C h a rlo tte Biihler, who led me in to the
study of goals and v slu es, and who was one of the pioneers
: in the study of the course of human liv e s . I experienced
in e x p re ssib le pain and loss when C h a rlo tte passed away
ju s t previous to my Oral Defense. Her impact on my l i f e
is im p lic itly imprinted on t h i s work.
As is in d icated in the D edication, th is book would
never have come in to being had i t not been fo r my
experiences with my stu d e n ts. In p a r tic u la r , I am g r a te fu l
iv
f
! fo r th e re sp o n sib le help and lo y a lty , and the c r e a tiv it y
I
i
| and in s ig h t, of L ez lie Kaplan and Deborah Bass. As is
I in d ic ated in th e In tro d u c tio n , i t has been a long tim e
I
| sin c e my childhood in M innesota, but, even in the years
away from home, the co n sisten cy of th e support and care
: given by my p a re n ts, Sam and Frances F in k e ls te in , has
i continued. T heir e n tir e approach to r a is in g Ja n ic e , A llan,
and me allowed us to exchange th e most fa r-o u t ideas over
j the d in n e r-ta b le , dare to tr y th e supposedly im possible,
; and r is k nonconform ity. I a ls o want to thank my frie n d ,
j Jacqueline Oberman, fo r her e f f o r t in preparing th is
j m anuscript, and my au n t, C la ric e G arfin, fo r her proof-
I
| reading a s s is ta n c e .
L a stly , I am indebted to many people I have never
i
! met, in the C iv il R ights Movement, in th e Free Speech
| Movement, in the Peace Movement, and in a l l movements
g re a t and sm all which have occurred in th e growth of these
! in d iv id u a ls and of modern c i v i l i z a t i o n .
v
ABSTRACT
This d is s e r ta tio n is a non-experim ental ex p lo ratio n
of the phenomenon of campus p ro te s t in America during
th e past decade as a prim ary focus, w ith th e in te n t th a t
some of th e basic c o n sid e ra tio n s of th e work might have
s ig n ific a n c e t o th e study of s o c io - p o l itic a l movements
in g e n e ra l. The author attem pts a m u lti-d isc ip lin e d
approach to th e e x p lo ra tio n .
As a p reface to her work, th e author p resen ts her
own stream -of-conscious jo u rn a l w ritte n during th e "peak
event" of th e fo c a l e ra , th e N atio n al Student S trik e of
1970. In th e in tro d u c tio n , she fu rth e r d e lin e a te s her
stance as p a rtic ip a n t-o b s e rv e r, d e ta ilin g th e metamor
phoses she experienced both in regards to her involvement
in campus p r o te s t, and in her l a t e r in te r e s t as a
re se a rc h e r. She d escrib es th e work as im p lic tly su b je c
t i v e , s e le c tiv e in fo cu s, and attem pts to re v e a l the
natu re of her own b ia s.
The e n tire work is addressed to a basic in q u iry in to
the n atu re of commitment as i t r e la te s to th e phenomenon
of the seemingly rapid r i s e and s im ila rly rapid d ec lin e
vi
of campus p ro te s t in America.
P a rt I i s e n title d The Mood of P ro te s t and th e Mode
of C onfrontation in th e S ix tie s . I t tra c e s in d e t a i l the
rap id growth of s o c ia l and p o l i t i c a l p ro te s t during the
decade. The author s tr e s s e s th ese f a c to r s : th a t no
major s o c io - p o l itic a l movement during t h i s period was
m aintained s o le ly by young p a r tic ip a n ts ; th a t a d u lts were
fre q u e n tly lead ers and h ero es, c r u c ia l to th e sustenance
of a movement; th a t the concepts of "radicalism " and
|
" p ro te s t" grew in appeal and " p o p u la rity ," p a r tic u la r ly
on th e American campus, so as to p o ssib ly command the
p a r tic ip a tio n of "n o n -tru e -b e lie v e rs" toward th e form ation
of a "rear-ech elo n " membership.
P art I I co n tain s th re e se p arate a r t i c l e s tr e a tin g
i
su b je c ts f e l t to be re le v a n t to theory and re se arch in !
j
th i s a re a . The f i r s t se c tio n is an a n a ly sis of s o c ia l
i
movements and c o lle c tiv e phenomena. The emphasis is on i
i
a comparison of s o c io - p o l itic a l movements (and rev o lu tio n ,!
In p a r tic u la r ) with c u l tu r a l ev o lu tio n . The author
d efin es the former as g o a l-o rie n te d , th e l a t t e r as
re q u irin g no such o r ie n ta tio n . In th e second s e c tio n ,
th e author focuses on a p rev alen t species of explanation
in th is area of re se a rc h , th a t of th e o n e-facto r system j
as cause ( i . e . , the g en eratio n gap, id e n tity c r i s i s ) and |
attem pts to dem onstrate the inadequacy of th is manner of j
v i i
exp lan atio n in tr e a tin g c o lle c tiv e phenomena. The th ird
se c tio n reviews another major tren d in re se arch on youth
in th e s i x t i e s , th a t which stereotyped young p o l i t i c a l or
c u ltu r a l ra d ic a ls as being e ith e r deviant or m essianic.
The idea t h a t , even in a "m inority" group, conform ist
|
! behavior may e x is t is a lso p resen ted . F u rth e r, th e
!
j author expresses her idea th a t in a "popular" movement,
i i t is d i f f i c u l t to se p arate th e tru e b e lie v e r from those
J
who may be complying (but are not p riv a te ly accepting)
in deference to group p re ssu re .
P art I I I attem pts to weave to g e th e r th e p rev io u sly -
in d ic ated m o tifs, while recognizing the com plicated and
e lu siv e n atu re of the phenomena. The author r e in te rp r e ts
s e v e ra l of her own stu d ie s and, s e ttin g them in to p e r
sp e ctiv e with h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s , ce n ters on the follow ing
I
issu es as c r u c ia l to a comprehensive understanding of j
campus p ro te s t as i t emerged and changed: (1) th e j
d is tin c tio n between consciousness and conscience; (2) the j
concepts of value systems and moral development; and
(3) th e n otions of conform ity and commitment. Data is
offered leading to th e conclusion th a t th ese issu es
i ;
deserve a s tro n g e r emphasis in fu rth e r in q u iry in to the
psychology of mass movements.
PREFACEx
where have a l l th e ...w h e re have a l l th e ...w h e re have a l l
j
the flow ers young g i r l s young boys gone where go the boats j
j
where have a l l the flow ers gone gone gone th e y ’ve we’ve j
|
th e y ’ve we’ve a l l gone to a l l gone to look fo r A m erica...
hanging 'round the flag p o le at half-m ast th e tru c e waving
in h is eleaned-out mouth saying fuck th e pigs is not where
t
i t ’s at man not where i t ' s a t jo in us in the n o n -v io len t j
i
s tr ik e make i t n o n -v io len t jo in the n o n -v io len t s tr ik e a t |
sc man but what i f i say what i f somebody ju s t one body j
i t only takes one pushed a l i t t l e too hard fo rg e ts pushes
the panic what i f somebody throws one stone or one word
i
and what i f somebody you know or i know what i f somebody
you love or i love what i f you or me in v u ln erab le and
untouchable and untouched and s p o ile d - lik e - s h it young-
people with a l l the best ahead piled up lik e gold in
sto c k p ile s overshadowing th e bombs what i f we get k ille d
th is week in the middle of our n o n -v io len t s tr ik e s i t t i n g
up th e re in fro n t on th e step s of the lib r a r y with th e
cameras tak in g close-ups what i f th e cameraman on h is
dolly or somebody signing a p e titio n or somebody passing
1. This is a jo u rn a l w ritte n by the author during the
N atio n al Student S trik e of 1970. I t was form erly pub
lish ed a s : "May 1970— 'days of c o n c e rn '," in Samavasa
ra n a s , 1971, 2 (1 ), 75-79. Perm ission given by th e
e d ito rs fo r p re se n ta tio n in th is m anuscript.
ix
by lik e someone's mother what i f somebody g ets shot what
i f what i f what i f someone shoots le z l i e kaplan s i t t i n g
here next to me l e z l i e kaplan who was a stu d en t of mine
and is a frie n d someone said on th e phone th e other n ig h t
what i f they shoot one of your stu d e n ts maybe y o u 'l l have
to liv e th e r e s t of your l i f e with th a t maybe y o u 'l l have
to liv e with th a t th e f a c t you helped lead th e se kids to
th e i r deaths my god what i f they shoot le z li e kaplan rig h t
here on th e ste p s of th e lib r a r y doheny lib r a r y i t ' s not
even a good lib r a r y i t ' s not the harvard lib r a r y or the
berkeley lib r a r y and th ese kids none of us most of us
have never been on s tr ik e before on any kind in any kind
of s tr ik e before and le z li e kaplan is no man's bum and
i'm not a bum even when i 'v e tr ie d lik e h e l l i 'v e never
made i t as a bum w e're compulsive spoiled b ra t kids we
i
I
SC kids s i t t i n g on th e step s and try in g hard to s t i l l careS
about something d o n 't shoot l e t us show you we care l e t us|
i
show you w e're nobody's bums, o .k .? o .k .? o .k .? keep i t cool^
o .k .? keep your hand on your pen, keep your hands busy,
j !
j o .k .? use your hand, hands, use your head, but what i f
! :
| someone runs amuck and loses i t , loses the co o l, and blows
| i t , what i f i t a l l comes t o . . .n o th in g , to n o th in g , and the
I i
whole th in g boomerangs on us not-bums, what i f i t d o e sn 't |
work, what i f , what i f ? . . .d o e s n 't m atter, r e a l ly d o e sn 't
i
m atter, g o tta t r y g o tta t r y g o tta tr y i t t h i s tim e, one
fin e grand t r y , one big s u p e r-try f o r the fla g th a t is not
hated loved lik e the Minneapolis M ille r s ’ b aseb all team
on the green r e a l-g r a s s lawn diamond on Independence Day
long long ago when th e re were red white and blue crep e-
paper bows on my bike and i rode and rode and th e wind
blew in my h a ir on the fo u rth of July and fire c ra c k e rs
weren’t i l l e g a l ’cause we watched out fo r everyone and
d id n ’t want to hurt as i remember d id n ’t want to h u rt
anyone and we hung fla g s out not to prove we weren’t p art
of a re v o lu tio n but because every house on our block had
a fla g and i t wasn’t a joke and i t wasn’t a proof ju s t
every house had a fla g and th a t was the way i t was then
when i was young before you knew me and we kids and th e
p o lic e were in the same parade and i t was hot but nobody
worried about r i o t s l e t ’s get I t back l e t 's get i t back
l e t ' s win i t back l e t 's win the peace and blow th e war
blow i t blow i t blow the pain of I t the long never-ending
pain t h a t 's co stin g us our bloody guts and a l l the
philosopher poets in europe the p ro fe sso rs across the sea
and th e newspaper men and th e s o ld ie rs of o th e r lands who
fought beside us once hate us hate us hate our bloody
guts now we a re not b e tte r now not b e tte r than the
communists now to some w e're worse—why? why? because i
said i t out loud because I wrote i t la s t month we a re
becoming become the "chosen ag g resso rs" as though God or
the gods were praying through us a c tin g through us as
though God or th e gods had decreed we in h e re n tly possess
th e o m n isciently-w ise-ever-correct-judgm ent and who are
we? who are we? only l i t t l e t i n s o ld ie rs bending and
blowing in a wind whose stre n g th we can no longer measure
d r if t in g d r if t in g we who are t h i r t y remember n o t- d r if tin g
I you are you who are younger do not t a l k in memories of
i
n o t- d r if tin g you are looking looking looking fo rev er and
asking asking asking fo re v er and doubting doubting
doubting fo rev er and seeking going on long long long
m otorcycle searches fo r America and no longer b eliev in g
you w ill find h e r . . . i love you guys and i am so rry fo r
you i love you i do but i am so rry to th e ro o t fo r you
because th e re has never been any damn reason fo r you to
have f a i t h i am so rry but i do not f e e l b e tte r than you
now we are a l l in th e same unsane p o s itio n and we've
g o tto get back to g o tto get i t back g o tto get ourselves !
!
back and th e biggest what i f the b ig g est what i f is what j
i f we d o n 't not what i f we do and you c a n 't keep the
f a ith baby i f you d o n 't have th e f a i t h baby so make the
f a ith make the fa ith ...m a k e some f a i t h baby out here in
i
the sun where i t fe e ls good lik e i know i t should and we
s i t c lo se on the step s lik e th e ste p s of my fro n tp o rch in !
minnesota watching the highway and the cottonwood blow
by and we s i t clo se and i t fe e ls good and th e p e titio n s |
i
!
pass over our heads and th e sun and wind through th e treesj
and i t ' s lik e a book i read about c o lleg e before i got to j
x i i
c o lle g e and no one is throwing stones and l e z l i e k ap lan 's
face i s tir e d and sun-burned and wind-burned and sm iling
and q u iet and once upon a time in a movie c a lle d th e red
shoes the g re a t im pressario Lermontov interview ed th e
1
I
young red-headed Moira Shearer as V ic to ria Page over open-
j faced sandwiches and champagne, he s a id , "Miss Page, why
do you want to dance?" and the untouched, uncorrupted
flower-mouthed blue-eyed b a lle r in a ra ise d her eyes and
s a id , "Why, why, because i m ust." Why? because i must,
l
you must, some of us must (and some of us must n o t) r i s k j
I
i
i t th is tim e, N ixon's gamble, my gamble, your gamble, our
gamble, i walk through th e green ca rp e t of th e campus
lik e a long green park th e tr e e s lik e lace above me, a
warm day w ith M ozart's woodwind q u in te t on A lic e 's
r e s ta u r a n t's sound-system , th e tr e e s and the music seem j
rooted and suspended a t once in th e ground in th e a i r j
| |
I and th e campus is qu iet and clean and noone is throwing
|
stones and someone w ith a red armband is e ra sin g screw j
th e system from a w all and more people a re holding hands
j
| th is week than l a s t week and i th in k of my gamble th a t
I i
i
the lo ss may be a grade or two and they have to know by
|
| now how much i want to be a psychologist and pray no more i
| liv e s not my l i f e or your l i f e or more liv e s of v illa g e rs !
fa r away whose s i s t e r s i have seen and sons i have seen j
naked and bleeding in hot roads somewhere somewhere not
x i i i I
in america where a l l - c i t y f o o tb a ll p layers a re sent to
save v illa g e rs from dying naked and bleeding in hot roads
but sometimes they smoke too much pot and i t is hot and
i t is hard to be a saviour or a s a in t e s p e c ia lly when you
were mostly tra in e d to be a le f t - t a c k l e or a rig h t-g u a rd
and boris lerm ontov's eyes are upon me saying why are you
I
| leaving school th is sem ester and i am say in g , why, why,
because i must, i must, because i must and stan d in g in
the c a f e te r ia on a s to o l saying please fo r once please i
i
fo r once use your cool use your cool denny thompson makes
h is cool pay off cool paying o ff can be can be warm lik e
the deep-padded c h a ir in my c l in ic - la b in th e middle of
the n ig h t with you to rn in d ire c tio n s and i am unable to
find you to rn in d ire c tio n s we c a n 't tr a c e because th e
!
man got lo s t in a cave and we a re t i r e d and you h ate me
j
a l i t t l e fo r p u ttin g another d ire c tio n on th e program |
and my machine ju s t stands th e re and maybe i t ' s ta lk in g |
to us in the dark we are tir e d and the machine ju s t never j
never seems to get tir e d and here we a re in th e c l in ic in
th e middle of the dark n ig h t in th e dark b u ild in g try in g
| to fin d each other again our se p a ra te liv e s ta n g lin g
te a rin g a t th e thread we wove to g e th e r and your parents ...I
a l l your parents some ta lk in g some lis te n in g some s i l e n t
d riv in g the long lin e of curb by th e dorms picking you up j
and p u llin g you out saying i pay th e b i l l s and y o u 're
i
xiv j
coming home come to th e d e se rt come to th e mountains but
come away from those v io le n t v io le n t r a d ic a l r a d ic a l
bumbsbumbsbumblingbums come to the d e se rt th e d e se rt i f
th e re were an oasis i would come in your car w ith you
and your parents and cross th e g en eratio n gap and find
th e o a sis and we would a l l stop ta lk in g and see th a t we
are a l l a fr a id of death but some more of l i f e and th a t
is ris k in g i t and th a t is chancing i t and th a t is saying:
i must, i must, when you a re a c h ild , speak, th in k as a
c h ild , but now you are a man, a man, a man Zorba s a id ,
l i f e is hard, l i f e is hard, only death is not and sammy
h u rst says we are m ultidim ensional and th e re are many
selv es and hesse says so and I am your te a c h e r and i am
someone e l s e ’s stu d en t and i w rite poetry and I w rite j
|
jo u rn a l a r t i c l e s and i love people you don’t know and i !
i
liv e on th e campus and a t george brown headquarters by |
i
day and on roads by n ig h t and on th e plane to san fra n -
i
c isc o and I sto p in cam arillo and catch my b reath w ith
i
someone who is warm and see th a t th e h o s p ita l is s t i l l
th e re w ith th e people who are le ss sic k as sic k more
sic k than and do they know about the s tr ik e do they know
about th e war do you th in k they do you know says someone
to me a te a c h e r is to teach a te ach e r is to educate and
i say yes th a t is tru e th a t is tru e and th e re is more to j
teach more to be taught t h i s week than la s t week and a
xv
teach er is to t e l l th e tr u th the best he knows i t and i t
changes th e t r u th i s c o n sta n tly changing the tr u th says
th e buddha a l l th in g s th e buddha says are c o n sta n tly
changing work out your s a lv a tio n with d ilig e n c e and i w ill
| be your te ach e r th is week because th e re is more to teach
| and i w ill be somebody e l s e ’s everybody e l s e ’s student
| le arn in g th in g s a l l over th e place th e word relevance now
; means something to me and i hope your mother d o e s n 't h ate
i
i
I you and i hope your mother d o e s n 't hate me i d o n 't hate
I
|
| her no m atter what and more are ta lk in g now and more
are try in g to li s t e n to everything because i t f i t s in to
something some hidden whole perhaps the s h e ll i c a rry
th a t c a r r ie s me is th a t and the mustard of ventura is
j
! lik e the mustard of s a lin a s in march before the explosion
of th is broke in us when we were safe and soared over
the big sur c l i f f s in v u ln erab le youth in v u ln erab le youth
| is p leasant find your f a th e r telem achus ta lk to him
across th e gap over the through the gap and then th en
you s h a ll speak as a man and be a man and i f he lis te n s
to you and you to him you s h a ll be b ro th ers make the
f a i t h baby make th e f a i t h leonard making some f a ith with
h is ave verum on th e lawn with me and don in to the v alley
of death rode the s ix hundred t h e r e 's not to reason why
th e re s not to make rep ly th e re s but to do or to do o r . . .
th e six hundred horses in acute ab o u t-face in fro n t of
tommy tro ja n opening th e ir mouths and asking why and
xvi
making re p ly and reasoning and c a rry in g those six hundred
men rig h t out of th e re r ig h t on rig h t on in th e oth er
I d ire c tio n th e r e 's not much time is th e re mel no th e r e 's
I
i not much time but d o n 't push i t babe d o n 't worry o .k .?
meet me back here, o .k .? be c a re fu l, o .k .? thank your
l
1 mom fo r me, o .k .? i t ' s not easy fo r any of us i t ' s not
i easy to q u it i t ' s not easy to sta y i f i t were easy i f
| l i f e were but s tr a ig h t but i t ' s not s tr a ig h t i t ' s not
easy th e r e a l co n fro n ta tio n s are d i f f i c u l t l i f e is hard
j only death is not i s h a ll leave th e v alley of the shadow
| i s h a ll tu rn my head away i s h a ll be released and you and
i
I you and we s h a ll overcome i th in k i can i th in k you can
| i th in k we can and sometimes fo r fla sh e s i know we can
i but f i r s t i have to stop a t home and feed the c a t...h o w
i
■ p re tty , how p r e tty I t Is on the seven a.m. campus with
i
the moog sy n th e siz e r up and over and under th e lace of
; the tr e e s and my body leading me from the one-hour
| parking zone to the headquarters in th e yw where the
I tape r o lls on and on and in from a l l across the n ation
i
and o th er s tr ik e s which show e x te rn a lly the chaos b l i s
te rin g and b r is tli n g but here in te r n a l and hands a re held
and hands are ra ise d in power to th e people and we are
not black but becoming blacker we white blacks and black
| blacks a re w hiter because of i t and th e red armbands i
: say to my aunt a r e n 't fo r fu tu re blood and the george
| brown button secures my red armband to my s h i r t and on
j x v ii
th e freeway i t cuts my c ir c u la tio n i t is so hot in th e
| car end i put i t over th e rear-view m irror and near
I th e Robertson e x it a racin g green alfaromeo passes me
i
| on the rig h t and a man w ith longer h a ir than denny
thompson or J e f f ullman y e lls commie and r a is e s the
i
fa m ilia r fin g e r and i th in k i want to answer him in his
language in stead i sm ile a t him and bow my head ju s t
a b it and see him ro a r down th e Robertson off-ram p and
sign m y name on four p e titio n s and read some of th e names
[
! and th in k i know him and i d o n 't know him and i wonder
! what h is fa th e r does and i wonder and wander down th e
| e a rly morning r a in lane of bach and space odyssey in th e
| tr e e s and am tir e d and e a t p e a n u t-b u tte r out of th e big
vats donated by and scout of the sound-system says you
| as he touches my h a ir you are th e prince of s a g ita r iu s j
i and i th in k of him i do not remember seeing him before
| and th in k of some i saw many time and now th e p erso n al
| h o s t i l i t y and weight in a l l of th is frie n d s lo s t fo r now
:
or ever snd th e d rain of th a t why c a n 't we love everyone j
j !
| wars th e personal wars out of p erso n al games th e b a ttle s
the o th er n ig h t to love or hate and d riv in g home the
i e .s .p . inner voice saying you are a s h e ll you are a s h e ll
! i
!
i f th e re is a s e l f , your s e l f is o u tsid e your body but i
wake up and i t is Sunday and th e campus is music lik e j
o b e rlin or t i v o l i and mikes a re passed around and some |
people risk ed i t enough to come back and parents and ;
______________ ________ _______ x v i i i _ _ _ ___ _ _____ j
c h ild re n and te a c h e rs ask and some ju s t d ec lare but we
are th e re and no one is throwing stones and we a l l t r y to
li s t e n but c h r is stone who is dear but not co o l lik e
denny thompson t e l l s th e p aren ts how to be p aren ts and
th e lady c r ie s out crying in a long desperate death-
i
! fe a rin g cry they are t e l l i n g lie s to th e c h ild re n shut
i
up shut up y o u 're t e l l i n g lie s to th e c h ild re n and her
husband t e l l s us in s tric k e n q u ie t th a t we d o n 't know we
a re dupes used by th e seventy-year old conspiracy and a l l j
I
th ese people and a l l t h e i r pleas a re sad and you a re sad |
even though you are b e a u tifu l and p ro tected and ric h you
are sad because you have never lo s t anything and i am
i
sad because i have and c a n 't fo rg e t though th e fe a r is
gone because i'm on the move and th e mexican man who sent
h is kid here to avoid ju s t th is kind of element is sad
i
we a re a l l sad and desperate people who pushed our s h e lls !
ahead of us too f a r to o f a s t and we are f a l l i n g on our
faces try in g to slow th in g s down f a s t and gain some tim e
and space in which to breathe to give up th e progress a
l i t t l e give up th e p rid e th e hybris before the f a l l be-
i :
I fo re th e f i n a l f a l l r is in g out of busses some of you
I !
i
; coming back by- bus from weekends on d e s e rts w ithout oases
| and d r. brown from chem istry guided by a g i r l to your
i !
dorm, doors to in v ite you down shy and sweet d r. brown j
who is th in k in g and w on't f a i l you in chem istry i f you
th in k and th e g rade-option plan Is not p e rfe c t and some
- _______ ___ _______ - ________ x ix........ J
people are out hunting fo r th e best option th e best
p erso n al option lik e always lik e always bargain-hunting
and m anipulating and why should th e game-playing end
now why t h i s s k i l l so in te g r a l th is c a re fu lly -c o n d itio n e d
s k i l l s u b tle and n o t-s o -s u b tle why should i t end now
and some w ill q u it and s i t on beaches and fo rg e t about
fla g s lo s t or won and some w ill q u it and walk th e long
i
| hot p re c in c ts u n t i l they are burned by summer and some
w ill not q u it and s t i l l walk the long hot p re c in c ts
th a t is now c a lle d doing both and th e re a re d if f e r e n t
d ecisio n s fo r d if f e r e n t people even people w ith red arm
bands a re d if fe re n t people and i can not see in to them
and they can not see me i am but a s h e ll yet in sid e th e
s h e ll i f e e l a s t i r r i n g i am not so t i r e d t h i s morning
dear mrs. nixon w ill you please t e l l your husband not to j
I
k i l l . . . a n y m ore...any more q u e s tio n s ? .. .y e s, th e re is an j
option but i t is a to g e th e r option th e fa c u lty member andj
I
th e In d iv id u a l student people in d iv id u a l ways of adding j
up grades fin d in g out fo r some whether they can "afford" ;
to q u it or n o t, "afford" to sta y or not a way of c a p i-
; t a liz in g fo r some but you know t h i s i s a c a p i t a l i s t i c
i ;
system and we must a l l sto p carin g about th e other guy's
e th ic s and look in sid e look In to our own why am i making ■
: I
th is d ecisio n why can i not w rite th e paper on s ig n a l |
j
d etection in stre ss which i have spent Sundays In u cla 's j
library which is a better library w riting and xeroxed
.................................. _ . xx................... _........... „ J
I and xeroxed why c a n ’t i w rite th e paper on s ig n a l d etec-
j tio n in s tr e s s because i am d e te c tin g s tr e s s sig n a ls in
! the d e se rt and on th e beaches and in the la c y -tre e s and
i
I in sm oke-signals bringing s tr e s s from faraway v illa g e s
i and in faces of parents who worked a l l th e ir liv e s to
send you to sc and in your faces as you try to keep
■ cool and i can not w rite th a t paper now and i must w rite
and ta l k of o th er th in g s fo r now, why, because i must, i
must walk with you and c a rry th e george brown sig n and
| put i t up so you won’t f a l l down a t le a s t rig h t away i t
! takes a lo t of tap e and i f i never see you ag ain , i ’l l
| sta y with you u n t i l i t ' s tim e fo r youmeus to go to look
i
I fo r america and our d r if t in g souls we the l i t t l e t i n
I s o ld ie rs tra in e d fo r other th in g s looking a t the ground
as we march along d r i f t along blow along in th e wind
j
! watching th e fe e t march and blow in f ro n t of us hearing
! th e fe e t march and blow behind us over th e mountains of
s
| ventura county near huaneme where th e waves blow in and
blow out and th e sun is s e ttin g where they d o n 't know
; george brown yet and cabbages and mustard grow in th e
roads where the l i t t l e t i n s o ld ie rs march and blow along
; in lin e s s tr a ig h t and crooked and arms swing a b it ju s t
; a b it where guns are lo s t and p e a n u t-b u tte r found in
back-pockets and some say t h e r e 's an o asis ju s t around
| the corner and a sunset ju s t over th e next h i l l watching
the fe e t in fro n t and hearing the fe e t behind wearing red
! xxi
armbands or green or purple or none blowing and growing
and sowing appleseed lik e Johnny gone fo r a s o ld ie r
growing and glowing in th e dark th e t i n r a t t l i n g a b it
shining in s ilh o u e tte rin g in g sometimes lik e a b e ll
i rin g in g and singing to th e sound of a d is ta n t drum
I your fe e t and my f e e t in marshland and swamp dust blowing
about us a long lin e of tin y t i n fe e t marching before
and behind in rhythms f a m ilia r and rhythms stran g e on-
| ward and onward and onw ard...
x x ii
i TABLE OP CONTENTS
Acknow ledgem ents.................................................................. . I l l
A b s t r a c t ............................................................................ vl
P re fa c e ................................................................................ lx
L is t of T a b l e s .............................................................. xxv
INTRODUCTION: The Researcher as S u b je c t: In sid e ,
O utside, and on the F ringes of th e "Youth Movement 1
PART ONE: The Mood of P ro te s t and th e Mode of
C onfrontation in th e S i x t i e s ........................... 35
P r o lo g u e ............................................ 35
CHAPTER ONE: i 960 - 1 9 6 3: Id ealism , Hope,
and N on-violent P r o te s t.......................... 4 l
CHAPTER TW O: 1964 - 1 9 6 7: Doubt, F ru s tra tio n
and S tir r in g s of M i l i t a n c y ................. 86
CHAPTER THREE: 1968 - 1970: D espair, Absur
d ity , and Campus V io len ce 132
E pilogue: 1971 - 1972: I s America Cooling? 192
PART TW O: Relevant C onsiderations in Theory and
R e s e a r c h ....................................................................... 209
CHAPTER FOUR: The Nature of Mass Movements
and S o c ia l Change........................................ 210
The Nature of the Miass Movement . . . . 213
Types of Mass M ovements.................. 229
The Concept of R evolution .. . . . . . 242
C onditions Conducive to th e Growth of
Mass Movements.................................................. 259
The Developmental Phases of a Mass
Movement................................................ . 265
Summary.........................................• ...................... 270
x x i i i ___
Page
CHAPTER FIVE: The G eneratio n Gap and Youth
as a "New Stage of L if e " : The Inadequacy
of O ne-Construct Systems as E x p lan atio n
f o r C o lle c tiv e P h en o m en a................................. . 272
Middle-Ground T h eo ries and Youth
P r o t e s t .......................... .................................. 277
C o n stru c t V a lid ity and P r e d i c t iv e
U t i l i t y ..................................................................... 306
CHAPTER SIX: Youth as Hero or A nti-H ero:
Messiah or D e v ia n t? ...................................................... 310
P o t e n t i a l f o r Conversion to S o c ia l
Movements of C o u n te r-C u ltu re s. . . . 31S
T reatm ent of th e Youth by S o c ia l
S c i e n t i s t s : I s Youth M essianic
or D eviant?. ............................ 333
PART THREE: Looking Back A fte r Coming Down . . . . 395
CHAPTER SEVEN: Conform ity and Commitment
in Campus P r o t e s t ............................................ 396
C onsciousness and C o n s c i e n c e .................... *103
C o lle c tiv e B e h av io r............................................ ^2 9
The N a tio n a l S tudent S t r i k e as a
C o lle c tiv e Phenomenon................................... ^^1
POSTSCRIPT: Looking Ahead While Looking Over M y
S ho uld er. . .. . .. . . ....................................... . . . 5^9
APPENDIX...................................................................................................... 515
REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 533
xxiv
LIST O F TABLES
Page
TABLE 1
P r o t e s t Is s u e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s E x perien cin g
I n c id e n ts of V io len t or N onviolent D is
r u p tiv e P r o t e s t : 1 9 6 8 -1 9 6 9 Academic Year. . . 157
TABLE 2
S t a t i s t i c a l Summary of Campus D istu rb an ces
Covering th e Period October 1 9 6 7-May 1 9 6 9. • • 160
TABLE 3
L. K o h lb e rg 's Moral Judgment Scale ... .. .. 419
TABLE 4
Support of S tudent S t r i k e of 1970 on Four
Campuses ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . ^95
TABLE 5
A c tu al P a r t i c i p a t i o n in S t r i k e on Four Campuses. ^ 9 6
TABLE 6
S tu d e n ts ' P re se n t A t t it u d e Toward F u tu re S tr ik e
P a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . . .................................. . . . . . ^97
TABLE 7
S h i f t s in A ttitu d e of S tu d en ts Toward S t r i k i n g . ^93
xxv
INTRODUCTION
The Researcher as S u b je c tt I n s id e , O utside,
and on th e Fringes of th e "Youth Movement”
This is a d is s e r ta tio n subm itted to f u l f i l l th e
requirem ents fo r the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Beyond th is fo rm a lity , however, th is work is a p ersonal
odyssey. R egardless i t s appeal to o th er "so u rce s," or to
th e experiences of oth er so u rces, i t cannot mask th e fa c t
th a t i t i s , im p lic itly , my own " tr ip " through th e s i x t i e s .
So th a t th e reader w ill keep in mind a bias I wish to
h ig h lig h t (and u t i l i z e ) , I w ill e la b o ra te upon th is in
volvement throughout th i s work, d e sc rib in g I t s chronology.
I
C o v ertly , th e book is a ls o i l l u s t r a t i v e of an e a r l i e r and
seemingly d if fe re n t voyage, through th e f i f t i e s , and, j
before t h a t , one through th e f o r t i e s . S u b tly , but d i r e c t -
j
ly , the f i r s t twenty years of m y l i f e pointed me e x a c tly i
toward the d ecisio n s I made to p a r tic ip a te as both a c t i -
|
v is t and observer (and sometimes as r e a c tiv e onlooker) In j
th e phenomenon In focus. '
The trad itio n -b o u n d s c i e n t i s t might attem pt to d is - j
I
guise th e se fa c to rs of bias from h is colleagues and
c r i t i c s . But I cannot claim to be a t r a d i t i o n a l s c i e n t i s t !
2
fo r, despite my tra in in g in the "determ inistic arena," my
image of man remains "humanistic" in th at I am s t i l l con-
|vinced (a lb e it the range of possible a lte rn a tiv e s is
j
I lim ited) th a t man has a choice. Furthermore, man may
often choose th a t option which destroys his sense of com
f o r t , which increases his ten sio n , and which m ultiplies
his r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . In opting fo r a n o n -tra d itio n a l
doctoral d is s e rta tio n , I made one of those "tension-
increasing" choices. I chose to subvert my own safety ,
to venture in to an arena without guidelines, to add my own
challenge to th a t of my committee and department, and to
attempt thereby to achieve a new form. I t is obvious,
i
then, th a t even within the academic arena, I prefer the j
unusual, the revolutionary, and, yes, the risk y . So, too, |
is i t tru e th a t in l i f e I prefer e la tio n and ecstasy to j
the mundane. j
As an invited member to the 1st In te rn a tio n a l Congressj
on Humanistic Psychology in Amsterdam during the summer of !
1970, I was then impressed and am s t i l l influenced by the
|statem ent of K. B. Madson of Denmark (1971). Dr. Madson
also was trained as a behaviorist but had come to embrace
a humanistic image of man. Are the two mutually exclusive?!
U ntil we are more equipped of evidence which would e lim i- !
nate th a t p o s s ib ility , I choose to think th a t they are not.
|
As does Dr. Madson, I recognize the impact of conditioning,!
3
the force and power of the environment on the individual
organism. But, as I have already s ta te d , I am equally
impressed by the s e le c tiv it y and uniqueness with which the
individual makes his own decisions, solves his own prob
lems, determines his own l i f e - s t y l e and values. This
p attern of s e le c tiv ity and decision-making is what leads
the "soft" and "tender" humanist to c lin g stubbornly to
the conception th a t th is unique permuting and combining
is demonstrative of a c e n tra l core in man, which they s t i l l
c a l l the s e l f . Regardless what name we choose to attach
to th is phenomenon, and recognizing the fa c to r of r e i f i
cation (and thusly the ultim ate f r a i l t y and inadequacy of
a l l la b e llin g ), the notion of man as growth-oriented,
purposeful, and ac tiv e is e s s e n tia l to my own re fle c tio n s
on human l i f e and behavior. Dr. Madson stated in Amsterdam!
th a t a s c ie n tis t always comes in to the arena of exploration!
i
and experimentation with such an image, a metaphilosophical;
stance, be i t la te n t, undefined, or unverbalized. F urther,
j :
the very choice of what to study and the formulation of
hypotheses cannot conceivably e x ist apart from th is
p o sitio n . Dr. Madson goes so fa r as to ra d ic a lly suggest ;
we announce th is p o sitio n as an e s s e n tia l part of our
i I
treatm ent of any data. And th is is exactly what I am |
attempting to do herein. In order to be ju st with both of
us, I am giving you as much information relevant to
4
possible prejudices and sla n ts on my part as I am able to
tra p and locate in myself. Well-known p a rtic ip a n t-
observers or subjective h isto ria n s lik e Robert Lifton and
Erik Erikson also admit th a t what comes out of them is
i
|indeed a part of themselves. R idiculously obvious, some
|might say, but c e rta in ly a l l of us who have moved in and
i
|about the academic s c ie n ti f i c arena know by what clever
|camouflage and subterfuge the conservative and u p -tig h t
j
s c ie n ti s t may shield his involvement with his p ro je c t.
In giving you th is inform ation, ra th e r than having you
search for i t , I understand th a t I am surrendering to a
stance of v u ln e ra b ility . F urther, these cues and clues
i
may reveal to you yet fu rth e r bias of which I myself am j
unaware or blinded. I expect t h i s ; I a n tic ip a te i t ; j
perhaps m asochistically, I even welcome i t . Surely, since j
th is is not a tr a d itio n a l th e s is , and there being no |
established form for the report of the " so c io h isto ric a l
c lin ic ia n " or the "psychohistorical c l in ic ia n ," the
1 ;
rapport which w ill follow th is exchange w ill be as meaning
f u l as the m aterial i t s e l f . ;
I |
| This project came to l i f e se ren d ip ito u sly , ju s t as my
|ro le of particip an t-o b serv er in these events unfolded over j
i
time in a gradual and n a tu ra l fashion. I experienced I
d ir e c tly many of these events. I experienced some clo sely ,j
or v icario u sly , through the involvement of sig n ific a n t j
5
others. At a la te r date, I became in te re ste d in studying
these phenomena, and, at the lev el of research er, became
an observer, even as I continued to liv e through th is
period, in t r i n s i c a l l y involved in some of these events.
i
This l a t t e r ro le continued during the time I wrote th is
book. I am no less involved now, as the waves set in
motion during the s ix tie s ebb and flow through the seven
t i e s , than in th a t vivid moment in January, 1969, when I
ran from police in a crowd of hundreds, and saw, immedi
a te ly beside me, a boy I 'd been ta lk in g with only a few
moments before, billy-clubbed in the eye. His blood
followed our running; my anger and fear followed his blood.
That was a t San Fernando Valley S tate College, near the
beginning of what would be the major outburst of p ro test
on college campuses a l l over the country. I am no less
involved now than in May of 1970* when I joined my own j
students in the N ational Student S trik e and f e l t the wind |
in my h a ir as I ran door-to-door delivering p o l i t i c a l
information on George Brown, the ’’best we had to o ffe r" in j
C a lifo rn ia 's Senate race. I remember c le a rly the feelin g I
i
of ecstasy when thousands of us browned and fatigued and
|
bonded together on the fo o tb a ll fie ld at USC listened to
Steppenwolf in ce leb ratio n of what we naively believed was
a triumphant p ro test against the Cambodian invasion. j
6
I f tr u th be to ld , I am probably yet more Involved now
than I was then. Involved, in the sense th a t I cannot
forget any of these events, nor the incidents which
prompted them, nor can I remove myself from the motivations
and decisions which led individuals to p a rtic ip a te or not
to p a rtic ip a te . S im ilarly, I am s t i l l "caught up" in the
nature of the commitment of some of us, the antagonism
of others of us, the limbloland of many of us. Which is
to say I am deeply in te re ste d in what happened to a l l of
us In those years, in te reste d as a psychologist and as a
c itiz e n of America in the tw entieth century.
When was th is project re a lly conceived? C ertainly i t
was long before Valley S tate and USC, perhaps from the
|
beginning of my conception of m orality, of e th ic s , of
human l i f e and human conscience. I could t e l l you of
long-ago things th a t are highly relevant s t i l l , of my
lib e r a l parents and th e ir tig h t lin k with the community in |
which I grew up. I could t e l l you th a t ju st as they p ar
tic ip a te d in the l i f e of Minneapolis, my fa th e r presiding
over the Board of the Home for the Aged and s i t t i n g on
councils for community d ental c lin ic s and mayoral planning,
my mother playing the piano for a l l manner of fund-raising j
i
events, ju s t as they p articip ated d ire c tly and consistently,
so did we th ree children remain, for the most p a rt,
shielded from the mechanics of th a t community, and of the j
so ciety , and of the government of the country as they
operated on a day-to-day b asis. In re tro s p e c t, my lim ited
knowledge of government is represented by fading flashes
of my mother crying as she listen ed to a radio broadcast
of the funeral of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, myself
standing with frozen extrem ities waiting for three hours
in subzero weather to wave at President Truman as he
passed by in a motorcade in Northeast Minneapolis.
Another fla sh is of the f i r s t te lev ised p o l i t i c a l
convention in the summer of 1952. I th in k back on th a t as
I l i e in bed, w riting th is part of the Introduction, on a
hot night in Los Angeles in the summer of 1972. The
te le v is io n set is before me as i t was twenty years ago.
This time, I c a re fu lly take no tes, feelin g th a t th is event
is sig n ific a n t to the m aterial in th is d is s e rta tio n . I t
is the second night of another Democratic Convention, th is j
one in Miami Beach, I t w ill be a long night since the !
|
meetings ran overtime yesterday, and the items on the
l
platform are many and are co n tro v e rsial.
E a rlie r in the evening, George Wallace appeared in a
wheel-chair and got a rousing hand from the flo o r, regard- j
less the fact th a t the sentiment of the convention is j
toward the l e f t . I t is only a slim two weeks since he
was l e f t paralyzed by Arthur Bremer's attempted a ssa ssin a - !
tio n . He is thinned and wizened-looking, he has te a rs in
8
| his eyes, he is possibly the "so fte st" Wallace we have everj
| seen, and even the most sophisticated of Americans is i
touched by victim ization.
!
j \
I t is important to the progress of the Convention j
th at the platform issues be d ealt with expediently, for |
\ |
| the proceedings must be over by Thursday n ig h t, but, again,!
! i
, the issues are many, and the issues are heavy: bussing, |
w elfare, minimum standard of liv in g , abortion, amnesty for I
the Vietnam protestors liv in g abroad, equal rig h ts for
; homosexuals, heavy issues touching the lives of many j
! people. Chairwoman Yvonne Brathwaite Burke seems Wonder-
! Woman in the adept manner she whips through r o l l - c a l l s ,
| mediates controversies, and is clea rly fam iliar with the
loopholes and d e ta ils around each issue. Ms. Burke is a
black and a woman. She keeps up a running and humorous
| conversation with individuals on the flo o r. Reporters
! rove the flo o r, also, questioning members of the Conven-
I tio n seemingly at random. I make many notes on the "look"
of the flo o r, the panorama of faces before me. They are
amazingly heterogeneous. Perhaps a f te r a l l i t is possible
to pick a random sample of the ta rg e t population, America.
And th is does not appear to be tokenism. Individual
i delegations have more than the one an ticip ated black,
more than ju st a handful of women. Young people are
| everywhere, long h air and short. Blacks are p r o lif ic .
9
But so are Chicanos, O rien ta ls, and th ere is an East Indian
in the North Dakota delegation. There seems to be an
equal d is trib u tio n of men and women, Brooks Brothers su its
and blue jeans, people reading newspapers and people
reading computer p rin t-o u ts . An old woman is crocheting
while a young woman chats with her, a baby strapped to her
back. For two hours, I lis te n and watch and take notes.
I* I
During a sudden pause, I stop, thinking: Could i t be
th a t , d esp ite i t s e l f , te le v is io n has at la s t given us a
p ictu re of America c le a rly d iffe re n t than th a t of the
Brady Bunch or the P artridge Family?"
This is not to say th a t I am (personally) whole
heartedly pleased with the progress of the Convention. I t j
i
is obvious we are not yet arrived in The New World. The j
p o l i t i c a l games are as offensive as ever, so much ta le n t
and e ff o rt expended at p erip h e ral dealings. The McGovern
j
campaign, seemingly hopeless in the F a ll months of 1971* 1
had ro lle d in to Summer, 1972, as possibly one of the
g re a te st and cleanest g rass-roots movements in the h isto ry i
of the country. Now abruptly i t was showing a new face. j
| I t had become a p o l i t i c a l machine, using whatever wheeling
I :
and dealing was necessary to keep i t s new power and to
build i t fu rth e r. This was evidenced b la ta n tly in the j
cop-outs on c e rta in platform issu es. S t i l l making notes
on the proceedings on the flo o r, I in te rru p t them to enter j
10
the e te rn a l questions: "Don't id e a li s ts ever come out on
top in p o l i t i c s , or is i t th a t ideals must be sa c rifice d
in order to get to the top, or to stay there?" I laugh at
myself, thinking th a t I am asking a c h ild 's questions
about an adult game.
I am quieted down by the next night for the flo o r is_
a liv e with color, with skin-color and d ia le c t-c o lo r;
a liv e with the fever of p a r tic ip a tio n , with body movement
and head movement; a liv e with the admixture of young blood
and old. Perhaps, my country, ' t i s of thy people, you
are liv in g . Perhaps th is is_ a renaissance. The p o lice,
fo r in stan ce, are not to be seen. Of course, they guard
e x its , entrances, garages, parking lo ts , but they are not
in obvious e x h ib it, armed and in ranks, as in Chicago. |
The forces of death are hidden behind the forces of l i f e . j
And a fresh-faced, trembling Tom Eagleton, a junior senator
drafted out of nowhere to accept the candidacy for Vice-
P resid en t, looking lik e Jimmy Stew art/Jack Lemmon in a
Prank Capra film,makes you pray fo r him, hoping th a t
perhaps th is one young man w ill remain pure, and when
Teddy Kennedy ra ise s his head to say, "There is a wind
blowing over America," I stop taking notes again because |
it i
I f e e l the wind, I f e e l something happening and I don't
j
know what i t i s , " but i t is good and hopeful and v i t a l .
I
And at the end of George McGovern's speech which c a rrie s
11
the le itm o tif, "Come back, America," the convention closes
with the singing of "W e s h a ll overcome.. .we s h a ll overcome
| ...w e s h a ll overcome someday." I t seems th a t everybody on
the flo o r, a random sample of America, is singing, "W e
s h a ll overcome." The placards t i p up and back on the
te le v is io n screen, the long tones of the great hymn are
i se m i-lu llin g , s e m i-s tirrin g , and I lean back against the
i
so ft summer n ig h t, feelin g th a t i t may s t i l l be po ssib le,
th a t "someday" may be h is t o r ic , not mythic.
How d iffe re n t in tone and s p i r i t than th a t long-ago
summer night in Los Angeles, 1952, when I was v is itin g
my r e la tiv e s and viewing ra th e r hazily and with complete
naivet£, th a t f i r s t te lev ised Convention. Of the people
on the flo o r, many were gray-haired, attending th e ir
m ultieth p o l i t i c a l meeting. I observed the nomination of
se rio u s, e ru d ite Adlai Stevenson. Watching and hearing as i
a c h ild , with l i t t l e understanding of the rules and pro- j
cedures, I was nevertheless hypnotized, not knowing what
I watched but c e rta in ly c e rta in th a t a great American
i
event was unfolding. I was held, i f by nothing e lse , by
the feelin g of drama and suspense—Who would win? Yet
how sure I was then th a t the "right man" would win, th a t !
j i
|
what was meant to be would be, and th a t such was the
unfolding of l i f e in the best of a l l possible worlds, J
1
America. A c h i l d ’s eyes looking out at his eld e rs, a I
12
grayed, p ro fessio n al, m iddle-class p ictu re of America, a l l
looking very much the same, singing over and over "Happy
days are here again."
What a long and winding road these twenty years in my
own l i f e , and what a progression from "Happy days are here
again" to "W e s h a ll overcome." When then did the happy
days end, and whence came the notion th a t m iddle-class
America had anything to overcome?
In re tro sp e c t, I am not s a tis f ie d th a t my innocent
view of th a t Convention came simply because I was a c h ild .
I would venture th a t the vision of a child today watching
th is summer's Convention is f a r less naive. F urther, the
scope of the American adult of 1952 was probably not much
d iffe re n t (save in his understanding of terminology, or of
R obert's Rules of Order) than th a t of his ch ild . But what
leads me to make such blatant generalizations?
I think that i f I could record or recapture for you
my childhood fe elin g of p atrio tism , of tr a d itio n , and of
the strength and e q u ita b ility of au th o rity , I f e e l quite
sure th at most of you would recognize i t as your own ( if
you are not ten or twenty years younger than I am).
Further, you would probably remember i t as America's own
in th a t post-war era when we a l l soared lig h tly and con
fid en tly on what appeared to be--at l a s t — the f r u itio n
of the promise of our country. A fter days of pioneering,
13
p r o fit and lo ss, investment and in t e r e s t ; a f te r two World
Wars and a major Depression; we were in the m id-forties
surrounded by what appeared to be se c u rity , the se cu rity
of plenty, the se c u rity of power, and the secu rity th a t
th is combination of plenty and power were absolute and
permanent. W e were the major power, we were the major
producer, we were the major buyer. Happy days were here
again and we would a l l liv e to g e th er, happily ever a f t e r . . .
The feelings I re fe r to are rela te d to th a t cath o lic
conception of l i f e and goals and values th a t we had come
to c a l l The American Dream. I doubt whether the stru c tu re
and d e t a il of th is blueprint had ever been o ra lly d rille d
in to the young children of my generation, but i t was
i
superimposed in every subtle way upon our lives so as to
pervade each of i t s aspects. The t o t a l e ffe c t of th is j
"cerebral invasion" can be o p eratio n ally defined by the i
I
manner in which we lived, the movies we made, the songs I
we wrote and sang, the advertisements which f l i r t e d with
our a tte n tio n , the products which we saved for and paid
for and consumed (frequently on "tim e"). The American j
Dream can be operationally defined by th a t r i t u a l of l i f e
in the 40*s and 5 0 ' s which is so fam iliar to us we need j
i
not s p e ll i t out, th a t r i t u a l which was celebrated en j
j
masse. Again, the absolutism I r e f e r to is exhibited in
the fa c t th a t while we were liv in g in an abundant time, i
14
with seeming opportunities to exercise many of the options
our parents did not have (of th is we were reminded in
f i n i t e l y ) , in tr u th , our a lte rn a tiv e s were few, or those
which we took advantage of were customarily w ithin a
narrow spectrum of choices. Again, the accepted p a tte rn
of l i f e in America was so in te g ra l as to be unconsciously
operative in us, so conditioned th a t the prognosis for
our future lives was highly p red ictab le.
As a m iddle-class g ir l- c h ild of educated Jewish
parents, i t was taken fo r granted th a t I would go to
college; I would marry soon a f te r receiving e ith e r a B.A,
or an M.A.; I would probably teach for one or two years;
my husband would be a p ro fessio n al; I would have two or
th ree children. Unless there were something wrong with
me, i t was understood from b irth th a t I would not graduate
(from anything) with less than a B-average, and stood a
good chance of graduating (from everything) with honors.
As a g i r l child growing up in Minneapolis, I would
wear white shoes in the summer, but change to dark at the
I
| beginning of September when Autumn " f e l l ” (regardless of
|
i the temperature) and one no longer wore white shoes. In
I
the same way, linen was exchanged for wool, shorts for
long pants, p a te n t-le a th e r for suede. Seasonally and
c y c lic a lly , l i f e haa g i r l student of North High school and la te r of the
15
U niversity of Minnesota, i t was understood I would attend
a l l fo o tb a ll games, and th a t the success of the team would
be a major p rio r ity .
In those years of post-war p ro sp erity , one could
remember a l l th a t went before with some sentim ent, and
each year, a l l the previous holidays were celebrated in
cumulative retro sp ect along with the one a t hand. H oli
days were h is t o r ic a l and were celebrated in p recise and
prescribed ways. Fourth of July was fireworks and wiener
ro asts and bonfires a l l along the wooded highway, for the
e n tire community. Thanksgiving meals were family r e
unions and few fam ilies ever ate anything but turkey or
goose or duck. I t was accepted th a t on th a t night every- j
|
one at the ta b le would enter contests to out-eat everyone |
e ls e , and, again, th a t i f you d id n 't, something was wrong j
with you. In school, you sang Christmas carols for two ■
|
weeks before Christmas, even i f you were Jewish, for
Christmas had become a n atio n a l holiday. Not singing
Christmas carols was not simply sa crile g io u s. I t was un-
American. Over and over these r i t u a l s unfolded, decora-
I i
j
tio n s taken from home, the s ta r at the top of the pine
tr e e , the painted horse from Denmark, the chocolate Santa |
i
Claus from Germany, put up and taken down, put up and |
taken down. Over and over again, remnants of cranberry i
i
and sweet potatoes were thrown away, residue of flo a ts
16
and bands blew down deserted s t r e e t s . Over and over again,
you counted days u n t i l Christmas a f te r Thanksgiving, over
and over again.
L ife in America was as c y c lic a l as the seasons,
p red ictab le , dependable, and secure.
And such the l i f e of an American child who "knew what
to expect," growing up at such a time. Regardless of
miniscule fears and fle e tin g moods, Life i t s e l f seemed
to have a solid core, a center. Even the instances of
drama and mystery (What g if ts w ill I get th is year?) were
p red ic tab le. One could depend on the ex tern al forces to
quiet down the in te rn a l forces. One could have f a ith in
tomorrow. One could always say, and one always did,
"Pretty soon, everything w ill be a l l r i g h t ." j
So do I imagine the average American watching the i
p o l i t i c a l convention of 1952. Despite the fa c t of seeing j
the a f f a i r in one's living-room for the f i r s t tim e, like
the Greek th eater-g o er at Olympia for the f i r s t time,
the m ajority of American viewers experienced the suspense, ;
awaited the c a th a rs is , but already knew the sto ry . For
th is sto ry , lik e most others in America, regardless the
c a s t, was again narrowed to a few possible endings. I t
was c le a r th a t the Convention would term inate with "Happy I
days are here again" no matter what year i t was (no matter i
!
th a t so ld iers were in Korea, th e ir guts exploding, th e ir
17
limbs eaten by gangrene).
M y own references to th a t era, and to th a t u n ilin ea r
conception of how l i f e "should be" and "would be" lived
i
| is not, of course, unique to my own bias. In the past
decade, th is pure-form vision of America has been so
threatened, so challenged in so many arenas, th a t many
in te rp re te rs of the phenomena have attempted to contrast
those "sile n t and s t e r i l e " times with the tense and
turbulent s ix tie s th a t followed.
I am try in g to lay out a picture of the environment
in which I grew to adolescence and adulthood, a period in
which I previously described individual actio n as follow s:
The student of the f i f t i e s did not venture;
i f he did, he was a 'm i s f i t .' He waited, and
when the mass stepped forward, he began to j
move a t the same in s ta n t, paced his step care- |
f u lly , looked to the rig h t and l e f t along the !
way, and stopped when the group stopped. I f j
not, he was noticed. In no decade more than !
the f i f t i e s was the in d iv id u a list so much a
stand-out in th is country and were in d iv i- j
d u a lists as a group so in the m inority. (Allen,!
1970, pp. 69-70)
This was the same kind of p o r tra it th a t David Riesman had j
sketched as the other-directed s o c ie ty , in The Lonely
I !
Crowd (1950), and th a t Charles Reich (1970) la te r called
Consciousness I I . Having f e l t the burden of a l l the
repressed moments of my youth, I "tripped out" reading The
Lonely Crowd in the la te 5 0 's. I f e l t th a t nonconformity
j
or autonomy was m^ way, but, of course, c o n siste n tly
18
having the courage to liv e th a t way, to be myself, was
something e ls e .
The campuses of our country lay s te r iliz e d by a
sim ila rly s t a t i c vision of l i f e through sev eral decades.
Peuer ( 1969) pointed out th a t from 1905 u n til the f i f t i e s ,
no piece of major le g is la tio n , no major so c ia l change, no
major event or set of events came about because of the
united action of student groups banding together for some
cause. W riting of my f i r s t experiences as an under
graduate, I remembered t h i s :
In the f i f t i e s , we were told th a t we had been
liv in g in El Dorado, and in the f i f t i e s we
believed t h i s . The campus, the American u n i
v e r s ity , was for a l l ages and for a l l classes,
the only in s t itu ti o n upon which there could be
no blemish; the campus had been cast and p re- j
served in ’ivory. 1 Each campus was a s e l f -
contained u n it, a set containing only i t s
student and facu lty and adm inistration, a set
influenced by the monies of s ta te and nation,
but removed from th e ir problems. As safe young !
people, we lived in th is sanctuary, concerning j
ourselves only with the government of the cam- j
pus, with our own problems and with our own
dreams. The community seemed at a great d i s
tance from the campus though the community
bordered on the campus. Adulthood was perhaps
equally as fa r from our R eality though we bor- :
dered on adulthood. W e dressed very much alik e j
and f e l t very much a lik e , o p tim istic, romantic,
sentim ental. (1970, p. 66)
I was understandably shaken by Riesman's im plication j
I
th at our e n tire l i f e - s t y l e was in d icativ e of a fa lse i
safety for which we had possibly sold our souls, th a t most :
of us were "hollow men," lo st in a mass of empty faces, j
19
th a t we had been deceived and were perpetuating th is s ta te
by deceiving ourselves.
I recognize th a t my fix a tio n on the f i f t i e s is
d ire c tly re la ted to th a t abrupt explosion of doubt r e
garding the American Dream and the American P o r tr a it which
arose in the s i x t i e s . M y growing up in the atmosphere of
the s il e n t and s t e r i l e f i f t i e s , e ith e r accepting of the
sta tu s quo and th u sly gaining the chance to " f i t in ," or
fig h tin g the Establishment and being branded as a weirdo,
made the panorama of o ro te st along p ra c tic a lly every j
|
dimension of my l i f e more highlighted, more sig n ific a n t I
and meaningful, more magnetizing a phenomenon.
So what I am pulling for in th is im pressionistic
i
i
retro sp ectiv e i s , as I mentioned previously, the communi- |
cation of the essence of my own involvement in th is
phenomenon known as the youth movement, campus d iss e n t,
or the youth revolution. I must s tre s s repeatedly how
d iffe re n t my "second round" of college was from the f i r s t
when the atmosphere was characterized by automatic accep
tance and deference to a u th o rity , and a robotized f a llin g
in to the ranks of American dreamers. I might also mention
th a t in reading David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd in my j
senior year in high school, I recognized in his d escrip
tio n of the autonomous being the f i r s t vision of what I
might have been and what I might s t i l l be, an image of my j
20
a c tu a l p o te n tia l to liv e my own kind of L ife .
The word p ro test was never a part of the working
vocabulary in any of the se ttin g s or ecologies in which
I grew to adulthood in America. "Revolution" as applied
to groups or nations had about i t e ith e r a feelin g of
the w ildly fan atic (as exemplified by the rapid turnover
of .juntas and sects in South America), or long-ago h isto ry
(the only American Revolution, the Bolshevik re v o lu tio n ),
nothing th a t came close to touching our own liv e s . There
i
was a c e rta in mystery to the word. I t spoke of e ith e r
m artyrs, s a in ts , crim inals, or madmen. Revolutionary
heroes were nowhere on the contemporary scene. No average
c itiz e n was thought of as p o te n tia lly revolutionary.
R evolutionists were starv in g ; they were savage; they were j
alie n a ted ; they were a n a rc h istic ; they were geniuses;
they were demi-gods; but they were not aliv e and liv in g In
Suburbia. Such was the nature of my thinly-developed j
notion of "revolution."
Rebellion was an act against something, usually
against some au th o rity or in s t itu ti o n th a t "deserved"
| attendance and respect. I t was not thought to be an action
| for one’s s e lf . Rebellion was customarily engaged in by j
i i
moody and immature adolescents, or, in some in stan ces, by j
!
adults who were sociopathic, impulsive, lacking in control^
i
or, tem porarily insane. In b eh av io ristic terms, rebels j
21
were those who had not yet been properly or thoroughly
conditioned to appropriate behaviors, but, usually they
would be, having passed through a "rebellious sta g e ," and
j
| i f they should remain reb ellio u s they would be incarcerated
or in s titu tio n a liz e d .
The term p ro test was not associated with e ith e r of
these concepts in my youth. Nor in fact was the notion
of p ro test at a l l relevant to my early l i f e in th is
country. In re tro sp e c t, I don't remember ever hearing the
word. I don't remember ever knowing a person who protested
anything, unless, of course, you could consider defending
one's s e lf on a t r a f f i c tic k e t or a law suit, or contesting
a divorce action as p ro te st. Husbands argued with th e ir
wives. Children refused to obey th e ir parents. Students
"wised off" in class and were sent out in to the hall* ;
People complained th at prices of eggs and b u tte r were j
going up outrageously. But we never called any of these
acts acts of p r o te s t.
C ertainly the mundane descriptions of disobedience,
1 grip in g , complaining, defending one's s e lf th a t I have
outlined as being ty p ic a l and common in the United S tates !
of my childhood seems somehow c le a rly d is tin c t from th a t |
! i
species of action which so rapidly came to be a part of j
d aily l i f e in America in the s i x t i e s , and which we did
come to re fe r to as p r o te s t. These la tte rd a y actions
22
c le a rly revealed people shaking th e ir f i s t s in the face of
au th o rity and tr a d it io n , frequently challenging the very
way we lived our liv e s , often at the r i s k of school or
pro fessio n al ca re e rs, or with some other possible ra m ifi
cation of s a c r ific e or lo ss. One does not necessarily
court s a c rific e in defending himself in a t r a f f i c m atter,
in refusing to go to bed at night, in arguing with a
butcher about the price of hamburger. No person, nor
group of people who ever touched my young l i f e clo sely
ever shook his f i s t in the face of America. The questions
concerning l i f e in America were b asica lly q u a n tita tiv e :
How much? How many? How many more p o ssib le? Is th is
enough? Is th a t too much? The quality of l i f e was not
challenged, only how much one could accumulate of i t .
Here you have an impression of my own former degree
of "consciousness," so th a t you may understand I am not |
ju s t making a claim for the general naivete of our j
country (about which I may c le a rly be biased), but so
th a t you may c le a rly see th a t, as an individual growing up,i
! |
J I , too, was blinded by p u rity , idealism , se c u rity , cer-
i !
| ta in ty , and, most im portantly, had more f a ith in externally
operative forces and powers than in myself.
i
As I complete th is introduction, i t is 1973. Has |
i
America in fa c t changed? Is the youth of America less j
j
rig id and frig id than we sturdy, well-fed students of M G M j
23
musicals and summer in Yellowstone National Park? And, i f
th e re have been changes in our a ttitu d e s toward l i f e
s ty le and in our values, how much of i t can we adduce to
the influence of the so-called youth movement, or youth
revolution of the s ix tie s on our country?
How in fact do American adults react to the rh eto ric
and sty le s of contemporary youth? A recent Harris survey
(as reported in The Minneapolis S ta r , January 11, 1973)
showed adults s p l i t down the middle on the "youth c u l
tu r e ." Their a ttitu d e s toward so-called nonconformity
in youth had apparently, judging from th is survey, changed
l i t t l e since a previous and sim ilar survey in 1971.
F ifty percent (50$) of a l l American adults over 18
claim th a t they are bothered by the way youth dresses, j
t a lk s , and liv e s , while ^9$ say they are not.
In terms of geographic lo catio n , the South is le a st !
to le r a n t, with 59$ bothered by nonconformist youth l i f e - j
s ty le s . People over 50 are the le a st to le ra n t age group,
6l$ not approving of the s ty le s . But, in te re s tin g ly
enough, one-third of those under 30 also reserve approval i
i of these s ty le s .
I ;
! Also, the prevalent feelin g is th a t although th is I
j I
manner of nonconformist behavior is annoying or i r r i t a - j
tin g , society w ill absorb the th ru st of these differences
as time passes. j
24
The Survey was conducted on a cro ss-sectio n of 1505
American households over a l l re lig io n s , ages, geographical
regions, and income le v e ls.
In te re s tin g ly , those with Incomes under $5000 (and
including many at the poverty level) were most c r i t i c a l
(59$) of American youth.
Asked what they would do "if they discovered th a t a
son or daughter had a supply of marijuana in his room,
43$ said they would turn in th e i r c h ild , while 43$ said
they would not. Two years ago, 60# of the adults said
th a t youth was more immoral than young people in the past
because of th e ir use of drugs. Today, a sim ilar 57$
agree with th is statem ent.
A m ajority (55$) also think th a t the "cure" for
"straightening out young people" is increased p aren tal
d is c ip lin e , ra th e r than believing th a t the "sense of
p ro te st and push for change among the young prim arily is
due to "the times we live in ."
One major change in young people is believed to be
j t h e i r honesty and frankness about sex. Seventy-two per-
| cent ( 72$) think th a t youth of today is more s tr a i g h t
forward in th is regard as opposed to 63$ two years ago.
An important question in the Survey d ealt with
personal i n te g r i ty . In th is instance 24# f e l t th a t the
youth of today have more in te g r ity than those of the
25
p a s t, but a larger percentage (2J$) f e l t they do not, and
see no r e a l d iffe re n ce . Again, the changes are mini
mal from the figures of two years ago. Perhaps the most
important question in the survey deals with the permanence
of changes in the youth who exhibit those a lte rn a te l i f e
sty le s and h a b its. Adults were asked whether or not they
i
J f e l t young people would "remain d iffe re n t in th e ir manners,
j
s ty le s , and ta s te s when they are past 30." S ixty-nine
percent ( 69%) held the view th a t most would change and
w ill not be much d iffe re n t from other generations of
a d u lts .
Thus, the Harris survey concludes th a t adults
"apparently tend to regard the nonconformist manners and
s ty le of young people as a passing phenomenon."
The sharpest dividing lines between ages and regions i
i
and income levels were found in the i n i t i a l question, j
however, "Now, thinking about young people, do the hair j
sty le s of the young, the way they dress, and the way they :
| ta lk bother you a lo t, some but not a lo t, not a t a l l , i
! |
i or do you approve of the hair sty les and ta lk of young
people?"
i 1
The s p l i t between the young and the old is most
dramatic here, as i s the g reater tolerance of the East j
i
and Midwest as opposed to the South. Catholics and Jews j
i
are fa r more to le ra n t than are P ro te sta n ts. Businessmen
26
are much more upset about these sty le s than are p ro fes
sio n a l people.
The H arris survey concludes th a t the youth "revolt"
has not "revolutionized the country*" and th a t the
"generational s p li t s t i l l p e r s i s t s ." He fee ls that the
generation gap is here to stay because of the lack of
change in basic adult a ttitu d e s and the p e rs is te n t
feelin g th a t i t is youth who must change.
But is i t th a t simple? Is the only t e s t of change
in the American adult population th e ir a ttitu d e s toward
the (supposedly) non-conformist manners and modes of
youth? What of th e ir a ttitu d e s toward th e i r country*
th e ir society* th e ir expectations for l i f e in America*
th e ir hopes* th e ir dreams* th e ir an x ieties?
Potomac Associates* a nonpartisan research and
j
analysis organization which conducts inquiry in to c r i t i c a l j
public issu e s, carried out two public opinion se rie s in
January and April* 1971. The purpose of these studies
was to (1) gain a sense of the hopes and fears of the ;
American people and (2) to explore th e ir views on such
issues as n atio n al unrest and the war in Indochina. The
subjects were a rep resen tativ e cross section of the
American population as selected by the Gallup Organiza- j
t io n . j
27
The study included approximately 3000 su b jects, and
the methodology involved the use of Hadley C a n tr il's and
Lloyd F re e 's "self-anchoring s triv in g sc a le ," wherein
subjects ra te concepts of id eal conditions as against
where they f e e l they are, where they were five years ago,
and where they w ill be fiv e years hence. The subject is
allowed to place his own ra tin g on a scale of 10. The
ladder is self-anchored. In other words, even though the
substance of one in d iv id u a l's hopes and fears may d iffe r
g reatly from a n o th e r's , the ladder ratin g s can be
compared (w ithin s u b je c t) le g itim ate ly . This p attern of
ra tin g can be u tiliz e d for questions about current events,
personal d e s ire s, personal values, or any other issues
of inquiry.
The primary finding in th is study provides us with
i
I
a p ictu re d is t in c t ly d iffe re n t from th a t of H arris, which I
I
focused only on a ttitu d e s toward the sty les and manners j
of youth.
At the time of th is 1971 study, i t was found t h a t :
i i
| (1) The American people f e l t th a t our nation was in j
trouble and had regressed s ig n ific a n tly during the past i
fiv e years. (2) One out of every two Americans f e l t th a t
divisiveness among the citiz en s of our country could
"lead to a r e a l breakdown in th is country." (3) The
public did not simply adduce th is n atio n al unrest to the
28
a c tiv ity of ra d ic a ls , or troublemakers. Many f e l t th a t
there are instead systemic causes r e la tin g to contemporary
leadership and in s t itu ti o n s . (This fa c to r c le a rly is in
opposition to the la te r H arris fin d in g s.) (^) The
American people were generally s a tis f ie d with th e ir own
l iv e s . In regards to fu tu re hopes, there was decreased
focus on m aterial fa c to rs , with a c lear recognition of a
new body of concerns, p o l i t i c a l s t a b i l i t y , world peace,
environment, drugs, crime, many facto rs which demand
so c ia l or communal solutions ra th e r than revolution by
the ind iv id u al. (5) Public opinion regarding Vietnam
had moved s ig n ific a n tly toward a desire for withdrawal,
even at the ris k of Communist takeover of South Vietnam.
This showed a marked s h if t since a sim ilar survey in
1968 (a change on the part of one American out of every
fo u r). ( 6 ) The public was highly c r i t i c a l and cautious
regarding involvement in foreign a f f a i r s , or committing
to help foreign powers. C a n tril and Roll, the authors of |
th is survey, place the mood as somewhere between "non- j
interventionism " and "selectiv e interventionism ." !
The authors report th a t the chief concerns of the
American people in surveys in 1959> 1968, and the survey
in focus were personal m atters—health and standard of j
liv in g . But there has been a marked decrease of emphasis
on those elements previously discussed herein as
29
representing The American Dream. This could, of course,
indicate that most Americans have enough to be satisfied
with their standard of living, as indicated by the ful
fillment of aspirations for their children, owning their
own homes, the availability of leisure time, and the
assurances of a secure period of later-life.
Nonetheless, the country still presented a picture of
increasing frustration over the world situation and
various social problems.
Significant was the pattern found among the young
(21-29 years of age) who were higher in aspiration level
than their elders but displayed a greater dismay about a
broader range of issues than did adults. They listed
themselves as concerned about standard of living, good
family life, a better home, personal wealth, a good job,
i
and solutions to many social problems. Only in one area, j
that of "health," were they less concerned than adults.
Cantril, Jr. and Roll, Jr. interpreted this disparity
between high hopes and frustration as predictive that
youth would likely exhibit a great deal of impatience
in advancing toward their goals.
Although future surveys will likely show different
results than this large 1971 study (i.e., such material j
is rapidly outdated), the Potomac Associates survey did |
I
seem to indicate that there was a change in the attitudes
30
of Americans toward their way of life and some shift in
priorities of concern as compared to earlier and similar
surveys.
Essential to the inquiry in this dissertation, how
ever, is the concept that a change of consciousness need
not correlate with a politics of protest. Rather than
demonstrating that our nation was in a state of "revolu
tion," the Potomac Survey might be interpreted as indica
tive that there is instead a gradually-evolving change in
the American culture.
i
We can approach the phenomenon of the youth movement
on our campuses in the same manner, searching for aspects
truly indicative of a social-political movement with
clear goals and purposes, or serving as one factor in a
fabric of shifting cultural patterns. In the section on
social movements, I shall discuss the difficulties engen
dered by the fact that, frequently, several phenomena of
this species can occur simultaneously, making it impos
sible for us to describe a broad set of behaviors or
events as being indicative of one kind of collective
movement only. It is not, in fact, my goal to aim toward :
| an absolutistic conclusion as to the nature of the social |
and cultural change in youth (or in our nation) during !
the sixties. Rather, I wish to provide an overview of
the events of that decade and the research on relevant
31
phenomena, emphasizing c e rta in facto rs e ith e r sim plified
or ignored previously.
Part of my presentation revolves around the notion
th a t a well-conditioned body of people, steeped in the
kind of rig id if ie d set of goals and values alluded to
previously are not apt to make dramatic changes suddenly.
Even i f they make such changes e x te rn a lly , i t is debatable
as to how in te g ra l and permanent such change w ill be.
The question is b a sic a lly one of commitment, and the issue
of commitment is a complicated and elusive one.
To look at upper-middle class America (the element
out of which most campus a c t i v i s t s emerged) is to look at
a cu ltu re described by Riesman ( 1950) as other-directed
and conforming. How then did a generation of young people,
raised in th is atmosphere, find i t possible to shrug
aside th e ir early conditioning and act autonomously,
c le a rly foresaking th e ir b irth rig h t? O r.. .did they |
| re a lly do so?
j
! Part I of th is work is e n title d The Mood of P ro test
! ;
I and The Mode of Confrontation in the S ix tie s . I t tra c e s i
i '
! i
the growth of so c ia l and p o l i t i c a l p ro test during the
decade, describing the rapid burst of activism which j
erupted following the model of the c i v i l rig h ts movement, j
I t demonstrates th a t no major cause was supported solely |
by youth, th a t adult p a rtic ip a tio n was a s ig n ific a n t, and j
32
often a c ru c ia l fa c to r, in the maintenance of the p a r tic u
la r "movement." I t also describes the fa c t th a t by the
end of the s ix tie s the concepts of radicalism and p ro te st
were so in vogue (p a rtic u la rly on the campus) as to
possibly lure non-true-believers in to a "rear-echelon"
form of p a rtic ip a tio n c le a rly d is tin c t from th a t of the
tru ly committed a c t i v i s t .
Part I I contains three chapters dealing with subjects
relevant to theory and research in th is area. In Chapter
I tr y to provide a comprehensive review and analysis
of the concept of s o c ia l movements and c o lle c tiv e phenom
ena. Chapter 5 focuses on a type of research which was
very popular in re la tio n to the youth phenomena, the kind
of study which attempted to trac e the etiology of s o c ia l
and c u ltu ra l change in youth to one facto r such as the
generation gap or the id e n tity c r i s i s . The inadequacy of
these one-hypothesis explanations for c o lle c tiv e phenomena
i
w ill be the c e n tra l point of th is chapter. Chapter 6
describes another major tendency of w riters and research- j
ers on youth phenomena, the treatm ent of p a rtic ip a n ts as
e ith e r deviant or messianic. In th is chapter, I present
the idea th a t, even in a "minority" group, there can be I
conformist behavior, and th a t when so-called "non-confor
mist" behavior becomes so widespread as to be popularized,
i t is d i f f i c u l t to separate the tru e believer from those
33
who are merely complying in deference to group pressure.
The la s t se ctio n , P art I I I , elaborates upon the
! m aterials presented in previous chapters in an attempt to
|
I emphasize the complicated and devious (not d ev ian t)
I
nature of the phenomena alluded to . Several studies of
my own (including those done with Lezlie Kaplan and Debi
Bass, two undergraduate research a s s is ta n ts ) are reviewed
along with others, in an attempt to place them in perspec
tiv e with the ra p id ly -ris in g (and, some claim, as rap id ly -
disappearing) phenomenon of campus p ro te s t. The notions
of consciousness and conscience, m orality and v alu es, and
conformity and commitment are e s s e n tia l to th is concluding
discussion.
In no way would I claim to have covered the "en tire
t e r r i t o r y . " The focus is on se lf-s e le c te d subject m atter,
out of the personal bias alluded to e a r l i e r . The reader |
i
may r ig h tf u lly ask him self: "What about th is ? and "What !
S
about th a t? " Undoubtedly, "th is" and "that" may be found j
in the tr e a tis e s of other author-researchers magnetized i
by other aspects of th is phenomenon.
I
I t is my own hope th a t focus on the psychological j
and so c ia l facto rs involved in p a rtic ip a tio n and commit- I
!
ment (or p a rtic ip a tio n and compliance) in p ro test which j
involved youth in the s ix tie s can be c le a rly seen as
relevant to c o lle c tiv e action and s o c ia l movements in !
3 * »
g en eral. Further, I admit th a t the donning of many hats
(those of the h is to ria n , s o c io lo g is t, anthropologist,
psychologist, a c t i v i s t , p a s s iv is t, e tc .) was a t times
great fun and at other times crazy-making, but I tru ly
believe i t the only way to approach a phenomenon th a t, in
i t s complexity, confounds the undisciplined p u r is t. This
is m y f i r s t serious attempt at a c ro s s -d is c ip lin e work,
but I urge others (and myself) to try more of the same.
A f in a l word to the reader: This period had, I'm
sure, i ts p a rtic u la r effec t on you, a lso . Therefore, you,
too, are an "expert." But, you are also biased. There
fo re, rela x , le t your own memories a s s is t your reading
and your c ritic is m . However, if you w ill allow me to
make a suggestion, use th is arena as an opportunity for
reassessing your own a t titu d e s , opinions, memories, and
value systems.
Melanie Allen
Sherman Oaks, C alifornia
December 1973
PART I
THE M O O D OP PROTEST AND THE M O D E OF CONFRONTATION
IN THE SIXTIES
Prologue
The f i r s t part of th is book is an attempt to render,
in re tro sp e c t, a p o r tr a it of the decade of the s ix tie s
and of i t s immediate afterm ath. Almost upon the b irth of
the new decade, the country was jo lted from a post-war era
in which most Americans lived with th e ir stomachs f ille d
with food, th e ir pocketbooks f i l l e d with cash, and th e ir
heads apparently s t i l l f i l l e d with the American Dream.
i
At le a s t osten sib ly , most Americans had and did not spend |
I
much energy worrying about the conveniently-hidden minor- j
ity who had n o t. The f i r s t " jo lt" was a somewhat gentle |
one, a polishing-up of the old dream into a more contempo-!
rary form. S t i l l and a l l , the dream was in technicolor,
and the mood was anything but heavy. j
Symbolized by the e le c tio n of John F. Kennedy and thej
i
presence of a young, v i t a l , and charism atic president and
entourage, the s ix tie s dawned on an ambience of idealism
i
!
i
35
36
and an aura of excitement. There was almost Instantaneous
ly a marked change from th a t species of automatized,
ro b o t-lik e r e c ita tio n of p a tr io tic allegiance th a t had
gone before. Americans were being challenged to make an
ac tiv e contribution to American l i f e . The sense of
noblesse oblige about th is a ttr a c ti v e young man and his
inner c ir c le served as a constant model spawning s e l f -
s a c rific e and community awareness in many Americans.
This model, though challenging, was n o t, in i t s
inception, threatening, nor was i t complicated, or su b tle.
Rather, there seemed to be a p u rist or a b s o lu tist motif
in the Kennedy credo, as though one could f e e l reassured
simultaneous with being te s te d . One f e l t somehow as
though the visionary young President were saying, - You
I
have been given a great g i f t ; th a t g i f t requires of you j
some re tu rn ; i f , indeed, you recognize th is g i f t with the
exchange of something of your own, your wealth s h a ll j
m ultiply. - And th is theme had about i t the prophetic
ring of the Bible and was emblematic of a New F aith . j
j
Within th is context, Kennedy b la ta n tly exposed the j
! misfortune of nations abroad and established the Peace
! i
| Corps. L ater, Johnson's V ista would follow the same j
i
p a ttern , emerging to intervene in the other America, the j
"third world" which suffered and struggled in the midst
of our touted "abundance."
37
S ig n ific a n tly , however, the flame of hope and
idealism which Kennedy and Johnson attempted to kindle
would ig n ite a more far-reaching vision than these
leaders had ever imagined in th e ir concepts of the "New
F ro n tier" and the "Great S ociety," moving beyond th e ir
most provocative dream s...or nightmares.
This chapter focuses on the mass movements which were
possibly catalyzed by the idealism of the early s ix t ie s .
I attempt herein to trac e connections and overlaps of
such movements as the C iv il Rights Movement and the a n t i
war movement with the p ro test movement th a t gradually
grew among the student population of the United S ta te s.
Other researchers focusing on youth, on the counterculture;
or on campus d iss e n t, have concentrated on discussing
one period of h isto ry in d e t a il , or have described !
thoroughly the e ffe c ts of one movement upon college youth, j
Some have attended to the e n tire period, but have done so j
s u p e rfic ia lly or c u rso rily . In attempting the ta sk of
providing a complete psycho-socio-historical p o r tr a it of j
the era, I hope to demonstrate th a t, by the m id -six ties, j
the "scenario" of so c ia l p ro test was fam iliar and in te g ra l!
to the Z e itg e is t. Of sig n ifican ce, also, was the growing
doubt which gradually replaced the e a r lie r unblemished
idealism. Later, doubt and fru s tra tio n would merge in to
despair and absurdity, thusly leading to a consideration
38
of more d ra stic s tra te g ie s and ta c tic s among members of
many of these movements.
Without such a backdrop, I f e e l we are severely
handicapped in an attempt to understand the nature of
p ro te st and the motivation for p ro test as i t developed
and changed in the s i x t i e s . W e cannot c le a rly understand
the d ifference between a Mickey Schwerner, one who came
to the South, s a c rific in g his own comforts to help the
black m inority, who came as a member of a white m inority,
facing obvious r is k s , in no way a n tic ip a tin g he would be
martyred in the process, and a Mario Savio, who rose in
la te 196^ to speak as a self-proclaim ed (or symbolic)
martyr, seeing himself as £ member of an oppressed
minority (the American student) facing an in d iffe re n t
Establishm ent.
Without th is backdrop, we cannot so rt out the tru e
nature of the youth phenomenon ass s o c io -p o litic a l move
ment, cannot see the difference between SKCC, SDS, s tu d e n t j
anti-w ar a c t i v i t i e s , and the movements they emerged from I
or emulated. Which of these a c tiv i tie s were c a rr ie r
causes, as described by Peuer ( 1969), and which were,
at le a st as they originated, genuine so c ia l movements? i
1
!
At which point did the changing nature of the membership j
and of the ideology change the form of the phenomena? i
39
Without th is backdrop, we cannot d istin g u ish the
difference between action in a movement which includes
only a few dedicated core members and actio n in a p attern
of events, whose sequence has grown to symbolize a popular
option for behavior in an in d iv id u a l’s reference groups.
In formulating th is review, I have attempted to glean
the wheat from the chaff by concentrating on s o c ia l and
p o l i t i c a l p ro test only. Although reference is made to
c e rta in major events of the period concerning the youth
counterculture, I do not view a counterculture as_ a
s o c io -p o litic a l movement and th e re fo re leave fu rth e r
discussion of i t for la te r chapters. The growth of a
subculture (or subcultures^ p ara lle le d the spread of
s o c ia l and p o l i t i c a l activism . Representative of a
"so fte r" form of re b e llio n , these developments were none- j
th e less important in th a t they provided a support for j
a c t i v i s t brothers or s is te r s in many instances. I w ill |
l a te r emphasize, however, the d is tin c tio n in "style of
p r o te s t," a sse rtin g th a t a counterculture does not become |
a so c ia l movement le s t i t mobilize so as to d ire c tly j
attempt to convert others to i t s value system, and to
thereby gain s o c ia l reform or revolution. Had the student!
I
p ro test in the s ix tie s been reserved to the taking of
drugs, to a lte rn a te forms of living and mating, and to
m editation, the period might have remained yet more j
40
"quiet" and "passive" than th a t of the f i f t i e s . 1
M y goal herein is to demonstrate the manner in which
a new mood for th is country, one of p r o te s t, one of
refusing to bend autom atically to those in a u th o rity ,
fostered a new mode, th a t of co n frontation. I believe
th a t the ra p id ity with which these factors bombarded our
country, the sh a tte rin g e ffe c t they had on deeply en
trenched b e lie f s , a ttitu d e s , and myths caused there to be
an e n tire ly new a lte rn a tiv e form of human behavior a v a il
able to Americans, and resulted in the need fo r the
spontaneous generation of new ideologies and myths.
So fa r as th is new form of behavior was concerned,
some would activ ely adopt i t . Some would a c tiv e ly oppose
i t . Others would support i t in voice, but not in action.
Many would try to ignore i t , but would find th is gradually
more d i f f i c u l t , as th e ir own fam ilies were touched and |
j
frequently disrupted. No matter the individual choice, |
the Z eitg eist of the s ix tie s was one without precedent in I
the h isto ry of our nation, and the questions and c o n flic ts I
I
and decisions with which i t confronted the American colleg^
student were also without precedent. Furthermore, the
ro le of p ro test in the l i f e of the student changed quickly
from one which could be viewed from a distance as one
passed an open forum on his way to c la s s , to one which |
would re s u lt in a gradually more constant form of so c ia l j
pressure as these events and related rh e to ric grew more
popular and less unique.
CHAPTER 1
I960 - 1963: IDEALISM, HOPE, AND NON-VIOLENT PROTEST
The period following World War I I In our country has
so long been characterized as quiescent, and i t s people
as passive, th a t many of us look back on th is era as
rep resen tativ e e ith e r of the attainm ent of the so-called
American Dream, or as one in which Americans blindly
and a p a th e tic a lly le t th e ir liv es d r i f t by, unconscious of
what may have been evolving beneath the smooth surface
appearance.
S ig n ific a n t, in ad d itio n , was the fa c t th a t the
American u n iv e rsity student had, unlike his European and
Asian co unterpart, been "cool" p o lit ic a lly fo r sixty !
j
years.1 Peuer ( 1969) points out th a t from 1905 u n til th is j
decade under consideration, no piece of major le g is la tio n ,j
no major s o c ia l change, no major event or set of events |
came about because of the actions of students uniting
f
together in a cause. This does not mean th at no students j
i
organized p o lit ic a lly . The T h irtie s , for instance, were j
comparatively liv e with s o c ia li s t student clubs and j
Bohemian-community support, but there was no sig n ific a n t
42
43
mass m obilization.
As w ill be noted in a la te r chapter, Feuer is one of
th a t group of so c io lo g ists and h isto ria n s who holds fa s t
to the hypothesis th a t the phenomenon of student movements
is due to unconscious forces created by the d iv isio n of
au th o rity peculiar to age difference or generational gap.
Therefore, i t is his th e sis th a t the singular p osition of
the American student was due to the fact th a t th is country
previously maintained what he c a lls generational e q u ilib
rium.
. . . a s ta te wherein no generation feels th a t
i t s energies and in te llig e n c e are being f ru s
tra te d by the others, when no generation feels
th a t solely because of i t s years is i t being
deprived of i t s proper place in so c iety , and
when no generation fe e ls th a t i t is being
compelled to bear an undue portion of s o c ie ty ’s
burdens. (p. 313)
I rf— |
This one-factor explanation i s , I f e e l, c lea rly j
|
subject to c ritic is m , p a r tic u la rly in regards to i t s
|
adequacy in explaining a multitude of events which occur j
j
w ithin an open system (or systems). Since I devote a
!
chapter to such hypotheses, however, I w ill defer th at j
I i
J discussion fo r the moment. Let i t su ffice the reader to
i i
j ;
I know I take exception to the Feuer argument, but have I
gained nourishment and in sig h t from many of the h is to r ic a l
d e ta ils he provides in his scholarly approach to various |
student movements. I
I am highly in accord with Feuer, for instance, in
his d e scrip tio n of the previous p o sitio n of the American
u n iv e rsity as an iso lated part of the community. In an
| e a r l i e r a r t i c l e , I characterized the campuses of th is
I
| nation as being "cast and preserved in ivory ( 1970*
I p. 66)." S im ilarly , the e n tire period and process of
!
| college education was somewhat paradoxically designed to
prepare one for l i f e while protecting him from i t .
Up u n til the s i x t i e s , the American parent intended,
in so fa r as is indicated by almost any p o r tr a it of c o l
lege l i f e since the c la s s ic a l Education of Henry Adams
( 1918) th a t his son (and occasionally his daughter.1)
should enter in to college very much as the monk would
enter the c l o is te r . By t h i s , I do not mean to indicate
I
th a t physical c h a s tity was required of him, but rath er
th a t s t e r i l i t y , in the manner of sa fe ty and freedom from
e x tern al concerns would surround and enshroud him, therebyj
allowing him to absorb academic d e t a il e f f ic ie n tly , think !
| and in te g ra te lo g ic a lly and c le a rly , and convert a l l of
| th is in to some p ra c tic a lly -a p p lic a b le and c u ltu ra lly -
acceptable o u tle t (or payoff) upon graduation. Here, for I
j
in stan ce , is an excerpt from Adams' p o r tr a it of Harvard j
C ollege:
(Harvard) was a mild and li b e r a l school, which
sent young men in to the world with a l l they
needed to make respectable c itiz e n s , and some
thing of what they wanted to make usefu l ones, j
4 5
Leaders of men i t never t r i e d t o m a k e ...I n
e f f e c t , th e sc h o o l c re a te d a ty p e but not a
w i l l . (p. 5 9 )
Some events t h a t occurred among s tu d e n ts in 1959
might be se en , in r e t r o s p e c t , as p o in te r s toward u npre
d i c t a b l e , a n t i - t r a d i t i o n a l events in th e decade t o fo llo w .
Immediate upon th e a c tio n of C a stro fo r c e s in o v e r
throw ing th e d i c t a t o r s h i p of P u lg e n io B a t i s t a on New
Y ear’s Day, 1959* th e r e follow ed some s c a t t e r e d , but
d e d ic a te d , d em on stration s of su p p o rt by sm a ll groups of
s tu d e n ts throughout th e c o u n try . I n th e summer, th e
S tudent Peace Union (SPU) was organized in Chicago by
people who had been fo rm erly a c t i v e in th e S o c i a l i s t p a rty ,
In O ctober, a most unu su al happening occurred a t B erkeley .
An e ig h te e n - y e a r - o ld stu d e n t stag ed a one-man v i g i l on
th e ste p s of S p ro u l H a ll t o p r o t e s t compulsory ROTC a t a
s ta te - s u p p o r te d u n i v e r s i t y . I n December, on th e same
campus, 150 s tu d e n ts went on a r e l a t e d hunger s t r i k e . |
Follow ing th e s e e v e n ts , t h e B erkeley a d m in is tr a tio n j
issu e d a d i r e c t i v e f o r b id d in g th e s tu d e n t government t o j
speak fo r th e stu d e n t body on off-campus p o l i t i c a l i s s u e s , j
The n o tio n t h a t som ething was brewing on th e B erkeley j
i
campus was given voice in an a r t i c l e of t h i s p e rio d , |
I
making th e p o in t t h a t s tu d e n ts were perhaps prim ing f o r j
change. Kaplan & W hite, w r i t in g in L ib e r a tio n (Ju n e,
i 9 6 0), s t a t e d :
46
Out of a student body of nearly 20,000 the
student movement has a flu c tu a tin g core of
about tw enty-five to f i f t y students and several
facu lty members. Another few hundred students
reg u la rly o ffer th e ir support on sp e c ific
causes. When a r e a l controversy a r is e s , prob
ably no more than 5,000 people, or a quarter of
the student population, are even aware of any
unusual a c tiv i ty . But th is is a r e a l increase
over previous tim es. (p. 1 3)
I t should be pointed out th a t most issues referred to in
th is a r t i c l e were sp e cific to the Berkeley area, and,
despite these minor "rumblings" in 1959* the nation was
in no way "prepared" for what might have been a micro-
cosmic occurrence on February 1, i 960 at Greensboro,
North Carolina.
On th is day, four young men who were freshmen at
North Carolina A g ricu ltu ral and Technical College entered
F. W. Woolworth’s on Elm S tre e t and sat down to wait for
service at the food counter. Two reasons for the explo-
|
sion of the event were simply t h a t : the students were
black, and they sat down amongst "white fo lk ." They were j
not served, but they remained at the counter u n t i l the
!
sto re closed. Five more students showed up the next day.
Despite the fact th a t Confederate flags were waved at themj
and c ig a re tte butts flashed in th e ir faces, they remained j
i
strangely serene, paging through th e ir textbooks, main
ta in in g t h e i r cool.
There is scarcely an author w riting on the C iv il
Rights Movement of the S ix tie s , nor a scholar of student
hi
p ro test who does not chart th a t dime sto re as the b ir th
place of those phenomena. One is tempted to go out on a
limb, f l i p back in memory to the newspaper p ictu res of
those four tra n q u il faces and figures s i t t i n g in the face
of Southern tr a d it io n and Southern h o s t i l i t y , and dub th is
moment as the genesis of a l l p ro test and confrontation in
the S ix tie s .
Yet, I am h e s ita n t to adopt such "methodology," fear
the ease with which one may embrace any event and lin k
i t to a l l others, for despite the singular nature, the
dramatic appeal, and the n a tio n a l sp o tlig h t on th is event,
there had been others (some of which we have mentioned)
th a t occurred previously.
Following the decision on segregation by the Supreme
Court in 195^* an early attempt a t c i v i l rig h ts action
I
was taken by Mrs. Rosa Parker, who boarded a Montgomery j
i
I
bus in December of 1955 and refused to give up her seat j
to a white. This ac tio n , lik e those a t Woolworth’s , was !
both quiet and dramatic. There followed the eleven-month-j
long Montgomery bus p rotest which was Martin Luther King’s
i
f i r s t project as a leader and which was, in i t s nonviolent;
|
t a c t i c s , undoubtedly the early precursor of the Woolworth j
s i t - i n . |
What was the r e a l difference between the events in j
1955 and the events in i 9 60? So alik e in method, th e re i
1
J
48
was an important d iffe re n ce . The Montgomery incident
served to motivate black c itiz e n s of th a t town, but the
Greensboro incident and model spread i t s seed fa r beyond
th a t locale within a matter of days, throughout the South.
The ra p id ity with which th is happened and the zeal with
which supporters activated themselves leads us to specu
la te th a t the time for such action was rip e and th a t i t
was not only the Berkeley student who was "ready to move."
Within two weeks of the Woolworth s i t - i n at Greens
boro, there were sim ilar s i t - i n s in 15 c i t i e s within five
Southern s ta te s . Within a month, 26 black schools were
involved, and within two months, 52 black colleges were
feeding students into the "new movement."
In March, the same month th a t New U niversity Thought,
a ra d ic a l review, was f i r s t published by graduate students
at the U niversity of Chicago, the impact of the Southern |
i
s i t - i n s was f i r s t f e l t in the North. On March 23rd, 300 j
d iv in ity students a t Yale marched in New Haven to express
th e ir support. On March 26th, in one of the f i r s t such
moves by Northern white students, 400 c i v i l rig h ts demon- j
s tra to rs from Harvard, Boston U niversity, M .I.T., and
|
Brandeis organized and picketed 12 Woolworth sto res in
Boston.
Howard Zinn, who is the p rin c ip a l "co llecto r" of |
feelings and impressions from p a rtic ip a n ts in these events|
49
(and from SNCC, which would emerge out of them), quotes
Candie Anderson, speaking of her February experience at
| N ashville:
That f i r s t s i t - i n was e a sy ...S to re personnel
ran around n erv o u sly .. .My friends were d e te r
mined to be courteous and w ell-behaved.. .Most
of them read or studied while they sat at the
counters, for three or four hours. I heard
them remind each other not to leave c ig a re tte
ashes on the counter, to take off th e i r h ats,
etc;...W hen the s i t - i n was over we a l l met in
church. There must have been 500 kids th ere,
and we a l l sang to g e th e r ... (1965, P* 20)
In A pril i 960, in response to the needs of the rapidly
growing student s i t - i n movement, blacks and whites met
a t Raleigh, North Carolina to organize in order to co
ordinate the d iffu se e f f o r ts . The Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was founded under the
guidance of adult organizations lik e SCLC and CORE. I t s
id e a l was defined as "morality in a c tio n ," th is in d icatin g
i
I
an e t h i c a l , ra th e r than a p o l i t i c a l p r io r i ty . O riginally j
operating with a s t a f f of two people, i t would eventually I
reach more Southern blacks d ire c tly than any movement j
since Radical Reconstruction. This group was o rig in a lly j
|
prim arily black, and would remain so, but i t s development ;
would soon gain support of many Northern whites, who would|
a c tu a lly p u ll up th e ir roots and move to the South in j
la te r years. j
Around th is time, the F a ir Play for Cuba Committee j
was formed, supported by small student groups throughout
50
the nation.
Then on May 13th, the growing group of Berkeley
student a c tiv i s ts moved again, th is time in p rotest
against obstruction of p o l i t i c a l freedom. The House Un-
american A c tiv itie s Committee was in v estig a tin g "Communist-
linked individuals" in hearings at the San Francisco City
H all. Eight-thousand pickets appeared. Two-hundred
students lined up on the long row of ste p s. Ordered to
d isp erse, the students refused and were greeted by police
ta c tic s which were, for th a t era, unpredictably b ru tal
and which served as an early p re d ile ctio n of a scenario
which would be enacted endless times during the S ix tie s .
Large water hoses with great force were u tiliz e d to sweep
students down the d ta irs . Many were prodded and poked
with clubs, or dragged along the sidewalks. F ifteen were
injured; over 60 were ja ile d . j
V isitin g newsmen filmed the e n tire episode which j
would la te r be turned in to an underground documentary and
the footage, shown a t many colleges across the country,
enraged many facu lty members and stu d en ts, beginning a
l
n atio n al p ro test of students against HUAC. I t was iro n ic j
th a t only a few months before Clark K err, president of j
U C Berkeley, had s ta te d , speaking to an adult audience,
"You w ill love th is g e n e ra tio n .. .They are going to be easy I
to handle. There a re n ’t going to be any r io ts (C itation
51
in : Bowen, 1970)." In testimony to the strange phenome
non of instantaneous consciousness which many students
were to experience in the s i x t i e s , one bystander was heard
to say: "I was a p o l i t i c a l v irg in , but I was raped on
the steps of City Hall" (C itatio n in : Bowen, 1970).
The summer of i 960 was sig n ific a n t for i t s sudden
wave of s o c ia l and p o l i t i c a l a c tiv ity among students.
Thousands, fo r instance, v is ite d Cuba, many joining the
P air Play for Cuba Committee and organizing chapters on
th e ir campuses.
The s i t - i n concept was expanded upon in the South.
Read-ins were held in white l i b r a r i e s , sleep -in s in
lobbies of segregated h o te ls, and wash-ins at r e s tr ic te d
beaches. Many of the young Southern blacks who would
la te r become leaders of SNCC, such as Ju lian Bond and Bob
Moses, had already plunged in to the movement. j
Zinn wrote th a t "the s i t - i n s represented an in tr ic a te |
union of economic and moral power"( 1965, p. 28). Feuer
b e tte r captures, however, the appeal to a ffe c t for students
in w ritin g : j
I t provided a back-to-the-people id e n tific a tio n
in a way in which no campaign for c a p ita l j
punishment could; i t offered a chance for u tte r j
s e l f - s a c r i f i c e fa r more than any p a c if is t j
campaign against bomb te s tin g or m ilita ry instalj-
latio n s could, for i t brought one face to face ;
with the most v iolent and v in d ictiv e elements
of so c iety . This, moreover, was the one issue
in which moral rig h t and wrong stood out
c le a rly . ( 1969, p. 397)
52
Feuer was r ig h t. This moral issue was one in which
no complicated moral decision-making was n e c e ssita te d .
Those white Northerners who la te r came to jo in blacks in
th is e f f o rt saw the s itu a tio n as b la ta n tly obvious and
moved to act out of gut feelin g s of nausea. The C iv il
Rights Movement did not provide the same manner of
dilemma as would be engendered by la te r events of th is
decade, wherein white would face white and p r io r i tie s
would need to be assessed c a re fu lly and d e lic a te ly .
During th is same summer, the Democratic Convention
was held in Los Angeles, and John F. Kennedy was selected
as his p a r ty ’s candidate. In January, Arthur Schlesinger,
J r . had w ritten the following in Esquire magazine ( i 9 6 0):
At periodic moments in our h isto ry , our country
has paused on the threshold of a new epoch in
our n atio n al l i f e , unable for a moment to open
the door, but aware th a t i t must advance i f i t
is to preserve i t s n atio n al v i t a l i t y and j
id e n tity . One feels th a t we are approaching j
such a moment now—th a t the mood which has j
dominated the nations for a decade is beginning j
to seem th in and irre le v a n t; th a t i t no longer I
in te rp re ts our desires and needs as a people,
th a t new forms, new energies, new values are i
s tra in in g fo r expression and re le a se . (In:
Hayes, 1970, p. x v ii) j
A senior at UCLA, ju st 20 and s t i l l too young to
j
vote, I was sorrowing over the end of the "Stevenson era ."
One of thousands, I sat lis te n in g to Kennedy’s acceptance
i
speech at the f e s t i v i t i e s of the la s t night of the j
|
Convention in the Los Angeles Coliseum, The sun was
53
f a llin g . D irectly below me, the ca n d id ate's younger
brother, Bobby, fatigued from his duties as campaign-
manager, leaned against a red co n v ertib le, his sleeves
ro lled up, casual, but immaculate, his arm about his wife,
Ethel. Light f e l l around them, c re s tin g , haloing them,
i S im ilarly, lig h t f e l l across the now-legendary h aircu t of
his brother, Jack, highlig h tin g his g e s tic u la tin g arm,
and shafts of lig h t spread out from both of the young men,
penetrating the darkening evening. I had entered a pagan,
resenting the audacity of a "Kennedy" challenging a
"Stevenson." But I had been moved to f e e l as though I
were in church, and I was seldom a churchgoer. For me at
th a t moment and for a l l those who would f a l l captive to
the Kennedy charisma, th is was, I th in k , a species of
e s th e tic so pure-form as to approach the re lig io u s or
s p i r i t u a l . Perhaps i t represented th a t "new form" which
Schlesinger wrote we so craved.
Norman Mailer in Esquire (November, i 9 6 0) spoke of j
th is same mythic q u ality :
I f elected he would be the most conventionally j
a ttr a c tiv e young man ever to s i t in the White |
House, and his w ife...m ig h t be the most b ea u ti- j
fu l f i r s t lady in our h isto ry . Of n ecessity |
the myth would emerge once more, because Ameri- j
c a 's p o litic s would now be also America's j
fa v o rite movie, America's f i r s t soap opera, !
America's b e s t- s e lle r . (In: Hayes, 1970*
P. 17)
1
54
Adding to the p erfection of th is stru c tu re was the
"magic" in the Kennedy dialogue, as exemplified in an
early speech in the campaign e ffo rt during July:
W e stand today on the edge of a new f r o n t i e r —
the f r o n tie r of the s ix t ie s , a fro n tie r of
unknown opportunities and p e r ils , a fro n tie r
of u n fu lfille d hopes and th r e a ts .
Kennedy embodied the hopes of many who had already
been activ ated , and many others who longed to be.
In October, 19^0, SNCC held a conference in A tlanta
for several hundred delegates and gained permanent s ta tu s .
The Committee i t s e l f consisted of a delegate from each of
the 16 southern s ta te s and the D is tr ic t of Columbia.
There were a d d itio n a l voting members and observers from
various student and ra c e -re la tio n s organizations such as
CORE, SCLC, the WCA, the NSA, the NAACP, and the Southern
Conference Educational Fund. Jacobs and Landau (196 6) |
!
w rite th a t "SNCC was formed to make a revolution in the
South, to help Negroes to organize themselves so th a t each!
individual could gain dignity through p artic ip a to ry
democracy, by p a rtic ip a tin g in the decisions th a t a ff e c te d j
j
his l i f e (p. 17)." Zinn emphasizes th a t SNCC was never
flu id and fu n ctio n al, membership being based solely on |
who was working.
i
This emphasis on p a rtic ip a to ry democracy, on the j
t
a c tiv ity and action of each individual in allegiance to |
his own motivation and conscience would become a main j
55
motif in the movements to follow, and perhaps would be
m isinterpreted or d isto rte d by many.
CORE was holding classes designed to t r a i n a c tiv i s ts
in non-violent methods, means by which they could s i t out
the s i t - i n s . Already, students had been subject to a l l
means of harassment and physical r e ta lia t io n by outraged
c itiz e n s . P ro test bombings had taken place in various
u n iv e rs itie s attended by black student a c t i v i s t s . The
following is from an in stru c tio n pamphlet given to
students by CORE, in d icatin g the refined methodology for
non-violent confrontation already achieved at th is early
stage of the movement:
You may choose to face physical a ssau lt without
protecting yourself, hands a t the sid e, un
clenched; or you may choose to protect yourself,
making plain you do not intend to h it back.
I f you choose to protect yourself, you p ractice j
positions lik e th is : j
|
To protect the sk u ll, hold the hands over the j
head. j
To prevent disfigurement of the face, bring the j
elbows together in fro n t of the eyes.
i
i
For g i r l s , to prevent in te rn a l in ju ry from kicks;
li e on the side and bring the knees upward to |
the chin; for boys, kneel down and arch over, j
with sk u ll and face protected. ,
In an extremely short period of time, thousands of students
were schooled in these methods. j
I
During the F a ll, the s i t - i n s continued, but U.S.-
!
Cuban re la tio n s dominated the news. In December, 150 j
56
Berkeley students demonstrated for the removal of ROTC
and one student received a f a i l for picketing in uniform.
On January 20, 1961, "Camelot1 ' began. Kennedy was
inaugurated and delivered one of the most touted addresses
in the h isto ry of our country:
Let the word go fo rth from th is time and place
. . . t h a t the torch has been passed to a new
generation of Americans. . .l e t us begin anew.
Kennedy's vision of hope was one th a t d ire c tly issued
a challenge, his notion of what one must do for his or her
country. As we indicated before, he himself seemed to
be the liv in g model for his credo. He was a m ulti
m illio n a ire , c la s s ic a lly good-looking, and highly-
educated. Yet he focused on the poor and on the down
trodden, at home and abroad. In addition to his own
embodiment of noblesse o b lig e, h is brothers Bobby and
Teddy seemed to r e f le c t th is same image. There was a
magnetism about them, and about th e ir wives, s i s t e r s , and
ch ild ren . And th a t magnetism did not end in hypnotic
s t a s i s , but stim ulated and activated many young Americans
to emulate them.
In the meantime, the early part of 1961 was sprinkled
with various events which, though underplayed, would be
remembered as sig n ific a n t i f only in re tro sp e c t.
In January, the United S tates broke off diplomatic j
I
re la tio n s with Cuba, th is act being followed by various
57
student demonstrations c a llin g for a re s to ra tio n of r e la -
j
tio n s . Nonetheless, the government moved fu rth e r, banning
j t o u r is t tr a v e l to Cuba.
j The W . E. B. DuBois Clubs were formed in San Fran-
! cisco as lo cal "educational" groups. Despite the fact
i
| th a t leaders in the DuBois e f fo rt came from Communist
! backgrounds, the aim herein was to link up with lib e ra ls j
| and work toward s o c ia li s t reform. When the DuBois Clubs
| organized yet more fu lly in la te r years, they would become
i
i
| one of a group of organizations and e ff o rts which, J
j ;
j to g eth er, would be known as the "New L eft."
| In February, Congolese leader P atrice Lumumba was j
! i
I murdered a f te r his capture by American, French, Belgian, ;
| and French-supported re a c tio n a rie s . There were demon
stra tio n s p ro testin g th is action throughout the world,
and American blacks created an uproar in the United
' Nations g allery th a t bordered on violence.
In February of 19&1, ten students were arrested in
Rock H ill, South Carolina. The SNCC S teering Committee
| met in Atlanta and made a dramatic decision which would
I re s u lt in a new ta c ti c in the C iv il Rights Movement, one
• th a t would again spread rapidly. Four students were sent ,
| to p ro test the Rock H ill a r r e s ts , to s i t - i n , be a rre s te d ,
I :
| and refuse b a il in order to emphasize the in ju s tic e s being
| done. The program went as planned and was the f i r s t
i !
| >
incident wherein members of the s i t - i n movement served
f u l l sentences for th e ir ac tio n s. The policy they had
in it ia t e d would become known as ,iail-no b a i l . Ruby Doris
i
i
j Smith, a r e la tiv e novice in the movement, wrote th is of
i
her 30 day in carceratio n :
I I read a lot th e re : The Ugly American, The
j Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Exodus, frhe Wall
| Between. . .^very day at noon we sang 'Ve S hall
I Overcome.’ " (Zinn, 1965* PP« 33-39)
| Zinn mentions an in te re s tin g statement made by a
guard at the j a i l who, fru stra te d by what he saw, told
the students to stop reading, th a t i t was a prison, not
a damned school. Over the next several years, many would j
use th e ir ja il-tim e in such a way, not "wasting” i t , but j
1
fu rth erin g th e ir education, planning and regrouping, ;
| rejuvenating the same s p i r i t which allowed them to ris k
| j a i l in the f i r s t place.
J In March, President Kennedy created the Peace Corps.
I The th e sis th a t those who were ac tiv e and who had cle a r
I
j visions of universal m orality would lend themselves to
| many causes was upheld in th is instance, for many of the
j f i r s t volunteers to the Peace Corps had already been
activ e in the young C iv il Rights Movement. This early
I form of "passionate" and "activ e idealism" was c le a rly
exemplified in the fact th a t the Peace Corps drew 13,000
volunteers before the end of 1961.
| In A pril, the Eichman t r i a l was held, spawning a
t
| wide response by many who recognized the c u lp a b ility of
|
; those who stood by and did nothing in the face of in-
| ju s t ic e or inhumanity. Rolf Hochhuth’s re la te d play The
! Deputy (196*j) la te r condemned the "sile n t individual" and
| the idea of unquestioning alleg ian ce with the excuse of
! "doing one’s job."
j In A pril an incident took place which would haunt
i the Kennedy Administration throughout i t s thousand days
because of the questions It provoked concerning American j
involvement abroad. At Playa Given, Cuba, a landing force I
I attem pting to defy Castro was defeated. This became j
| known as the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the CIA was la te r
| found to be c le a rly connected with th is incident. There
were adult and student p ro te sts a l l across the nation
f '
| on th is occasion. Just at th is time, Senator E astlan d ’s
! In te rn a l Security Subcommittee was in v e stig a tin g the P air !
1
| Play for Cuba Committee.
j In the meantime, the C iv il Rights Movement continued
to gain steam and to enter new areas in i t s stru g g le . In
May, 1961, under the guidance of CORE and the leadership
of black p a c if is t, Bayard R ustin, and white p a c if is t,
; James Peck, the f i r s t "freedom rid e rs " le f t Washington,
I ;
D.C. for New Orleans to expose and defy segregation in
in te rs ta te tr a v e l. Many rid e rs were beaten and a rre ste d .
60
! Though p o lic e were i n i t i a l l y " h e lp fu l" in sto p p in g w hites
| from i n t e r f e r i n g w ith th e r i d e r s ( u s u a lly a f t e r a few
j had a lre a d y been b e a te n ), as th e buses moved f u r t h e r
I South, in c id e n ts of bombing and p h y s ic a l a s s a u l t became
: m anifold. N o n e th eless, t h i s f i r s t freedom r i d e began a
I
I
I p a tt e r n of s i m il a r r i d e s . Before th e e f f o r t would end,
i th e f e d e r a l government would need t o s te p in , sending j
i
! n a t i o n a l guardsmen i n t o various s t a t e s . On th e whole, j
i i
however, t h i s was an e a r l y i n d ic a t i o n t h a t i f C i v i l R ig h tsf
advocates were to succeed in t h e i r g o a ls , th e y would !
I j
| succeed by them selves sin c e a c tio n by th e Feds was u s u a lly ;
i |
! in th e manner of s u p e r f i c i a l g e s t u r e s , th e Southern
| !
| p o lic e fo rc e s and c i t i z e n s u s u a lly su cceed ing in " g e ttin g
t h e i r lic k s i n ."
The Freedom Rides s ig n a lle d a new and to u g h er period
for SNCC, one in which Zinn (1 9 6 5) and others t e s t i f y
th at the p a rtic ip a n ts were c lea rly "so cial revolutionaries.*'
| In t h a t they were seek ing t o upend a value system and a
s e t of both w r i t te n and u n w ritte n laws o p e ra tiv e in th e
; Southern s o c ie ty , Z in n 's d e s c r ip tio n i s a c c u r a t e . T h eir
ideology was c l e a r and t h e i r movement c o n s i s t e n t and
p e r s i s t e n t . In o th e r words, th ey knew what th ey wanted
I and would keep coming back u n t i l th ey got i t .
The Freedom R id ers had t o endure extreme " t e s t s . "
j |
| S to k ely C arm ichael, one of the le a d e rs in t h i s e f f o r t , was;
61
j a i l e d and thrown in to s o l i t a r y confinem ent over and over
a g a in . Many were punished p h y s ic a lly . James Peck, on
th e very f i r s t r i d e , was b eaten b r u t a l l y by s e v e r a l men
w ith f i s t s and p ip es in an alleyw ay . He was l e f t un
conscious t o d i e , but f r ie n d s found him and he liv e d .
T his was only one in s ta n c e of t h a t t h r e a t of v io le n ce th e
R id ers came t o a n t i c i p a t e , yet th ey were not stopped by
th e s e i n e v i t a b i l i t i e s .
Phoning W ashington and a sk in g fo r h elp from th e
J u s t i c e Department under th e p r i n c i p l e t h a t th e f e d e r a l ;
I
government was supposed t o g u a ra n tee s a fe t r a v e l a cro ss j
|
s t a t e b o u n d a rie s, R id ers were to ld on v a rio u s occasions
I
I
t h a t th e J u s t i c e Department could not p r o te c t them but |
would i n v e s t i g a t e l a t e r i f a n y th in g did happen ( a f t e r j
th e f a c t , in o th e r w ords). A tto rn ey G eneral Bobby
Kennedy a ssu re d th e R id ers t h a t th e P re s id e n t upheld th e I
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of th e f e d e r a l government but sim u lta n e o u s
ly asked t h a t th e a u t h o r i t i e s in Alabama p r o te c t t h i s
r i g h t w ith o u t f e d e r a l a c t i o n . N o n e th e le ss, as v io le n ce
kept o c c u rrin g , the guardsmen were brought o u t, but in
sm all numbers and w ith l i t t l e e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
By th e end of th e summer of 1961, 300 R iders had been
a r r e s t e d . A ccusations were c o n tin u o u sly exchanged between!
I
th e s t a t e and f e d e r a l governm ents, and in th e end Bobby
Kennedy asked f o r a " c o o lin g -o ff p e rio d " f o r th e R id es,
w hile seeking an in ju n c tio n in f e d e r a l co u rt t o p r o h ib it
S outhern policemen from i n t e r f e r i n g w ith i n t e r s t a t e
t r a v e l . Many of th e SNCC members, however, saw t h i s as
! rein fo rce m en t of t h e i r s u s p ic io n " th a t an attem p t was
i being made t o co o l th e m ilita n c y of the s tu d e n t movement
i
! and d i v e r t th e y o un gsters t o slo w e r, s a f e r activity*' (Z inn,
! 1965* P« 5 9 ). There were a ls o s tro n g o b je c tio n s to th e
; c o n s e rv a tiv e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of C i v i l R ights law by th e
| J u s t i c e Department and t h i s made many in d iv id u a ls even
! more determ ined t o con tin u e t o p e r s i s t . They decided
t
i t h a t v o te r r e g i s t r a t i o n was perhaps th e only area in which
th e y might gain th e needed help from th e f e d e r a l govern
ment i f any a ttem p ts were made t o in te r v e n e , and t h i s was
! t h e i r next fo c u s.
! In June, 1961, a n o th e r in c id e n t of n a t i o n a l stu d e n t
p r o t e s t came about a f t e r U n iv e rs ity of Texas s tu d e n ts had
j held s ta n d - in s a t seg reg ated movie-houses and were
j a r r e s t e d . N a tio n a l stu d e n t o rg a n iz a tio n s p ick e te d t h i s
: chain a cro ss the co u n try .
In A ugust, 1961, Bob Moses, 29, a H arvard-educated
I b lac k o r i g i n a l l y out of th e Harlem g h e tto , came t o McComb,
I M is s is s ip p i, a known c e ss p o o l of rac ism , t o s t a r t th e
1 f i r s t v o te r r e g i s t r a t i o n schools and launch th e campaign
to r e g i s t e r b lac k v o te rs in th e South. SNCC had picked
th e to u g h e st s t a t e in th e South f o r t h i s e f f o r t . Moses
.... h im self was a s s a u lte d s e v e r a l tim es on th e s t r e e t and
! ja ile d . He p e rsisted . In the North, Harry Belafonte and
| others raised funds to support th is e f f o rt. James Forman
I
t
| became the new executive secretary of SNCC.
In the meantime, almost sublim inally, and c e rta in ly
j hidden from the a tte n tio n of the natio n , c e rta in events
j were taking place in Southeast Asia th a t would eventually
; have a tremendous impact on our country. President
I
; Kennedy had read a great deal on the g u e rilla ta c tic s of
| Mao and his soldiers and assigned a fund of $30,000,000
! to found a sp e c ia l e l i t e corps of the U.S. S pecial Forces
in Vietnam. This corps, known as the "Green B e re ts," was
trained in co u n terg u erilla t a c t i c s . They began tra in in g
at Fort Bragg and were known by some as the "Harvard
! P h.D .’s" of the M ilitary. Because they c le a rly demonstra-
| ted the n a tio n a l policy of domestic and foreign "super-
j v isio n ," they symbolized the m ilita ry aspect of the New
! F ro n tie r. They were c le a rly created to respond to
i
"Communist aggression" in Southeast Asia, as was exempli-
I fied by the motto on th e ir emblems—< 3e oppresso lib e r - -
to lib e ra te from oppression.
In September, Robert Williams, a fu g itiv e accused of
I kidnapping, was given asylum in Cuba. He began broad-
i
I casting a program he called "Radio Free D ixie." Williams
! was suspended from his county chairmanship of NAACP
i
| because he began to advocate th a t blacks arm themselves
6H
and p r a c t ic e s e l f - d e f e n s e .
j
In th e same month* down in McComb* th e r e was v io le n c e
| and murder a t a v o te r r e g i s t r a t i o n s i t - i n . Black H erbert
I Lee* a farm er w ith n in e c h ild re n * was k i l l e d . His w hite
I a s s a s s i n was l a t e r a c q u i tt e d . Years la te r * th e only
| w itn ess to t h i s e p iso d e , Louis A lle n , was h im self k i l l e d .
i ‘
j In October* 1961* a young n ig h tc lu b e n t e r t a i n e r
1
1
' gained n a t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n when he was a r r e s t e d in San
I
| F ra n c is c o fo r say in g "cocksucker" d u rin g h is show. Lenny
Bruce would c o n tin u e t o be j a i l e d on charges of drug use
and o b sc e n ity f o r many years but would a t th e same tim e
| c o n s i s t e n t l y a ttem p t t o expose th e inadequacy and hypoc
r i s y of American law and s o c i e t y .
In November, 1 9 6 1, Bagmar W ilson organized th e f i r s t
t
; woman's p a c i f i s t o rg a n iz a tio n * Women S t r i k e f o r Peace.
| When l a t e r subpoenaed by HUAC* she re fu se d t o name or
! d i s c r e d i t Communists in her o r g a n i z a t i o n 's membership*
|
| r i s k i n g p e rs o n a l in ju r y and d e a lin g a blow a t th e p r e s t ig e
j of HUAC.
In th e same month* some 3*000 s tu d e n ts a t CCNY boy
c o tte d c la s s e s in p r o t e s t of an a d m in is tr a tio n move which
; had banned Communist s p e a k e rs .
i
By th e end of 1 9 6 1* s e v e r a l hundred lunch co u n te rs in
1
j T exas, Oklahoma* and o th e r Southern s t a t e s had been de
segregated* but in most of th e Deep South* th e o b s ta c le s
were s t i l l up, and the most b ru ta l encounters were yet to
, come.
; In the meantime, the focus of the Voter R eg istratio n
i
j campaign was s h iftin g to Greenwood, M ississippi, which
j would become a scene of tremendous hardship and endurance ,
! for SNCC workers during the next two years.
; While the C iv il Rights Movement continued to build,
i
| e n lis tin g more and more support from both blacks and
I w hites, another issue was developing in a deceptively
I quiet manner. Although many Americans remained "safely
unaware" of a l l the f a c ts , there were, by th is time,
16,000 American troops in South Vietnam, and no longer
were they there for the sole purpose of "training" the
South Vietnamese so ld ie r. H elicopters had the authority
|
I to f i r e on the "enemy."
|
| In Washington, D.C., the Student Peace Union marched
i
I 5,000 strong in February and trie d unsuccessfully to ta lk
over the s itu a tio n of nuclear te s tin g with Administration
! o f f i c i a l s . They were, however, sent coffee by the White
I HouseJ The SPU was sponsored by an adult organization,
Turn Toward Peace. Under adult leadership, students
| became very active in working on the Congressional cam
paigns of "peace candidates." In May, members of the
| Committee for Non-Violent Action sailed to Christmas
Isla n d , s i t e of a scheduled nuclear t e s t , and committed
66
acts of moral witness which resu lted in th e ir a r r e s t. This
group was largely adult and was linked with B ritis h
p a c if is ts , like Bertrand R ussell, but would have an
influence on the growing peace movement in the S ta te s.
This was the year in which two c o n tro v e rsial books
were published: The Gutenberg Galaxy, which began Marshal
McLuhan’s c r i t i c a l analysis of the power of contemporary
media in shaping our society, and Rachel Carson’s S ile n t j
i
Spring, an early precursor of the ecology movement. j
McLuhan drew l i t t l e a tte n tio n at th is time, and Ms. Carson;
was laughed at by many. By the end of the decade, howeverj
M cLuhan was recognized as one of the most innovative and j
in s ig h tfu l geniuses of our time, and many of Ms. Carson’s |
claims had been investigated and proven tru e by Congres
sio n al committees. By the early seventies, bans on DDT
would be operative.
In June of 1962, an important event, one which
heralded the genesis of a major force in what would la te r
be referred to as "The Movement" or "The New Left" took
place in Port Huron, Michigan. Here, students met to r e
organize Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Two
young men from the U niversity of Michigan framed a 63-page
pamphlet as a guide for the re v ita liz e d organization. A1 ;
Haber and Tom Hayden could be said to have v ir tu a lly
created th is ra d ic a l organization by v irtu e of th is "Port j
67
Huron Statem ent."
The SDS vision was a democracy of in d iv id u al p a r t i c i
pation governed by two c e n tra l aims: th a t the individual
i
share in the s o c io - p o litic a l decisions which determine
the q u ality and d ire c tio n of his l i f e ; and th a t the
society be organized to encourage independence in men and
provide a medium for th e ir common p a rtic ip a tio n . Unlike
other l e f t i s t organizations of the p ast, they were not |
Marxist advocates and were th erefo re confronted with (
i
developing a new ideology from th e ir inception. I r o n i
c a lly , however, as Jacobs and Landau ( 1966) point out, !
the membership was staunchly a n ti-id e o lo g ic a l from i t s |
b irth and was always "groping for a theory or ideology”
(p. 32), while try in g to escape having one. I t s one
solid th ru s t was against i t s enemy, "corporate lib e ra lism ."
I t saw the "leadership of the l i b e r a l community (as)
responsible for a l l the barbaric aspects of American
society"(Jacobs & Landau, p. 33).
SDS operated in i t s early stag es, th e re fo re , with
many partially-developed ideologies, and with the hope
th a t th e ir concepts of "p articip a to ry democracy" and
a c tio n -o rie n ta tio n would lead to the poor in America
gaining a more powerful p o sitio n . I t banked i t s future
success on the b e lie f of the p o te n tia litie s and resources
of every individual to make purposeful decisions. In
I these early years, SDS would focus on two main areas, the
! campus and campus-relevant educational and p o l i t i c a l
i
! m atters; and community organization (mainly of the poor)
| through a plan called the Economic Research and Action
P roject (ERAP).
As many authors have pointed out, Tom Hayden provided
| for SDS, in these exploratory gropings, a strong voice,
j His in te llig e n c e was obvious, but his casual, n a tu ra l j
a ttitu d e made him "easy to ta k e ." He could piece together
j
! the fragments of SDS policy and make i t seem as though
| there were a coherent ideology operative. Furthermore,
I i
| he was a worker. He was rig h t out th e re , liv in g on j
I i
| nothing in the midst of the Ghetto, doing what he talked
i about doing. That year, fo r instance, he was ja ile d in
| Albany, Georgia fo r his C iv il Rights a c t i v i t i e s . Because
i he had "been th e re ," people listened to his rap, believed
j
| him when he in siste d th a t i f the people were allowed to
decide, they would achieve a sense of power and indepen
dence. P a rtic ip a tio n was the r e q u is ite , said Hayden, for
control over one’s own existence. Individual p a rtic ip a tio n
would lead to "a counter-organization" (one antagonistic
to the Establishm ent), and th is eventually would lead to
8 counter-government.
I t is important to understand th a t because of th is
f a ith in the p o s s ib ility of a gradual evolution in to power j
69
for the oppressed, SDS could avoid, in these early stages,
the issue of reform versus revolution. But i t was th is
very facto r which would u ltim ately lead to in te rn a l d i s
sent and the eventual d is in te g ra tio n of the group.
In tere stin g , a lso , is the ea rly kinship of SDS to the
C iv il Rights Movement, from which i t derived much of i t s
stru c tu re and pieces of i t s fragmented ideology. Although
i t s i n i t i a l emphasis was on the domestic scene, however,
i t s growth would come from la te r a tte n tio n to such issues
as the Vietnam War.
Richard Flacks was an early SDS leader and n atio n a l
o ffic e r . He la te r remained activ e in i t s functioning even
a f te r he became a facu lty member. One of the major
researchers on campus p ro te s t, he tra c e s (1972) the
recruitm ent of students by SDS members as being aimed at
many d iffe re n t movements th a t had already been organized,
such as the C iv il Rights Movement and the campaign against
the arms race. He claims, however, th a t the aim of SDS
was s o c ia l change of the most basic nature. Looking back
on the early days of SDS, he w rites t h a t : "To me, the
b irth of SDS seemed to portend th a t, unexpectedly, times
were changing--McCarthyism was dead and campus apathy and
conformity were being challenged by a new s p i r i t of
commitment and d isse n t"(p . 3).
SDS was instrum ental even in i t s infancy in in f lu -
| encing members of the National Students A ssociation to
; pass a resolution opposing nuclear te s tin g and the McCar-
! ran Act in September, 1962.
; The C iv il Rights Movement continued to gain stren g th
I and expand i t s scope a l l throughout the year. In October,
| James Meredith enrolled at the a ll-w h ite U niversity of
| M ississippi, Against the th re a t of violence, he began
| c la s s , th is re s u ltin g in campus rio tin g and the eventual !
| i
I ca llin g -o u t of 13,500 fe d e ra l troops.
The Cuban s itu a tio n reached a dramatic c r i s i s during ;
|
th is same month. Kennedy discovered th a t the Soviet Union j
|
was supplying m issiles to Castro and ordered the m issiles
removed and a blockade of the country. While the m ajority ;
showed admiration and support for the decisive move by
the young P resid en t, many others demonstrated against th is
! action as they had against others involving Cuba. Ten
I thousand ra llie d at the United Nations Building. The
following month, Michigan S tate U niversity, an in s t itu ti o n
highly involved in war research, refused to renew the
: contract of Professor Samuel Shapiro, a highly-vocal
; c r i t i c of U.S.-Cuban policy.
j
1963 would be an extremely important year. Many of
i
I the issues of the past would magnify and the numbers of
people involved would increase rap id ly . Both C iv il Rights
71
and the Vietnamese War would be in the fo refro n t of
|
j n a tio n a l a tte n tio n . P a rtic u la rly in the area of C iv il
i
i
j R ights, e f f o r ts for reform would be constant, gaining
; strength against great re sis ta n c e .
Despite widespread moves for new C iv il Rights le g is -
| la tio n , Governor George Wallace expressed the feelings of
| large bodies of Southerners in th is excerpt from his
■ I !
January inaugural speech: I draw the line in the dust j
! i
i j
I and toss the gauntlet before the fa c t of tyranny and I I
| j
| say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation j
I |
! fo re v e r." !
i
i
| Kennedy’s S tate of the Union speech indicated the
i '
| fervor with which the Adm inistration pursued i t s concept
! th a t the United S tates was saviour of the far-away nation:
| "The spear point of aggression has been lib e ra ted in South
] ;
| Vietnam." During the following year, s tra f in g missions
| would be openly authorized by our government.
In the South, the battered forces of Bob Moses
continued to operate in Greenwood, despite the desperate
s ta te of things and the fact th a t many had already been
ja ile d in the process. Zinn (19^5) quotes th is l e t t e r
from Sam Block., one of the workers, to the A tlanta o ffic e :;
; Man, I am so glad we now have tra n sp o rta tio n
| here in Greenwood..* we carried fiv e people
j down to r e g is t e r . In addition to th a t we are
I now able to get around to those people who have I
| been cut off from the surplus food deal, and
I some of them would make you cry to see the way ,
72
they have been try in g to liv e ...T h ey (have)
l i t t l e babies th a t (have) no shoes to put on
th e ir feet...W e found out th a t the p e o p le ...
had to t e l l the other kids th a t Santa Claus
was sick and th a t he would be able to see them
j when he gets w ell. (pp. 8 8- 8 9)
j
This d is a s te r had begun with a p o l i t i c a l move the
| previous October when the County Board of Supervisors
| had stopped d is trib u tin g surplus food, cu ttin g off 22,000
people (mainly blacks) who depended on i t , esp ecially
! t
; during the customarily lean winter months. In an e ffo rt
i !
! to d is trib u te food, clothing, and medicine, some of which j
i
began to pour in from appeals to the North, several
j
workers were arreste d and ja ile d on "narcotics" charges
! (for carrying a sp irin and vitam ins.').
| i
j Serendipitously, the food drive became the c a ta ly st
[ |
! fo r the growing voter r e g is tra tio n campaign in Mississippi*
j j
I I t brought SNCC workers in contact with thousands of
| blacks and began a rapport th a t would continue. Eventual-;
] :
j ly, the food boycott ended because of fed e ra l pressure.
Before the c ru c ia l winter ended, however, an attempt was
! made to k i l l Bob Moses and others. I t should be noted
: th a t, despite these dangerous conditions and provocation
: a f te r provocation, the fe d e ral government was s t i l l
; leaving primary co n tro l of such s itu a tio n s up to the
| s ta te , even a f te r continuous requests for protection.
1 ;
| In February, the voter re g is tra tio n campaign moved
j to another Southern hotspot, Selma, Alabama. On March 2 * J , j
73
however, a significant retaliatory move took place wherein
the voter registration office of SNCC was destroyed by
fire. Though this act had been aimed at the Greenwood
i
office, as target of the effort of the campaign, other !
i
reactive violence was also taking place in other parts j
i
of Mississippi. Yet, reflective of the spirit of Bob
Moses, SNCC "stayed." Here is an excerpt of a letter of
Bob’s, writing to thank Chicano friends and Eick Gregory j
j
for shipments of food and clothing during the period j
alluded to previously. !
j
...we have been on a deep plateau all winter, j
shaking off the effects of the violence of
August and September...You combat your own
fears about beatings, shootings, and possible I
mob violencej you stymie by your mere physical I
presence the anxious fear of the Negro commu
nity. . .that maybe you did only come to boil
and bubble and then burst out of sight...This 1
is a new dimension...Negroes have never stood
en masse in protest at the seat of power in
the iceberg of Mississippi politics... (Zinn,
1965, pp. 88-S9 )
This was written in a lull between crises, just after
a summer of violence and a winter of discontent, just
before a new wave of violence and an attempt on the life
of the writer. By this period in the life of SNCC, one
thing was obvious, the staying-power of its staff, their
mental integrity and physical endurance, was characteristic
of the deepest form of commitment.
By February, SNCC had begun to organize Selma, a city
| that would be vitally important ultimately in the adoption;
7*
of new le g is la tio n . The Selma black in line to r e g is te r
J
| and the "stakeout" of Selma police under the "leadership"
i
| of S h eriff Jim Clark would become fam iliar symbols th at
I would be la te r transformed in to part of the mythos of
I
| the campus student movement.
In A p ril, white mailman William Moore was murdered
| on his one-man Freedom Walk for c i v i l rig h ts in Alabama.
| SNCC and CORE members attempted to resume his walk and
i
were a rreste d at the Alabama border. Even though Governor!
i |
| Wallace claimed he did not condone the murder, the i
| marchers were unable to secure protection for th e ir walk, j
i j
| The fe d e ra l government did not honor sim ilar requests j
I with even the courtesy of a response. The members were
j ;
! not su rp rised , however, as by now th is had become the |
i |
| p a tte rn . Moore’s planned walk had been from Chatanooga
to Jackson, M ississippi. Despite continuous acts of
violence along the way (everything from rocks and b o ttles
| to firecrac k ers were thrown at the workers from c a rs ),
I they did succeed in g ettin g from Tennessee through
! Georgia, followed by newsmen a l l the way. Stopped by
| violence and the Alabama S tate Troopers’ orders to d is -
! perse, they were arrested for "breaching the peace" and
; held in Death Row at Fort K ilbie for over a month.
One of the marchers, Eric Weinberger, fasted fo r a l l
31 days and was barely able to walk into the courtroom to ;
i be freed with a $200 fin e . The Freedom Walk had ended,
j but the commitment of i t s marchers had only been enhanced.
By now the SNCC workers were both grown confident and worn
by v irtu e of th e ir experience. Their dedication displayed
!
; nothing of th e ir weariness.
I
| During th is time of immense a c tiv ity in the C iv il
| Rights Movement, other "p ro tests" were taking place which
i perhaps drew l i t t l e a tte n tio n at the time but which would i
I
have great impact during the next four years.
One instance of th is was the f ir in g of two young
Harvard psychology professors, Timothy Leary and Richard j
| A lpert, who had been te s tin g hallucinogenics on under- j
graduates. Leary himself had found a new way of l i f e with|
LSD and other hard drugs and became the guru for what
would be a rapidly-growing "cult" of young people la te r
I :
| to be known as the "psychedelic L e ft."
i
| During th is same year, Betty Friedan published The
Feminine Mystique, a precursor of the Women’s Liberation
Movement. Although the book was purchased by many, house
wives were frequently threatened by i t , or openly scorned
; i t . Others found something b ib lic a l about i t , but did not
: act on i t s message at th is time.
Pope John gave his famed "Pacem in T e rris" message
j
| and was lauded throughout the world.
76
Again, however, the focus was on c i v i l r ig h ts . The
| violence which continued through the spring season deeply
| affected many Northerners, who had only been passively
; sympathetic previously. Many were now motivated "to do
J
| something," as would be indicated by the m igration of many
|
i of them to the South.
Martin Luther King, leading demonstrations of black
| unemployed workers in Birmingham, ran in to tig h t f i s te d andj
i |
j |
! uncontrollable r io ts in May. I
I j
j On June 12, 1963, one of the great trag ed ies of the j
! C iv il Rights Movement occurred when Medgar Evers, a popu- j
| i
lar and in f lu e n tia l black leader, was shot to death in j
the driveway of his home in Jackson. j
In the meantime, during th is intense period of |
[ a c tiv ity in the South, the Kennedy adm inistration and
! family was continuing i t s seemingly "hallowed" reign. !
I
j
i The President v isite d B erlin in June and made a move to
|
| cast off the residue of the War and the Holocaust.
| Standing in the symbolic shadow of the B erlin Wall, he
spoke these words: "All free men, wherever they may live,:
! are citizen s of B erlin. And, th e re fo re , as a fre e man, I
take pride in the words ’Ich bin ein B e r l i n e r .’"
I In the meantime, the L e f tis t Progressive Labor Party,!
known as PL, organized another student t r i p to Cuba. Many
went and many were subpoenaed by H UA C on th e ir re tu rn .
77
The climax of the summer months occurred in Washing-
j ton, B.C., however, in a massive m obilization of C iv il
i R ights' advocates. Northerners heretofore active only
j vocally had th e ir chance to "stand up." I t was the
la rg e st gathering ever held in the United S tates to th at
| date. Two hundred thousand people had come from a l l over
the country to march to the Washington Memorial. I t
i was a fe s tiv e event and a joyous one, but i t was also
| deeply serious. A ll of the major leaders of the Move-
I i
! i
ment, both black and white, were th e re . Joan Baez sang, j
j |
| her pure voice sustaining dignity over the quiet dignity j
I ;
| of the crowds. But the highlight of the afternoon was j
! I
| the words of the already legendary preacher from Georgia, !
| i
! Martin Luther King, in a speech th a t would long su stain
] the movement he helped to in sp ire , haunting the complacent!
i with i t s c r y s ta l-c le a r vision:
I :
| . . . I have a dream th a t one day th is nation w ill
! r is e up, liv e out the tru e meaning of i t s creed :
"W e hold these tru th s to be se lf-e v id e n t, th a t
a l l men are created equal." I have a dream th at
one day on the red h i l l s of Georgia sons of
former slaves and the sons of former sla v e
owners w ill be able to s i t down together at
the ta b le of brotherhood...1 have a dream th a t
j my four children w ill one day liv e in a nation
I where they w ill not be judged by the color of
th e i r skin but by the content of th e ir charac-
I t e r . . .
| Along with th is event and i t s symbolically peaceful |
crowd, joining together to sing, "W e s h a ll overcome,"
another happening in the same month gave yet more hope to j
7S
the American people, yet more promise for the fu tu re .
The United S ta te s , the Soviet Union, and Great B rita in
| signed a tre a ty th a t would do away with a l l nuclear
j te s tin g save for th a t done underground. So then, i t was
i
I a quiet summer, a summer of soul, and i t gave l i t t l e
| preparation for the autumn th at would follow, or fo r the
| long, hot summers of the next few years.
Immediate upon the change of seasons, an event j
occurred which shocked the natio n , confronting them with
the insidious s ta te of violence s t i l l pervasive in the
j
Deep South, regardless of the "promise" of Washington i
and the "dream" of King and his follow ers. In Birming
ham, four l i t t l e black g ir ls died in the dynamiting of
i
the l6th S tre e t B aptist Church.
In the meantime, in Selma, the tense s itu a tio n be-
j
| tween blacks and SNCC workers and the forces of S h eriff
| Jim Clark continued to build. By October, 300 had been
I
! a rre ste d . Again, the fed eral government had faile d to
i
intervene e ffe c tiv e ly . C iv il R ig h ts’ workers were working
toward Freedom Day, October 7th. In Alabama, one did not
ju st r e g is t e r , one made out an extremely complicated
i questionnaire which was only an ap p licatio n to r e g i s t e r ,
i This could be done only on two days of the month, and '
j
th ere was no guarantee th a t one's ap p licatio n would be |
accepted. Part of the task of workers was to tr a in blacks!
79
in filling out these lengthy and difficult questionnaires.
Part of the training was also in patience and endurance*
j for* by October* the lines were hours long* and the threat
! i
| of violence was always imminent. Many leaders were on |
| the spot for Freedom Day: Dick Gregory* James Baldwin*
I
| Jim Forman were there. Howard Zinn* by then a researcher
| of the Movement* wrote in his on-the-spot journal that:
| "Nothing in the Deep South was more dangerous to public !
! i
| order* it seemed* than a line of Negro citizens trying to I
j J
! register to vote"(1965* p. 155). The day was one of j
j i
S terrible strain and testing. Clark arrested many for !
| j
unlawful assembly. Pleas by Forman to the federal j
government were ignored. Justice Department lawyers and j
FBI men who had come down stood by impotently and in
actively. Blacks had to stand in lines for hours without ’
eating. Attempts of workers to bring food to the lines
were often met with violence. Yet* the blacks persisted*
! and the workers stood by in support* and the ritualized
j singing of "We shall overcome" took place that night at a ;
I vast church meeting.
! Another significant feature of these autumn months
was that the force of the movement in the South finally
inspired action in the North. Jesse Gray led rent strikes
in the Harlem district where families were urged to refuse
to pay rent to slumlords in sub-standard housing. They
. . . . . . . j
80
picketed City H all to force owners to f u l f i l l the Housing
Codes, and they were upheld in th e ir p ro te s t. The courts
ruled th a t the tenants had the rig h t to withhold rent
because of hazardous housing conditions. Sim ilar strik e s
were organized in Newark and in San Francisco with some
degree of success.
Folk-singers in Greenwich V illage wrote much of th e ir
m aterial around the C iv il Rights Movement, Bobby Dylan, a
young friend of Joan Baez, published a song called "Blowin’
in the Wind," which would la te r be considered the genesis
of the marriage of pop-rock music with so c ia l issues.
Joan Baez refused to pay th a t portion of her income j
tax which was given to defense funds, and would continue j
to do so in years to come. In England, a new rock group j
created a sensation with a song called "She Loves You."
At th is early stage in th e ir career, th e Beatles were
known for lig h t, inconsequential music. Within the next
few years, however, they, too, would begin to wield
tremendous impact on the "heads" of th e ir fans by using
th e ir music as so c ia l and p o l i t i c a l "propaganda."
Meanwhile, as e le c tio n month approached in the
South, a c t i v i t y grew more rampant. In southwest Georgia,
several C iv il Rights workers were charged with "conspiracy"
and " in s u rre c tio n ." In M ississippi, SNCC and CORE spon
sored "Freedom Vote," and 80,000 blacks voted for an |
81
integ rated g ubernatorial t i c k e t .
In la te autumn, SDS was also broadening i t s commu-
I n ity project perspective in the North. Modelling i ts
own organizational plans around the lines of SNCC in the
I South, students in the Economic Research and Action Project
I (ERAP) began to operate in several large Northern c i t i e s .
| By th is time in 1963, i t was obvious th a t the zeal
i |
i of both adults and students was optimal. Despite tremen- j
i
dous te s tin g and despite the lag between actio n and j
re s u lta n t change, idealism and hope had remained the j
I
I
dominant sta te s of mind. The committed s t i l l f e l t they
i
I could and would succeed, they were "hanging in th e re ."
i " ~ ~ — — — —
I
| Their dedication seemed to magnetize others to th e ir !
i
| causes.
! i
| Then, on November 22, 1963, perhaps the most impor
ta n t event in the decade, in terms of i t s l i t e r a l and
symbolic value, took place in D allas, Texas, during a
i
! c o lo rfu l and fe s tiv e parade. Having refused suggestions
I th a t he ride in a "bubble-top limousine, the young P re si-
i dent Kennedy was fire d on and assassin ated . Blood stained
; the fashionable pink dress of the usually immaculate
j I
i Jackie, and these blood s ta in s were seen again and again iri
i newspaper pictures of the 2k hour period to follow. She
j ,
j wore, for instance, the same stained garments during the
| in - f l ig h t swearing-in of Lyndon Johnson. Americans would
82
never forget these blood s ta in s . They would also remain
haunted by the immediately-ensuing, bizarre events of the
next few days : the a r r e s t of a young, Communist-connected
worker, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was alleged to have shot
the President from a book depository; and the subsequent
murder, captured live on te le v is io n , of Oswald by an ardent
admirer of the P re s id e n t's , Jack Ruby.
Within the space of a few days, the magic of Camelot j
was replaced by an unbelievably harsh r e a l i t y . Broad- j
ca ste rs reported th a t Speaker of the House, John McCor
mack, on receiving the news, asked: "M y God, my God, i
j
what are we coming to?" On W TOP (Washington, November 2*1, !
i
1983), Daniel Moynihan reported a conversation with
!
Washington S tar columnist Mary McGrory: "(She) said to me
th a t w e 'll never laugh again. And I said, 'Heavens, Mary.
W e'll laugh again. I t ' s ju st th a t w e 'll never be young
a g a in .'" James Reston wrote in the New York Times
(November 2 3, 1963) : "America wept to n ig h t, not alone for
i t s dead young P resident, but for i t s e l f . The g rie f was
general, for somehow the worst in the nation had prevailed :
over the best1 1 (p. 1).
For the moment, "the worst in the nation" had "pre
vailed over the b e st." And from th is moment onward,
!
idealism and hope and p ro test with optimism would be
i
p a r tia lly blemished by doubt and fear and the need for !
33
explanation. The assa ssin a tio n of Kennedy had caused to
surface great currents of violence and unrest and ques
tioning as to the tru e nature of "Camelot." In th is one
i
I a c t , every American was somehow moved into an intim ate
| connection with e th ic a l and p r a c tic a l questions almost too
: basic to v erb alize. I t is for th is reason th at I separate
| th is period from th a t which followed, because chance and
| I
j history seemed to unite in the a ssa ssin a tio n to cause j
; |
j an unpredicted turning-point for the American people.
; Although the C iv il Rights Movement and many other move
ments which emerged in the S ix tie s were to continue, more I
i
violent ta c tic s and s tra te g ie s would be en te rta in e d , and |
stronger a ttitu d e s and fru s tra tio n s would develop.
! Insofar as the American student was concerned, i
! i
; j
I Richard Flacks (1972) joins me in my opinion th a t, through
! 1963, r e la tiv e ly small groups of stu d en ts, mostly with
i
; p a c if is ti c o rie n ta tio n s , had become involved in causes
: which I have shown were customarily organized and led by
1 a d u lts. SDS remained a small organization, but an optim is-
j :
t i c one, representing the hope of the New Left th a t the
I e l i t i s t power of the few could be sh ifted to the hands of
; the many. SNCC, by the end of 1963, had s ig n ific a n tly
| increased i t s s ta f f in the South to approximately 150 i
! workers, ^1 of those in M ississippi. Eighty percent (80$)
of the workers were black, however, at th is time, from
84
poor fam ilies, but having some college education them
selves. The M ississippi organization gives some idea of
I the demography involved. T h irty -fiv e were black, with 25
| of these from the Deep South; six were white, with two of
! those from the Deep South. Therefore, there were few
I whites involved through 1 9 6 3. Only 26 of the workers
i in th is group were college-educated. The importance of
youth to the SNCC e ffo rt was indicated by the fac t th a t !
1
29 were from 15-22 years of age, 12 from 2 2 -2 9 years of j
i
age, and only four were between 30-50. I t is important ■
j
to note th a t, despite the tremendous e ffe c t of SNCC in j
the South, the core of workers had remained sm all, save j
for surges of in te re s t on the occasion of periodic
demonstrations where there were supportive e ffo rts by
! students both in the North and in the South. The d is tin c - 1
I ;
| tio n between constant p a rtic ip a tio n and occasional
|
| supportive e ffo rt i s , I f e e l, a highly sig n ific a n t one,
i
i e s s e n tia l to th is d is s e r ta tio n . I t is about the small,
j
committed group of students th a t Zinn wrote: "For the
| f i r s t time in our h isto ry , a major so c ia l movement,
shaking the nation to i t s bones, is being led by youngsters"
(p. 1), and "To be with th e m ...is to fe e l the presence
! of greatness"(p. 2 ). S im ilarly , i t is to the deeply
| 1
committed th a t Jacobs and Landau ( 1966) give cre d it in
th is statem ent:
85
What SNCC and to a le sser extent SDS have done
is to r ip away the formal and often meaningless
phrases used by the academics and the government
to describe American democracy. Democracy,
| according to SNCC, cannot be d ilu te d . E ither
I the people decide, with r e a l choices and the
S resources to make these choices, or democracy
| is a fraud, (p. 2 5)
! By the end of 1963* America had been given the vision of
j
; a renaissance of Utopian democracy on the one hand, while
| faced simultaneously with the th re a t of i t s desecration.
i
| For a short period, i t had cu ltiv a ted pure-form idealism
I
and diminished cynicism. Concurrently, a new species
of s o c io -p o litic a l activism was bred, and spread rap id ly .
But because of the glaring paradox between the vision and
the continuity of r e a l i t y , the period ahead was doomed
to be one which would spawn doubt, f r u s tr a tio n , and
irre so lu tio n as to the most viable form of ac tio n .
L
CHAPTER 2
1964 - 1967: DOUBTs FRUSTRATION
AND STIRRINGS OF MILITANCY
At the beginning of 1964, the new President Johnson
| announced his hopes and plans for what he called "The
Great S ociety." This conception was c le a rly rela ted to
the vision of the Kennedy adm inistration, yet was even
1
more sp e c ific and focal in regards to domestic a f f a i r s . j
| i
For the f i r s t time in the n a tio n 's h is to ry , for instance, j
I
there were to be a ll-o u t attacks on such problems as
water p o llu tio n and the decay of urban se cto rs. I n itia lly ^
Johnson was able to successfully "re-turn on" a nation
which desperately wanted to "believe again" following the j
shock of the fin a le of 1963.
1
!
| Johnson seemed, in th is f i r s t th r u s t, to be dedicated
I to problem-solving and to quick, e f f ic ie n t action and
|
! decision. The President announced early in February, for
! instance, his "War on Poverty." Was th is in any way
| re la te d to the staggering accusations of Michael Harring-
| ton ( 1963) who wrote th a t there were two nations called j
i I
America:
There (e x ists) another America. In i t (are)
somewhere between *10,000*000 and 5 0*000*000
c itiz e n s of th is la n d ...T o be sure* the other
America is not impoverished in the same sense
as those poor nations where m illions clin g to
hunger as a defense against sta rv a tio n . This
does not change the fa c t th a t m illions of
Americans are* at th i s very moment* maimed in
body and s p ir it* ex istin g in levels beneath
those necessary for human decency, (p. 9)
In the meantime, the C iv il Rights Movement continued
; to spread in the North. Early in the year* CORE spon-
i sored a school boycott in New York City to p ro test £e
i
I facto segregation* and 500*000 students stayed home.
| The c ity government announced immediately various plans
i
| for in te g ra tio n such as bussing, e tc . In San Francisco*
th ere were s i t - i n s at the Sheraton Palace Hotel which
j re su lte d in the end of a tr a d itio n of desegregation in a llj
' i
; large hotels of th a t c ity . One hundred and sixty-seven
were arrested in th is e f f o r t .
At the same time* white students grew more active
| in the Southern movement with the Southern Students Or-
; ganization Commission (SS0C) formed in A tlanta for white
| students working in c i v i l rig h ts .
S ig n ifica n t were the beginnings of p ro te st in new
| "areas" of American l i f e as represented by such acts as
i the opening of the San Francisco "New School" to provide
"rad ic al education." This school would la te r be taken
over by SDS members.
38
In March, 1 9 ^ , a well-known leader of the Black
Muslim re lig io u s group broke with his former head, E lijah
Muhammed, and entered the arena of s o c io p o litic a l p ro test
by announcing the foundation of a black n a tio n a lis t
party. The most s ig n ific a n t facto r in th is move was
Malcolm’s scorn for the nonviolent premises on which the
c i v i l rig h ts movement had been b u ilt (Malcolm X, 1965).
Before his death, Malcolm would be recognized as the
chief influence in a growing tendency toward m ilitancy on
the part of blacks who were learning, through his teach- j
j
ings, to take pride in themselves, in th e ir ethnic back- j
grounds, and to openly loose th e ir hatred for white racism
in America. Malcolm had a powerful voice and was out- j
spoken in i l l u s t r a t i n g both his goals and his t a c t i c s .
In A p ril, for instance, speaking before the M ilitant Labor;
Forum, he s t a t e d : " it was stones yesterday, Molotov
c o c k tails today; i t w ill be hand grenades tomorrow and
whatever else is av a ila b le the next day. You should
not fe e l th a t I am in c itin g someone to violence. I ’m
only warning of a powder keg s itu a tio n . You can take i t
or leave i t . "
In th is same year, a new book by Marshal McLuhan,
Understanding Media, was published, showing again the
vast influence of media on human beings who were, in many
instances, described as passive rece iv ers, unexpecting,
89
or u n c arin g v e h ic le s .
In April and May, growing student radicalization was
exhibited in meetings at Yale by some 400 students from
21 New England colleges. The meetings were held to dis
cuss the role of the radical in America. Every socialist
i
group e x i s t e n t a t t h a t tim e p a r t i c i p a t e d . The New L e f t ,
as i t was now c a l l e d , was mushrooming. Out of t h i s
symposium, PL and o th e r more m i l i t a n t l e f t i s t groups !
organized th e May 2nd Movement a t New Haven t o e s t a b l i s h
e f f e c t i v e s tu d e n t p r o t e s t a g a in s t th e g ra d u a lly (but
[
s w if t l y ) growing war in Vietnam. j
In A p r i l , CORE blocked t r a f f i c t o th e opening of th e
New York W orld's P a ir d e s p ite an In ju n c tio n from th e
C ourts t o p r o h i b it t h i s . T his was a n o th e r p r o t e s t ag ain stj
de f a c t o s e g re g a tio n in New ¥ork c i t y . The N orthern
movement was growing as p r o t e s t s spread t o autom obile
d e a l e r s h i p s , th e b u ild in g t r a d e s , and o th e r b u siness
e s ta b lis h m e n ts . At th e same tim e , N orthern churches
were becoming more a c t iv e and th e N a tio n a l C ouncil of
Churches s e t up o f f i c e s in th e M is s is s ip p i D e lta . The
same s p r in g , PL 's S tu dent Committee f o r T ra v e l t o Cuba
announced an o th e r t r i p t o Cuba, f u r t h e r bonding New
L e f t i s t s ( in p a r t i c u l a r , members of SDS) t o th e Cuban
C a s t r o i t e s .
90
The legend of Kennedy and what F. S c o tt F itz g e r a ld
would have c a lle d th e "good1 gone days" continued t o be
prom ulgated. As te sta m e n t t o t h i s phenomenon, Tom Wicker
1 i
| wrote (E s q u ir e , June, 196*1) th e fo llo w in g : j
Six months a f t e r h is d e a th , John F. Kennedy is
c e r t a i n t o ta k e h is p la c e in American lo re as
one of th o se s u r e - s e l l heroes out of whose f a t e
or words or monuments a sou v en ir d e a le r can
! tu r n a stead y buck. There he soon w i l l stand
perhaps in our l i f e t i m e — cold sto n e or h e a r t
le s s bronze, imm ortal as J e f f e r s o n , rev ered as
i L in c o ln , b lo o d le ss as W ashington. (In : Hayes,
| 1970, pp. 31-32)
!
j This e x h ib i t io n of th e need f o r "mythic h e ro e s" and
! th e a b i l i t y t o c r e a te such myths p o s s ib ly began w ith th e
! JFK "syndrome" but would be f a s t follow ed by o th e r
| in s ta n c e s of martyrdom in th e next few y e a r s . The summer I
i -
I of 196*1 would p ro vide a d e f i n i t e " c o n trib u tio n " t o t h i s |
| s m a ll, but h ig h ly i n f l u e n t i a l , group.
i I
| I n June* th e N a tio n a l C ouncil of Churches in co- |
| !
| sp o n so rsh ip w ith SNCC held o r i e n t a t i o n se s s io n s in Oxford,
I M is s is s ip p i, f o r th e l a r g e s t c o n c e n tra te d move of N orthern
I
| v o lu n te e r s tu d e n ts t o the Deep South in th e s h o rt h i s t o r y ,
| of th e C i v i l R ig h ts Movement. D irec ted by Bob Moses, th e
; ta s k s of th e "Snick k id s" would be t o run freedom s c h o o ls,
j h e lp b u ild up th e M is s is s ip p i Freedom Dem ocratic P a rty ,
i and r e g i s t e r b lack v o te r s . This would be the f i r s t g re a t i
| in f lu x of N orthern w h ite , m id d le -c la s s youth t o th e h e a r t :
| of th e C i v i l R ig h ts s t r u g g l e . They came in hundreds and j
seemed t o be rea d y f o r "any thing. " -------- * - --------- -...... -J
91
On June 1 7th , James Forman, s t i l l c e n t r a l t o th e move
ment, i l l u s t r a t e d the awareness w ith which one continued
th e f ig h t in the South (New York Tim es) , "l may be k i l l e d
)
| and you may be k i l l e d . I f you reco g n ize t h a t , th e q u e stio n
t
j of whether w e 're put in j a i l or not w i l l become v e ry , very
im in u te"(p . 3 ).
I Feuer spoke of a " w ill t o m artyrdom "( 1 9 6 9, p. 399)
i
! as apply in g t o th e growing s tu d e n t involvement in t h i s
| movement.
Howard Zinn summarized th e deep sense of i n t e n t i o n a l i -
t y in th e im plosion of workers t o th e S outh: j
. . . t h e y are th e most s e rio u s s o c i a l fo rc e in j
th e n a tio n tod ay . They a re not p la y in g : i t is
no c a u s a l a c t of d e fia n c e , no i r r e s p o n s i b le i
whim of a d o le sc en c e, when young people of s i x
te e n or twenty or tw e n ty -fiv e t u r n away from
sc h o o l, job, fam ily , a l l th e tokens of success
in modern America, to ta k e up new l i v e s , hungry I
and h un ted, in th e h i n te r la n d of th e Deep South.
(1965, P. 5)
| Zinn a s s e r t s a g ain and a g ain t h a t th e s e a c ts of :
s a c r i f i c e under tremendous t h r e a t and d e p r iv a tio n could
|o n ly be i n d ic a tiv e of t r u e commitment. He quotes Jane
jS te n b rid g e , a w hite g i r l from V i r g i n ia , who was one of th e ;
i
; o r i g i n a l SNCC o rg a n iz e rs :
. . . F i n a l l y i t a l l b o ils down t o human r e l a t i o n
s h ip s . I t has n o th in g to do f i n a l l y w ith
I governments. I t is th e q u e stio n o f ...w h e th e r I
| s h a l l go on l iv i n g in i s o l a t i o n or whether t h e r e j
i s h a l l be a we. The s tu d e n t movement is not a
c a u s e . . . I t i s an I am going t o s i t b e sid e you. . . i
j Love alone i s r a d i c a l . P o l i t i c a l sta te m e n ts a re i
| _ n o t; even going t o j a i l i s n o t . . . (p. 7) _ _ _ _ !
92
This dev otion to "the group" or " c o l l e c t i v e we" would
become a m otif in th e way of l i f e of th e Snick kids in th e
i S o uth, would be ta k e n up by many SDS members who would
| move to communes, and would l a t e r be a m ajor tendency and
| i d e a l in th e youth c o u n t e r - c u l t u r e . This does n ot mean
I t h a t "race" was f o r g o t te n . On th e c o n tr a r y , i t was o fte n
| emphasized. W hites were urged not t o p re te n d th e y were
i
| black or t o ro m a n tic iz e being b lack. There were some
| i n t e r r a c i a l m arriages w ith in th e movement, but p e rs o n a l
| i d e n t i t y and e th n ic background were s t r e s s e d above a l l .
This s t r a i n would c o n tin u e i n to the n a t i o n a l i s t i c move- |
I
I ments t h a t would l a t e r d evelop . As Jacobs and Landau ( 1 9 6 6)
|
po in ted o u t: "Unlike th e M a rx is t-L e n in is t vanguard p a rty
1 ■
i v i s i o n , the SNCC ethos d o e s n 't assume i t knows what is
j *
1 good f o r th e peo p le. I t would r a t h e r h e lp people to
j ^
org an ize around t h e i r needs.” (p. 1 7) j
: In June, 196^, th r e e SNCC workers disap p eared out of
; M eridian, M is s is s ip p i. T his was th e opening event of a
- sequence which would l a t e r r e p r e s e n t th e g r e a t e s t tra g e d y
; of th e summer and which would be in s tr u m e n ta l in th e
; g ra d u a l s h i f t of a fo rm erly u n f lic h in g s p i r i t of optimism
I m aintained f o r so long by SNCC i n t o doubt and f r u s t r a t i o n . 1
I The t h r e e boys, Michael Schw erner, Andrew Goodman, and
1 :
| James Chaney (Chaney th e only black) were a r r e s t e d on the
| ;
|highway on a supposed t r a f f i c c h a rg e . They had been
93
subjected to harassment and th re a ts previously. After
th e i r disappearance, they were not found u n t i l August,
! when they were discovered in graves h a s tily dug near
; P hiladelphia, M ississippi. Chaney had been beaten badly;
I the others had been shot. Schwerner was one of the leading
; I
workers of th a t area, and, aware of danger, he had un-
| successfully requested fe d e ra l protection for weeks. The
| t r a i l to the k ill e r s led to 17 men, many of them law
i i
i enforcement o f fic e r s . A ll of them would, a f te r t r i a l , |
| i
eventually go fre e . Nonetheless, these th ree deaths would :
i
be highly symbolic to youth in the movement and to youth j
i
I ]
| who would be moved to jo in , angered and motivated by th is j
i |
| tragedy. At the Democratic Convention, large posters with i
| pictures of the boys waved over the flo o r.
! Nonetheless, Freedom Summer was not in vain. By
| August 2*Jth, 60,000 black r e g is tra n ts had poured into
| Jackson. Northern "novices" had also stuck i t through
| beatings, ja ilin g s , and constant th r e a t.
i Furthermore, the morale boost to Southern blacks had
been s ig n ific a n t. The freedom schools and the dignity
' with which they had been tre a te d infused in them e n tire ly
j new a ttitu d e s which Aaron Henry, President of the Mississip,-
I pi NAACP, once described as fo llo w s:
There has been a re-evaluation of our slave
philosophy th a t permitted us to be s a tis fie d
with the le fto v ers a t the back door ra th e r than
demand a f u l l serving at the family dinner i
ta b le . (C itation in: Bowen, 1970)
Northerners were impressed at the in flu x of afflu en t
i young people into the South, and rep o rters followed the
i
| event clo sely , many of them on the spot. Two of them,
j Paul and Geoffrey Cowan, wrote le t t e r s to th e ir s i s t e r ,
j Holly, th a t summer. Some of these were published in
| Esquire (September, 196*1). Here are excerpts:
| N aturally the rep o rters a l l ask us the same I
| questions: why are you here. (Nicholas) Von j
Hoffman.. .to ld me th a t the SNCC press o ffice had j
boasted th a t my fath er was once president of !
CBS. The group of students also includes a j
Bingham, a Bundy, and a Schlesinger. (In: !
Hayes, 1970, p. 58*}) 1
i I
Previously, the m ilieu of the movement had la rg e ly been ;
j
I comprised of middle and lower-middle class people, i
I !
! mostly black. The changing "pattern" was, however, I
j J
! perhaps in some cases an indication of what many would
1
| claim to be white g u i l t , a purging of conscience by the
| more prosperous white via dedication to one of several
j
I causes.
Other sig n ific a n t events, unrelated to the C iv il
Rights Movement, also happened during the summer. On
; August *lth, in a reactio n to highly-confused reports by
I the Navy th a t North Vietnamese had attacked two U.S. ;
j |
! destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson authorized |
i :
! bombing of North Vietnam. The Senate supported him because
of the Tonkin incident. A H arris p o ll taken a t th is time
! also showed th a t 85% of the nation approved the bombing.
I t was obvious by th is time th a t what had begun as
i "containment" as fa r back as 195^ was now a ll-o u t war,
i despite the fact th e re had been no formal d eclaration of
| same. Yet, at th is p o in t, the nation s t i l l remained with
| Johnson.
In September, the long-awaited Warren Commission j
: I
reporting on the Kennedy assassin a tio n indicated th e ir j
i j
consensus th at Lee Harvey Oswald had acted for himself j
! !
i and th at there had been no conspiracy, e ith e r by Left or
Right forces, in the tra g ic death. j
I
| Then, in the same month, the Berkeley campus, which j
j |
had been the scene of the e a r l i e s t student p ro tests in
the decade, became the seat of major confrontations be-
| tween students, ad m in istratio n , and p o lice. Feuer points
j
| out th at Berkeley was perhaps the top campus in the country
|
| at th is tim e, having been awarded the Alexander Meiklejohn ;
P rize for i t s "advances and ste a d fast adherence to academic
I freedom" ju st the previous Spring.
Feuer d ire c tly trac es the p attern of reactions of
; Berkeley students to the three deaths in Meridian, which
j "had become the symbol of the martyrdom of the American
| !
! student volunteer"(p. *133).
The c a ta ly st for the b irth of the Berkeley Free Speech
Movement (and, concurrently, for the on-campus p rotest
96
| movement of the s ix tie s and seventies) seemed to be the
move by the Administration at th a t school to set lim its
I on student p o l i t i c a l a c tiv ity . Despite the r e s t r i c t i o n s ,
! |
j many campus organizations immediately defied the ban.
i Police arrested a member of CORE, but the police car was
l surrounded by thousands in a spontaneous 3 2-hour demonstra-
i
! tio n .
In addition to i t s sta tu re as a great u n iv e rsity ,
| the community of Berkeley provided a kind of off-campus
| Bohemia wherein in te lle c tu a ls , "stre e t people," p oets, j
I and so c ia lly -a lie n a te d of a l l ages existed in a highly |
| stimulated and stim ulating environment of intense exchange
j of ideas and fe e lin g s. This "hidden community" would
i !
provide support for the Free Speech Movement in i t s growth;
1 and would frequently make student p a rtic ip a tio n in a c tiv i-:
| tie s seem larger than i t ac tu ally was.
j The new FSM was also largely comprised of students
i
| (at le a s t in its leadership) who had "seen service" in
I the C iv il Rights Movement; many of them had become
" a lien a ted ," researchers would la te r claim. Showing th is
: brand of despair is an early statement by leader Mario
Savio: !
This is the motive power of the student movement;
I thought about i t and my own involvement when
| I went to M ississippi where I could be k ill e d ,
j M y reasons were s e lf is h . I wasn’t re a lly a l i v e . J
i M y l i f e , my m iddle-class l i f e , had no place in
| so ciety , nor i t in me. I t was not r e a lly a j
j 97
j
I matter of fig h tin g for c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts .
I needed some way to pinch myself, to assure
myself th a t I was a liv e . Now we w ill have to
break down the fic tio n of the separation of
j student and c itiz e n . (Savio, ItyoH)
| Detailed analyses of the development and h isto ry of the
FSM are to be found in Peuer ( 1969)3 Hampden-Turner (1970),
! Jacobs and Landau (1966), and Lipset and Wolin (1965). As
! the f i r s t massive on-campus student r e v o lt, the Berkeley
I movement received tremendous a tte n tio n from so c ia l and
j p o l i t i c a l s c ie n ti s ts . Descriptions of personality
c h a ra c te ris tic s , values, and motivations of the o rig in a l
; p a rtic ip a n ts are to be found in many sources but are not
j
the focal concern of th is present discussion.
The f i r s t phase of the FSM took up the e n tire f a l l
term at Berkeley, but the Movement i t s e l f la ste d , in !
1 various forms, through 1966, Demonstrations took place
| almost every day in the F a ll of 196*1, and what i n i t i a l l y
: began with a few hundred students fluctuated in p a r t i c i -
; pation to over a thousand. The leaders were arrested for
various infringements over and over again, and much of
j :
i the a c tiv ity of th is early phase consisted of asking th at
the leaders be freed. The C alifornia Monthly chronology
of th is three-month period is included in Lipset and
! Wolin’s document (1965) and c le a rly demonstrates the
I manner in which adm inistration or police action would
immediately re s u lt in student reaction. This "chain"
became known as the "Berkeley invention" (Scranton, 1970)
and established a p attern which would la s t through the many
years of campus dissent (Bell & K ris to l, 1 9 6 9; Reich, 1970;
Roszak, 1969; Scranton, 1970). As Feuer analyzes th is
p a ttern , i t was a d irec t re s u lt of the experience in the
South by many of the FSM leaders, and the imprinting of j
the events of the South on the follow ers. Formerly j
"friendly campus cops" were now seen symbolically as "Mis- j
s is s ip p i sh e riffs and deputies" and the student became I
the "oppressed black."
In October, 196*1, following the f i r s t police and
student encounter over the a rre s t of the CORE member, other!
s i t - i n s and demonstrations were held, protesting the re
s t r ic tio n on free speech. In a l l of these Incidents, the
ta c tic s of the C iv il Rights Movement were u til iz e d , and
i t was soon clear th a t th is was the f i r s t mass student
movement to use d ire c t action to change the p olicies of a
u n iv e rsity adm inistration. A ll through the f a l l months,
negotiations were held between Savio, other student
leaders, and the Administration. On November 20, a mass
student r a lly was led by Joan Baez on Sproul Hall steps
with 3j 000 students marching to the lawn near the building
where the Regents met. Highly influenced by the students,
the Regents recommended d isc ip lin e for only a few students ;
involved in the Movement, but also moved for more lib e r a l
policy toward student p o l i t i c a l actio n . The students
were not, however, s a tis fie d with what they had been
granted, continued to hold r a l l i e s , and to announce th a t
| strong FSM movements were aliv e on other campuses of the
’ U niversity of C alifornia and th a t there would soon be
| statewide action.
On December 1 st, the FSM issued an ultimatum which, !
!
i f not s a tis f ie d , would lead to a s tr ik e of the teaching |
! a s s is ta n ts . They asked for three requests:
| 1. That d isc ip lin a ry action against c e rta in FSM
| leaders from the early October actions be i
I dropped. I
I ;
! Present ru les on p o l i t i c a l speech be revised j
| so th a t only the courts reg u la te the content j
j of p o l i t i c a l speech. A ll regulations which j
| "unnecessarily r e s t r i c t " p o l i t i c a l a c tiv ity j
! be repealed.
j :
| 3. The Administration re fra in from fu rth er
| d isc ip lin in g of students or organizations
| for p o l i t i c a l a c tiv ity .
i
| They threatened d irec t action if th e ir requests were not
; met within hours. They were answered by the ASUC
; Senate in a challenge. Senate members resolved th a t since
there had obviously been progress toward the granting of
1 on-campus p o l i t i c a l r ig h ts , "The ASUC Senate draws the
i in e v ita b le conclusion th a t the FSM no longer has the
extension of on-campus p o l i t i c a l rig h ts as i t s goal, and
th a t i t s present plans for c i v i l disobedience are directed ;
j
| so lely toward meaningless harassment of the U niversity."
100
The Senate asked th a t a l l "responsible students" decry
the s i t - i n by nonparticipation and that fa cu lty recognize
| th e i r re sp o n s ib ility to the u n iv e rsity and i t s students
i and continue to teach.
In immediate reaction* 1*000 students* faculty* and
j community people took over Sproul Hall* packing i t s four
I floors* following a huge r a lly at which Mario Savio made
i
what la te r became a c la ssic statem en t:
There is a time when the operation of the
! machine becomes so odious* makes you so sick
| at heart* th at you c a n ’t take p a rt; you ca n ’t
even t a c i t l y take part* and you’ve got to put
your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels*
| upon the levers* upon a l l the apparatus and
| you’ve got to make i t stop. And you’ve got to
| in d icate to the people who run it* to the
| people who own it* th a t unless you’re fre e ,
I the machines w ill be prevented from working
| at a l l .
i
Joan Baez* who had been a constant supporter of the FSM *
j
| again stressed nonviolent ta c tics* saying: "When you go
I in* go in with love in your h e a rts ." She sang "W e S h all
! Overcome" as the demonstrators file d in to take over the
| building for as long as necessary. As the s i t - i n
developed* o ffices were closed* and employees were sent
i
i home. On December 3rd* Governor Brown gave the authority
: for Alameda County o f f ic ia l s to enter Sproul H all and
! a rre s t students. I t took 12 hours to clear the building,
j Any person was free to leave of his own accord and not be
I
| arrested* but over 800 re s is te d and were taken in. They
101
were given the choice of walking or being dragged. Most
went limp and were dragged along the ground.
The FSM had a great impact on Berkeley and on the
nation. The idea of on-campus p ro te st was born. Never
th e le s s , FSM leaders f e l t they had lo s t Round One in th e ir
stru g g le, for they were not s a tis f ie d with the lib e ra liz e d
j
ru les.
i
!
Despite the continued in sisten c e of Savio and others
th at they had fa ile d and had been su ccessfu lly put down,
I
i
they had succeeded in g ettin g Kerr and the Regents to |
approve the g reater number of th e ir demands and t h e i r j
action had resulted in the appointment of a new Acting j
j
| Chancellor. Also, as Richard Flacks explains (1972), j
| the FSM led to the rapid growth of a new student sub- |
| c u ltu re , proved to have a major e ffe c t off-campus as well
as on-campus, and catalyzed u n iv ersity "reform" across
| ;
j the United S ta te s.
I Jacobs and Landau ( 1966) describe the new le v el of
! awareness in students as the growth of the m u ltiv ersity .
; This in s t itu ti o n was a symbol of an e n tire way of l i f e ,
i well, but subtly, integrated with other Establishment
: in s t itu ti o n s . Although the u n iv e rsity had offered the
i ;
; students the choice to say much of what they wished, to
! i
I express most of th e ir opinions, th is had been allowed only :
to the point wherein i t d id n ’t " in te rfe re with the
102
| production of the educational corporation” (p. 60).
Jacobs and Landau continue th e ir analysis th a t funda-
| mentally the FSM was try in g to expose the hypocrisy in
j
| American l i f e :
The FSM re v o lt against bureaucracy was a rev o lt
j against lib e ra lism , against the rh e to ric of
freedom and democracy. I t was a rev o lt against
the inhumanity of a c tu a l American practices the
students believed were disguised by eloquent J
| cliches in the speeches of li b e r a l p o l i t i c a l |
leaders and in the w ritings of noted u n iv e rsity i
p rofessors. Throughout th e ir educational lives j
| students had heard these ideals a r tic u la te d ,
; but had watched society carry out the very j
I opposite of the id e a ls. (p. 6l) |
Many of the FSM’s e a r l i e s t advocates, though fru s tra te d ,
did not stop fig h tin g and would feed in to SDS, into
Vietnam p ro te s t, into the grape s tr ik e out of Delano. J
i
Many, however, would leave the U niversity and drop out of
i
| p o l i t i c a l p ro te st. Therefore, i t would become obvious
I
i
| th at the issue of "free speech" was a c a ta ly s t to in sp ire
j
! immediate action at Berkeley, but was more s ig n ific a n t
I as a symbol of the general p ro test which would follow
| against the lib e r a l Establishment and bureaucracy. ;
At the same time as i t would influence future move-
; ments and the growth of the subculture, many w riters
: emphasize the effe c t of the C iv il Rights Movement on i t .
| Feuer (1969) wrote th a t the student movement did not :
|
| perceive "the s tra te g ic sig n ifican ce of the merger of
i t s own generational struggle with the c i v i l rig h ts j
103
movement"(p. 335). Feuer feels th a t the C iv il Rights
Movement remained strong because i t was never completely
a student movement but gained guidance and leadership
from adult forces and* that* in a sense, the Kennedy
adm inistration "saved i t from dying" by preventing i t
from becoming violent (from mass revolutionary actio n ,
in other words).
At the same time, the C iv il Rights Movement "revealed I
th a t i t is necessary for a people concerned with lib e rty j
i
even i f they liv e in an approximately democratic s ta te , to|
t
I
create a p o l i t i c a l power which resides outside the j
p o l i t i c a l establishm ent"(Zinn, 1965* p. 220). Problems
of contemporary times have an urgency th a t cannot be
e ffe c tiv e ly dealt with by dropping a l e t t e r to one’s |
congressman.
Another sig n ific a n t fa c to r, however, in the growth
of the student uprising and in t h e i r phasing into
numerous causes other than the C iv il Rights Movement was
the lack of pro tectio n afforded movement workers in the
South during the early days of the stru g g le. Supposedly
the Executive branch of the government was basically
responsible for preserving the welfare of those who acted j
i
nonviolently and lawfully in the South, yet in action
a fte r action, they simply did not come through. Although ;
the C iv il Rights Law was passed under -Johnson in 1 9 ^ ,
104
the Irony was th at "already e x istin g c i v i l rig h ts le g is la -
| tio n was not being e ffe c tiv e ly enforced"(Zinn* 19^5,
! P. 206).
I The beatings* arrests* and hardships in the South
| continued* and those who had e a r l ie r held to nonviolent
l policy were* many of them* beginning to advocate m ili-
| tancy in the sty le of the new black n a tio n a lis t leader*
j Malcolm X * who stated in December to M ississippi youth:
| " if they make the Ku Klux Klan nonviolent* I ' l l be non-
j
! v io le n t. I f they make the White C itizens Council non-
| violent* I ' l l be non-violent. But as long as you've got
| somebody else not being nonviolent* I don't want anybody |
I !
i coming to me ta lk in g any nonviolent ta lk . Feuer fe e ls '
| that* while students were never allowed to take over the
! C iv il Rights Movement* repeated clashes with au th o rity and;
; disappointments regarding th e ir support led them to form a!
; d is tin c tiv e vector which* by 1965* "emerged in i t s advo-
| cacy of violence* g u e rilla warfare* and i t s h o s t i l i t y to
; the l ib e r a l democratic process" ( 1969* p. 430).
Furthermore* the Scranton Commission found that after;
; 1964 "students increasingly rela ted campus issues to
broader p o l i t i c a l and so c ial issues and these issues to
| one another"(1970* p. 2 9 ). This created a steady impetus!
| behind the movements of students* though one can s t i l l
question whether such factors made the a c tiv i tie s a
"student movement" per s e ,
Nonetheless, the students were surging in to activism ,
| and, at the same time, the issues were mushrooming. By
| the beginning of 1965* the d ra ft c a ll for the Vietnamese
I "c o n flic t" was 5*000 men per month. Most Americans were
!
i s t i l l behind the Johnson Adm inistration with a few iso -
| la te s lik e Wayne Morris p ro testin g s te a d ily . Johnson
!
| claimed he hadn’t sta rte d the war but wanted to stop i t
| with a so-called "v icto ry ." He evidently tr u ly believed
|
| th a t Ho Chi Minh would give in , underestim ating the j
endurance of the North Vietnamese to hold on. j
i
!
Then, in February, Malcolm X, who had only recen tly j
i
begun to soften his p o licies against whites, was a s s a s s i
nated at a meeting, purportedly by agents of his former
S leader, E lijah Muhammed. This only served to in sp ire
| fu rth e r the growth of black nationalism .
In March, 1965* led by Martin Luther King, a Freedom
March to p ro test discrim ination and plead for the rig h t to
vote got under way. The march was to tr a v e l from Selma
to the s ta te c a p ito l at Montgomery. The f i r s t march,
however, was again without protection and tr a g ic . A
m inister from Boston was k ille d . People were gassed.
! :
i 1
There were instances of beatings and police b r u ta lity . |
S tories were spread by Southern r a c is ts about the "true
; ,, I
nature of the march of sex orgies committed en route,
of Communist involvement,, and th e l i k e . The march was
e v e n tu a lly stopped by tro o p e r s g a ssin g th e p a r t i c i p a n t s .
A t t o r n e y G eneral Katzenbach claim ed he could not have
known t h a t th e Alabama tro o p e rs would behave in t h i s
manner, but given th e form er a c tio n s of S h e r i f f C la rk , manj'
found t h i s hard to b e lie v e . P r o t e s t s and marches were
held a l l over th e United S t a te s w ith thousands of a l l ages
!
p a r t i c i p a t i n g .
P r e s id e n t Johnson responded by a sk in g f o r a p a r t i c u
l a r l y s tro n g v o tin g b i l l from C ongress. He follow ed t h i s j
s e v e r a l days l a t e r by is s u in g a f e d e r a l co u rt o rd er |
p e rm ittin g a proposed second march, and g u a ra n te e in g i t |
p r o t e c ti o n by n a t i o n a l guardsmen and f e d e r a l t r o o p s . I t j
i
was th e b e st-g u ard ed c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i v i t y in th e n a t i o n ’s!
h i s t o r y .
When th e m archers completed t h e i r 52-m ile t r e k , King ;
stood on th e ste p s of th e S t a t e C a p ito l a t Montgomery and
s a i d , "A ll the world today knows we’re h ere and we’re
sta n d in g before th e fo rc e s of power, and we a i n ’t going
t o l e t nobody tu rn us a ro u n d ...w e are on th e move n o w ..." :
But a D e tr o it mother of f i v e , Mrs. V io la Liuzzo,
I
who had come w ith many from th e North t o jo in th e march,
was murdered in th e c o u n try s id e as she drove blacks back
t o Selma. The f e d e r a l government had not follow ed up th e ;
march w ith d a y -to -d ay p r o te c tio n and her k i l l e r , Leroy
107
W ilkins, a Klansman, went free a f te r a hung-jury t r i a l .
He was subsequently honored with a celebration by fellow
Klansmen. The C iv il Rights Law of 1964 had a long way to
go toward being observed in the South.
As evidence of t h i s , and in i l l u s t r a t i o n of his
feelings about the fu tu re , Governor George Wallace told a
press conference in Washington on March 13th: M I see no
i
need for any le g is la tio n . The le g is la tio n and the laws j
i
I
are already on the books." (Los Angeles Times, March 14, |
i
1965, P. 1). I
I
Jacobs and Landau w rite th a t th is culmination of
events made i t more and more d i f f i c u l t for SNCC to remain
"pure." Several new and fru s tra te d factions were being
formed. Led by newly-cynical leaders lik e Stokely Car
michael, these new elements dropped previous commitments
to nonviolence.
(He) excited SNCC's black rad icals and depressed!
many white lib e r a ls . I f the new m ilitancy in
SNCC (could) develop black power in the swelling
urban slums, i t (could) channel centuries of
discontent into the most explosive period in
American h isto ry . (Jacobs and Landau, 1966,
p. 26)
As a matter of f a c t, th a t was p recisely what was to
happen.
In March, 1965, the f i r s t teach -in focused on the J
Vietnamese War was organized at the U niversity of Michigan!,
10B
Powers (1971) describes SBS, which p a rtic ip ated in
th is e f f o r t, being at th is tim e, a "study group comprised
of e l i t i s t s and in te lle c tu a ls " ( p . k5)* ra th e r than a
genuine p o l i t i c a l organization. However, in A p ril, SDS
!
j plunged d ir e c tly into p o l i t i c a l a c tiv i ty , with a n atio n al
j march against Vietnam. Their success in bringing together
| 25,000 marchers in Washington was given tremendous press
| coverage, with many rep o rters la b e llin g th e p a rtic ip a n ts
Reds.
In May, 19^5» President Johnson moved United S tate s
so ld iers in to the Dominican Republic to "prevent a Commu
n is t takeover." P ro te s ts , although not on a large sc ale, j
were launched by rad ic als and lib e ra ls of a l l ages across j
the country. This action did great damage to the prestige:
j |
| of the P resid en t, for former supporters lik e Senator
! F ulbright and others attacked th is actio n being done in
I
| the name of so-called anti-Communist oppression. I t
| also provided a c a ta ly st for the beginning of serious
questions among the n a tio n 's lib e ra ls about Vietnam
! policy. The same month teach -in s were held across the
: nation involving such an inquiry. S tate Department repre-;
; se n tativ es were sent to them in order to defend United
| S tates policy.
In June, 19^5* in Georgia, black SNCC public relatio n ^
| d ire c to r, Julian Bond, was elected to the Georgia S tate j
109
| L e g i s l a t u r e . L a te r , however, he was re fu s e d h i s s e a t
because he endorsed SNCC’s a n ti-V ie tn a m o p p o s itio n .
! In th e same month, th e F ree U n iv e rs ity of' New York
(FUNY) was founded and im m ediately a t t r a c t e d over 200
; s t u d e n ts . I n San F r a n c is c o , SDS had tak e n over th e ad-
i m i n i s t r a t i o n of th e New S choo l.
; In J u ly , th e number of tro o p s In Vietnam was i n -
; c re a s in g r a p i d l y . P o l l s showed t h a t JOfo of th e n a tio n
j j
! s t i l l f e l t Johnson was governing e f f e c t i v e l y , however.
In A ugust, th e Assembly of U nrepresented People
| (AUUP), m ostly comprised of s tu d e n ts who were drawn from j
! a l l segments of th e New L e f t , convened f o r fo u r days in j
| W ashington, D.C. t o p re ss f o r peace in Vietnam. The
| m eetings were run w ith th e i d e a l of " p a r t i c i p a t o r y
| democracy" a t t h e i r c o re . Over 350 d em o nstrators were
! a r r e s t e d a f t e r th e need f o r a l t e r a t i o n s in te c h n iq u e s of
j c i v i l d iso b e d ie n c e had been d is c u s s e d .
! But th e most s i g n i f i c a n t event in th e summer of I 9S5
was th e f i r s t la r g e black g h e tto r i o t which to ok p lac e in
: W atts, C a l i f o r n i a , a d e s o la te a re a f o r poor b lack N o rth e rn
ers and S o uthern b la c k t r a n s i e n t s . Follow ing what W atts
: " n a tiv e s " f e l t t o be th e u n f a i r a r r e s t of a black on th e
! s t r e e t s , a group convened and v io le n c e ensued. Over th e
j i
! n ex t fo u r days, th e blacks l i t e r a l l y t r i e d to burn th e
I
| g h e tto down over t h e i r own h e a d s, r e b e l l i n g a g a in s t w h ite I
j ;
| p r o p r i e t o r s and showing l i t t l e concern t h a t t h e i r "own j
110
homes" were in v o lv ed . As th e y burned down e sta b lis h m e n ts
over a b a t t l e f i e l d of 3,000 square b lo ck s, th ey lo oted
|
| neighborhood s t o r e s , and p o lic e were seem ingly h e lp le s s
| t o sto p them. Twenty m illio n d o lla r s worth of damage was
i
done. Over 30 were k i l l e d and sco res were in ju r e d .
| Guardsmen were f i n a l l y c a lle d in , but, by t h a t tim e , th e
i c i t i z e n s of Los Angeles were, I remember, in tremendous
j f e a r , glued to t h e i r t e l e v i s i o n s e t s . Both f a c t u a l e v e n t s |
I and rumors (such as s t o r i e s about s n ip e rs roaming th e
; freeways w ith guns, th r e a te n in g w hite Los A ngeles) shook
| people so deeply out of t h e i r former s e c u r i t y th e y knew I
| !
| not whether t o b e lie v e or t o d is b e lie v e what th ey saw or j
! h e ard . What blacks were saying t o them, l i t e r a l l y and |
| sy m b o lic a lly , was t h a t th ey f e l t w hites and w hite i n s t i -
; t u t i o n s had c re a te d th e g h e tto , and th a t th e y were no
| longer a f r a i d t o p r o t e s t a g a in s t a s t a t e of being so
; deeply h u m ilia tin g . T h eir new slo g a n , "Burn, baby, burn,";
■ c o v erin g th e g h e tto w a lls , promised t h a t t h i s was j u s t
i th e beginning. F urth erm o re, they gave no re a s s u ra n c e t o
; w hites t h a t t h e i r own p ro p e rty would be more re s p e c te d
: th an th o se in th e g h e tto e s .
Bl8ck le a d e rs l ik e King sa id t h a t th e a c tio n came
out of th e deep f r u s t r a t i o n engendered by th e f a c t t h a t
| th e C i v i l R ig hts Movement, in a l l i t s c o n c e n tra te d e f f o r t , ;
I had f a i l e d to b rin g any r e a l improvement in th e liv e s of
I l l
| the mass of blacks in America. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Kenneth
| C lark had t o l d t h i s s t o r y in h is book Dark G h e tto ,
j r e le a s e d d uring t h i s same y e a r. Out of one of h is chap-
!
! t e r s , "The Cry of the G h e tto ," here a re some b la ta n t
i
! p o in te r s t o th e e x p lo sio n t h a t had come:
| A l o t of tim es when I'm working, I become as
! despondent as h e l l and I f e e l l i k e c ry in g ,
! I'm not a man, none of us a re menj I d o n 't
own a n y th in g , I'm not a man enough t o own a
| s t o r e ; none of us a r e . -Man, age about 30
! (P. 1)
| I t ’s got t o g et b e t t e r . I t c a n 't get w orse—
! i t ' s got to g e t b e t t e r , and t h e y ' l l open up.
! They have to open up because th ey w i l l fin d
them selves going down a l l over th e w orld, not
only h e re . I t ’s not j u s t us p ic k e tin g t h a t
fo rc e s them t o do t h i s ; a l l over th e world
people a re ta l k i n g about American im p e ria lism ,
and i t ' s f o r c in g them to do a l l th e s e t h i n g s . . . j
I And th e r e i s n ' t an y th in g f o r th e Man t o do but I
| begin g iv in g us an equal chance i f he wants t o ;
I save h im s e lf, because h e 's going down and w e 're ;
! th e only ones t h a t a re h o ld in g him up. -Man,
I age > 15 (P. 9)
j Yes, th e W atts r i o t and th e r i o t s i t spawned, coupled with;
| w hite fe a r and g u i l t , and i t s r e l a t e d b acklash to ld th e
i
| s to r y c l e a r l y , th a t th e C i v i l R ig h ts Movement was j u s t a
; b e g in n in g , t h a t the C i v i l R igh ts L e g i s l a t i o n had not
j changed th e deep sic k n e s s in th e c o u n try , and t h a t w hites
| and blacks both would endure a b a sic s tr u g g le u n lik e any
I w ith in t h e i r e a r l i e r l i f e " e x p e c ta tio n s ."
During th e summer, f o r in s t a n c e , the f e d e r a l a n t i -
I ;
| p overty program, P r o j e c t H e a d s ta r t, was ready t o begin in ^
j....M is s is s ip p i, fu n c tio n in g f o r some 6,000 black youth. j
112
S e n a to r S te n n is attem pted t o d e s tro y th e program by c h a r
ging i t s spo nso r, th e C hild Development Group of M i s s i s s i p
p i , with using f e d e r a l funds f o r s u b s id iz in g c i v i l r i g h t s
o r g a n iz a tio n s . The program was c le a re d a t S enate h e a rin g s I
in th e P a l l ,
In Chicago, la rg e d e m o n stra tio n s of th o u sa n d s, led
by black le a d e rs such as Dick Gregory, p r o te s te d _de f a c to
s e g re g a tio n in t h a t c i t y . He was a r r e s t e d along w ith j
many o th e r s , !
i
The a n ti-w a r movement a ls o grew throughout th e summer
|
and f a l l months, with SDS becoming more and more in v o lv e d ,|
!
and v arious members succeeding in p a ssin g a m i l i t a n t a n t i - |
d r a f t program which was m o d ified , however, before i t got I
underway. This was th e b e g in n in g , however, of f u r t i v e
d is p u te s among SDS members as t o t a c t i c s and o v e r - a l l
g o a ls .
An i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t o r in th e " l i f e - h i s t o r y " of SDS
rev o lv e s around i t s e a r ly p a r t i c i p a t i o n or n o n p a r t i c i p a ti o n
in th e fu n c tio n s of th e Vietnam Day Committee (as formed
a t B erkeley in 19^5) or in s i m il a r fu n c tio n s of Committees
t o End th e War.
The Berkeley VDC had c a lle d f o r th e 1 st i n t e r n a t i o n a l ;
l e v e l days of p r o t e s t to be in O ctober, I 9S5 . This would
be the f i r s t major a n ti-w a r d em o n stra tio n held in many
lo c a le s sim u lta n e o u sly . The Assembly of U nrepresented
113
People endorsed this call in August. SDS* however*
specifically refused to take leadership in the anti-war
movement* at least in terms of supporting the VBC through
its national office. Though many SDS members across the
nation would participate through individual choice* the
restraint from active leadership would be seen by many
New Leftists at the time and in retrospect as a grave
error on the part of SDS.
At this point young people and adults in the Trotsky
ist groups (YSA and SWP) began taking a leading role in |
the anti-Vietnam war movement* pushing for immediate
withdrawal and influencing other leftist groups to ;
concentrate on the issue of the War. j
Members of the New Left were from groups such as
the YSA (American Trotskyists)., SDS., SNCC., FDS., the
DuBois Clubs* etc. Together* students in these groups
(in particular* SDS members) were beginning to call them- :
selves "The Movement." Jacobs and Landau write that*
although these student groups were fragmented and "rest
lessly seeking to find a new politics and a new ideology”
(1966* p. 7)a there were definite commonalities existent
among them:
The leitmotifs that dominate The Movement extend:
far beyond politics...to be in The Movement is
to search for a psychic community in which one's!
identity can be defined* social and personal
relationships based on love can be established
and can grow* unfettered by the cramping pressures
114
of the cancers and life styles so characteristic
of America today. (p. )
According to these authors, most members were
actually anti-ideological and, despite their socialist
roots, were not well versed in Marxism, which would
eventually result in their cut-off from older radical
groups. They emphasized communal life, openness in both
public and private arenas, and an elimination of tradition
al ideas of leadership and hierarchies in organization.
Powers (1971) in his description of SDS also concurs
with this sketch. One can conclude, therefore, that,
with their emphasis in changes of values and life-styles,
and their inability to establish any coherent ideology,
they also helped to support a new counterculture.
Another body of American youth, though supportive of many
of the sociopolitical goals of their activist peers, were
trying to "get their heads" and bodies to a calmer place,
changing their relations with their friends to humanistic
encounters in the "Here and Now," and retreating from the
world in which they had grown up through these internal
processes. Later I will offer you my idea that this
subculture was one clearly different in its passivity
than that of its activist brothers and sisters.
The seme summer, a strike in Pelano, California, led
by Cesar Chavez and other union leaders, began a movement
which has continued to operate. Several "Movement" people
had gone to C alifo rn ia to aid the workers, who were mainly
underpaid Mexicans or Chicanos, in what was a p a r t i a l l y
successful s trik e .
In October, the anti-war movement swelled, and l e t -
!
| te rs home such as th is one arrived from a disheartened
i Marine in Vietnam:
j
T hat’s what re a lly bothers me about th is war.
| Sometimes I f e e l lik e one of the bad guys. I
; mean in World War I I i t was more c le a r - c u t.
I You know, the Nazis on one side and we on the
| other. (See: Bowen, 1970, p. 202)
Several students began to burn th e ir d ra ft cards and the
d ra ft boards developed a r e ta lia to r y move fo r r e c l a s s i f i
cation of these men, despite th e ir student s ta tu s , as
"lA." Nonetheless, the p ro test continued, and the
N ational S tu d en t’s A ssociation passed a re so lu tio n c a llin g
I
fo r the United S tates to cease offensive ac tio n and to
n eg o tiate with the North Vietnamese. In October, Vietnam
I
Day a c tiv i tie s took place, with 100,000 people marching j
and attending r a l l i e s across the Nation.
In November, the Berkeley Dally C alifornian (Novem
ber 1965) carried t h i s statement by student a c t i v i s t s j
c r iti c iz in g the Peace Corps simultaneous with the govern- j
ment's Vietnam policy:
I cannot serve in good conscience while the same
government which would employ me to help people
in one p a rt of the world Is k i l l i n g , maiming,
and leaving homeless men, women, and children
In Vietnam, (p. 1)
116
They agreed with one Berkeley professor who typed the
Peace Corps a "playpen and "the sugar coating to our
w a r p i l l ." On the whole, w rites Feuer, student a c t i v i s t s
were generally opposed to the acts of 1 0 ,0 0 0 volunteers
who had worked in H6 countries by th is date.
There were several marches a l l over the country
during the autumn and winter months, but a move of three
I stu d en ts, Norman Morrison, Roger LaPorte, and Alice Herz,
had a perhaps more staggering impact on Americans, for
these young people, in obviously deep despair, performed
the symbolic act of burning themselves to death.
By the end of the year, there were 16,000 troops in
Vietnam. Tom Hayden, a prominent fig u re in a l l levels
of "The Movement," went as a part of a three-man mission
!
fo r self-appointed diplomats to Vietnam. Over the next
few years, d esp ite endless hassling from the United S ta te s |
government, Hayden would continue to make such t r i p s , !
i
and to rep o rt back to those who cared to l i s t e n "what was
re a lly going on" over th ere.
i
Hayden had been ac tiv e in community work and c i v i l
rig h ts and had, in the process, been arre ste d in Albany,
Georgia in 1962. At the beginning of 1966, Jack Newfield
sketched his p o r t r a i t of Hayden as prophet and saviour in
th e V illage Voice (January 20, 1966):
117
For the la s t y ear-an d -a-h alf, Tom Hayden, 26,
has been in v is ib le to the mass media as he
worked to build a community union in Newark’s
Negro ghetto. He led an exhausting, spartan
l i f e th ere. He ate and sle p t ir re g u la rly ,
worked hard, lived with f r u s tr a tio n and f a i l
u re...H e chose to liv e h is theory th a t so c ia l
change comes from the d isin h e rite d of the
s o c ie ty .. .Hayden had h is choice of juicy jobs
...I n s te a d , he chose to liv e on $10 a week and
remain in v is ib le in Newark where he sometimes
seemed a re lig io u s prophet fa s tin g outside the
| gates of Sodom, (p. 1)
i
j As the war p ro te sts continued in to Spring, students
I
| were jo lted by the announcement of Lewis Hershey, Selec
tiv e Service D irecto r, th a t student deferments from the
d r a f t would henceforth be based on academic standing
(grades, in other words). Despite the fa c t th a t th is move
was never implemented, i t led to more anger by campus In
surgents and th e ir subsequent rev elatio n s concerning the j
Involvement of u n iv e rs itie s In government-sponsored covert j
in te llig e n c e operations in Vietnam, In research on weapon-:
ry and germ warfare, e tc . D raft was now a major issue of j
both facu lty and students across the American u n iv e rsity
community. j
In o rig in atin g a l l manner of novel method for escapirg
the d r a f t, individual students began to t r y anything. |
j
They claimed to be homosexual. They feigned psychotic
breaks and obtained l e t t e r s from professionals c e rtify in g
these were genuine. They drank gallons of coffee and
pumped dexedrine into th e ir system over two days and
118
| arrived dizzy, hyperkinetic, and loose and confusing in
| association. Anti-war pamphlets like the following one
i advised students on how to face their physicals: "Arrive
| high. If you want to go about the addiction scene in a
| really big way, use a common pin on your arm for a few
; weeks in advance."
A classic parody of the draft-physical scene was
! provided by folk singer and counter-culture model, Arlo
Guthrie, in the movie, Alice's Restaurant. Here is an
"" I
|
! excerpt from his monologue:
i |
I j
I And I walked in. I sat down, they gave me a
| piece of paper that said: Kid, see the psychi- j
| atrist. Room bO*J. I went up there, I said, I
| "Shrink, I wanna kill. I wanna kill.' I wanna I
! see blood and gore and guts and veins in my j
I teeth. Eat dead, burnt bodies.' I mean: Kill,
| kill.'" And he started jumpin' up and down with
| me and we were both jumpin’ up and down, yellin'|
j "Kill, kill" and the sergeant came over, pinned ^
! a medal 0 1 1 me. (Herndon-Penn, 1970, pp. 11*1-115)
| On June 2-3, 1 9 6 6, an event took place which was
j ;
given little notice at that time but which would have
great impact over the next five years. The National
I Organization for Women (to become known as "NOW") was
I ■
formed.
! During the month of July, following the "Watts ;
model," ghettoes were burned down in Cleveland, Chicago, |
I
and other cities. Disillusionment was mounting among ]
whites and blacks.
119
A one-man p ro te s t march staged by James Meredith
began in Memphis, Tennessee, but he was stopped f a r sh o rt
of h is goal of Jackson, M is sissip p i, when he was wounded
by a b la s t from a shotgun.
During th e summer, Huey Newton and Bobby S eale formed
; th e Black P an th er P a rty , then c e n tra liz e d in Oakland.
"Black power" became i t s c ry .
| In th e P a ll months, M artin L uther King "cele b ra ted " j
! j
th e long-aw aited Voting R ights B i l l , signed by Johnson in j
August. He said th a t "the r e a l v ic to ry was i n t e r n a l . . . !
I
what i t did fo r the psyche of the blackman.. .we armed
ourselves w ith d ig n ity and s e lf - r e s p e c t."
The c e le b ra tio n was n o t, however, lo n g -liv e d . In
th e F a ll, King and o th er SCLC le ad ers went to Chicago to
tr y to a s s i s t N orthern blacks w ith continuing c o n tro -
I
v e rsie s w ith th e C ity C ouncil. R io ts and burning ensued,
and, fo r the f i r s t tim e in h is " c a re e r," K ing’s own non
v io le n t philosophy was subordinated by the fu ry of th o se
surrounding him. King encountered a much more b la ta n t
i
h o s t i l i t y and h ate among N orthern blacks. Whites were, j
i
in th e le a s t c a se , v e rb a lly h o s ti le in re a c tio n . K ing’s
p erso n a l commitment remained as stro n g . He said a t th a t
tim e, " i march because I must, I march because I ’m a man,
and because I'm a c h ild of God." But n e ith e r th a t march
|
nor the in te rv e n tio n s w ith whites and blacks in Chicago j
120
were s u c c e s s f u l, and i t was a deeply tro u b le d King who
re tu rn e d t o G eorgia, p reach in g t h a t v io le n ce could doom
| th e movement.
[
Other black le a d e rs were adding t o the com plexity of
| th e is s u e by fo re s a k in g t h e i r fo rm erly n o n v io le n t b e l i e f s .
! S to k e ly C arm ichael, new P r e s id e n t of SNCC, was showing an
i
j open tendency toward more v io le n t d iso b e d ie n ce and th e
philosophy of th e growing black n a t i o n a l i s t movement was !
becoming i n te g r a te d in h is own. D efending th e concept of
"b lack power.," he wrote (New York Preview of Books, Septem-
| her 22, 1966 ): "No one ever ta lk e d about ’w h ite power’ !
j because power in t h i s country IS w h ite " (p . 3 ). And,
i !
i soon a f t e r , in W einraub's a r t i c l e in E sq u ire (Jan u ary , i
! ^ i
! 1 9 6 7) , he was t o exp lain h is changed a t t i t u d e in t h i s
i t
! manner:
1
1
| I d o n ’t go along w ith t h i s garbage t h a t you
| c a n ’t h a te , you g o tta lo v e...M an you can, you I
j djo h a te . You don ’t f o r g e t t h a t M is s is s ip p i
| e x p e rie n c e . You d o n 't get a r r e s t e d 2J tim es,
j You do n’t sm ile a t t h a t and say love th y w hite
i b r o th e r . You don’t f o r g e t th o se b e a tin g s ,
i and, man, th ey were rough. Those mothers were
! out t o get rev e n g e . . .You d o n 't fo r g e t th o se
f u n e r a l s . (See: Hayes, 1970* P. o79)
Growing n egativ ism was not o n l 5^ e x h ib ite d by b la c k s.
j At th e October co nference of th e New L e ft Movement in
C a l i f o r n i a , Reverend P ike and o th e rs who showed any oppo- !
s i t i o n to the opinions of stu d en t le a d e rs were f u r i o u s l y
hooted down. This was one of th e f i r s t e x h ib itio n s of a
121
| new p o lic y of stu d en t a c t i v i s t s to openly re p re ss th e
speech of e ld e rs and to show t h e i r new a t t r a c t i o n to v e r
b a l and p h y sic a l v io le n ce . The te n sio n w ith in SDS over
! such t a c t i c a l d iffe re n c e s was in c re a sin g , and fa c tio n s or
j schisms were becoming more marked.
The autumn months a ls o brought th e second Student
S trik e in th e Berkeley Free Speech Movement. The slogan
| of th e s t r i k e was "No more co p s," and t h i s event began j
; th e b la ta n t antagonism of many American stu d en ts to th e
j
| power of the p o lic e , which they viewed as evidence of
! Fascism in th e country.
By th e end of 1966, tro o p stre n g th in Vietnam was a t j
| 375,000, more than tw ice th a t of the previous war. F u r- i
j i
therm ore, more s o ld ie rs in our Army were being k ille d and
| in ju re d than th o se of th e South Vietnamese fo rc e s .
I Weekly bombings dropped on North Vietnam exceeded bombs
; dropped on Germany a t the h eig h t of World War I I . The
j war had c o s t $25 b ill io n in I 966.1 The tid e of skepticism
I in th e n a tio n was r is in g slow ly, but su re ly , and people
were now id e n tif ie d as "doves" or "hawks," according to
t h e i r a ttitu d e s on th e war. The d r a f t was c a llin g almost
5 0 ,0 0 0 men per month.
In 1967, a n ti-w a r a c t i v i s t s would begin heavy o rg an i-
s
; z a tio n a l e f f o r t s . The leading o rg an iz atio n in t h i s period
was th e Student M obilization Committee, formed in December,
122
1966.
On A p ril 15* 1967* "The people p ro te st* " a jo in t
| photographic essay le v e lle d a g a in st th e war* was presented
I by 50 of th e major photographers in th e United S ta te s ,
i opening a t th e Crypt G allery of Columbia U n iv ersity in
New York.
M artin L uther King and 46 Harvard p ro fe sso rs joined !
I New L eft le ad ers in Cambridge th e same month to begin !
j planning fo r "Vietnam Summer," an attem pt to organize and j
| c o n so lid a te new c o n s titu e n c ie s to oppose American involve-;
ment in Southeast A sia. Across th e cou n try , fa c u lty
members and o ld e r ra d ic a ls and lib e r a ls le a n t a s s is ta n c e
I continuously to e f f o r ts of a c t i v i s t s tu d e n ts. Ju st as th e
j C iv il R ights Movement had never s o le ly been a "student
! movement" but was one h e a v ily dependent on guidance and
| help from e ld e r s , such was tr u e of th e an ti-w a r movement
■ and such would be tr u e of student p r o te s t around o th er
i is s u e s . The ACE would ta k e a p o ll on campus p r o te s t from
1967- 1968, f o r in s ta n c e , and fin d th a t f a c u lty members
were involved in th e planning of over h a lf of the stu d en t
p r o te s ts during th a t period (th e v ast m a jo rity of which
I were law ful and p e a c e fu l). In almost 2/3 of th e s e ,
| fa c u lty bodies passed r e s o lu tio n s approving of th e p ro -
I t e s t s (Borsch, 1 9 6 9) . S tudents would, however, be f i r s t
j to make courageous and r a d ic a l moves in many in s ta n c e s .
123
Seymour L ip set ( 1 9 6 8) claim s th a t a major d iffe re n c e
between t h i s "student movement" and e a r l i e r ones was th a t
h erein th e re was no r e la tio n s h ip to a d u lt o rg a n iz a tio n s.
Although I agree w ith L ip set t h a t , p a r tic u la r ly in th e
p o st-re fo rm ist phase of th e youth p r o te s t, a c t i v i s t s were
h e a r t ily r e je c tin g a l l major p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , and th a t
they were never ju s t th e a u x ilia ry youth "clubs" of a d u lt
p o l i t i c a l o rg a n iz a tio n s , I have found few in sta n c e s in
which stu d en t p ro te s t was not joined to th a t of a d u lts j
|
in th e same cause. F u rth e r, in th e major involvem ents
in th e c i v i l r ig h ts and anti-V ietnam movements, student
i
p ro te s t followed a genesis by e ld e rs . !
"Another Mother fo r P eace," an o rg a n iz a tio n o r i g i
n a lly comprised of w ealthy women from Beverly H ills and
Hollywood a re a s , grew r a p id ly , based on t h e i r steady
m ailings and recru itm en t of both a d u lts and stu d en t
members and th e impact of th e ir slo g an : "War i s not
h ealthy fo r c h ild re n or o th er liv in g th in g s ." They began
in th e Spring of 1967, during the h e a v ie st period of
d ra ft-c a rd shedding and burning.
In th e same season, C arl Stokes became mayor of
C leveland, th e f i r s t black mayor of a major c i t y in th e
S ta te s .
During th e S pring, Time c a rrie d an essay on "The New
R adicals" (A pril 28, 1967) , They c h a ra c te riz e d young
124
a c t i v i s t s in th is manner: "The Old L eft had a program fo r
th e fu tu re : th e New L e f t's program i s m ostly a cry of
rag e"(p . 2 6 ). In flu e n ce s they f e l t as im portant on "The
Movement" were Ramparts Magazine. S tudies on th e L e f t,
th e B e a tle s , and Dylan. They s ta te d th a t Mario Savio had
been an e a rly lead er who had faded and li s t e d Tom Hayden
and Yale p r o f e s s o r - p a c if is t, S traughton Lynd, as major
j
le ad ers a t th a t tim e. (Again, one should note th e |
presence of an a d u lt as a major f i g u r e . ) Time emphasized |
th a t th e se a c t i v i s t s were a g a in st H ip p ies, B eatn ik s, j
and "dropping out in g e n e ra l." I have mentioned t h i s
i
d is tin c tio n between th e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t s and th e more
p assiv e c o u n te rc u ltu re p rev io u sly . At t h i s tim e, few
Americans were se p a ra tin g th e se " fo rc e s." Time a ls o saw
th e Movement as id e o lo g ic a lly confused, m aintaining a
"Utopian v isio n " which contained many c o n tra d ic to ry e l e
ments, claim ing th a t the New L eft "have no problem and
they do not want one. The immediate problem is to d is
c r e d it and d estro y the old s o c ie ty . Let o th ers worry about
th e d e ta ils of re b u ild in g l a t e r " ( p . 2 7 ) .
In th e meantime, th e growth of a d is t in c t iv e type of
youth co u n te rc u ltu re preaching "lo v e ," a n ti-m a te ria lis m ,
and "g e ttin g high" had co n sid erab ly developed by th is
tim e. Advocates moved in to th e Haight-Ashbury d i s t r i c t
in San F rancisco during th e slimmer of t h i s y ear. They
125
were "cool"; they believed in " trip p in g out" (Simmons &
Winograd, 1966). They said th a t a l l you had to do was
"go w ith th e flow" and th e u n iv erse would unfold as i t
was supposed to . They painted th e i r bodies and liv e d ,
o fte n , in groups and out of packs. They begged in order
| to g et money fo r food. Many young people l e f t home to
| jo in them, mainly those in t h e i r teens and e a rly tw e n tie s.
I
They had m ottos l i k e : "Haight i s lo v e ." One of them
interview ed by Yablonsky ( 1 9 6 8) s a id : "God i s . Love i s .
I am." They became known as flo w e r-e h ild re n , handing out
what one young man c a lle d "A kind of in d is c rim in a te , a l l -
embracing b ro th e r lin e s s " (See: Bowen, 1970* P. 56).
Other h ip p ie "headquarters" were in New Y ork's E ast j
I
V illa g e , in and around th e Boston Commons, in the h i l l s ;
i
o u tsid e of Los Angeles, th e Pennsylvania farm land, and th e j
New England woods. They were a lso known as "Love C h il- j
d r e n ," "Gentle People*" and "Free P eo p le ," and i t has been j
estim ated th a t by th e peak of th a t summer of 1967* th e re
were approxim ately 300,000 of them (Bowen, 1970).
But th e same summer, hate was showing i t s head. I t j
| would, in f a c t , become known as th e "long, hot summer" |
I
fo r g h e tto r i o t s were a t t h e i r peak. The w orst of them
took place in D e tro it where m illio n damage was done,
k i l l e d , and 368 in ju red over nine days. Newark was
a ls o hard h i t . The h o s t i l i t y of the r i o t e r s is in d ic ated
126
in t h i s comment by one D e tro it b lack : "These b u ild in g s
going up was a p r e tty s ig h t. I s a t r ig h t here and
| watched them go. And th e re wasn’t nothing them honkies
could do but sweat to put i t o u t."
Between 1965 and 1967* 53 c i t i e s had exploded in th e
j model of W atts, One-hundred fo rty -o n e persons had d ied ;
| * 1,552 had been in ju re d .
| W riting about h is fe e lin g s a t th e tim e of th e Newark j
j j
I r i o t , Tom Hayden ( 1968) s a id : j
t j
j These t a c t i c s of d iso rd e r w ill be defined by
| th e a u th o ritie s as c rim in a l t a c t i c s . But i t
may be th a t d is ru p tio n w ill c re a te p o s s i b i l i
t i e s of meaningful change. This depends on
j whether th e le ad ers of g h etto stru g g le s can be
more su c c e s sfu l in b u ild in g a stro n g er o rg an i-
| z a tio n than they have been so f a r . V iolence
| can c o n trib u te to s h a tte r in g the s ta tu s quo
| but only p o l i t i c s and o rg a n iz a tio n can transform;
i t . In order to build a more decent community
| w hile r e s is tin g r a c i s t power, more th a n v iolence
! is re q u ire d . People used to c re a te s e l f -
! government. W e a re a t a point where democracy
— th e idea and p ra c tic e of people c o n tro llin g
t h e i r liv e s — i s a rev o lu tio n a ry issu e in th e
United S ta te s , (p. 17)
P ro te s t was ste am ro llin g on a l l f r o n ts . The f a l l of
1967 would show a vast e f f o r t on United S ta te s campuses,
| w ith 204 se p a ra te campus dem onstrations in t h i s sem ester,
most of them involving Vietnam. Common slogans of t h i s
period were: "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you
| k ille d to d a y ," and "H ell, no, we w on't go."
I In September, fiv e dem onstrators d isru p ted th e S enate,
[ ra in in g down a shower of antiw ar l e a f l e t s on th e f lo o r .
127|
In October, a massive march of 100,000 p a r tic ip a n ts
p ro te ste d a t th e Pentagon. At n ig h t, a l l over th e n a tio n ,
o th e r dem onstrations took p la c e , and, in various in stan ce s
th e re were mass a r r e s t s and b ru ta l b e a tin g s. In Oakland,
C a lifo rn ia , th e re was a one-week p ro te s t around th e
Induction C enter, w ith overt r e s is ta n c e , and a c t i v i s t s
im provising a l l manner of s tr e e t t a c t i c s and b a rric a d e s.
Feuer wrote of t h i s period th a t th e stu d en t had begun to
th in k of him self as a g u e r illa f ig h te r , " fig h tin g in th e
fa stn e sse s of the city" (p. 4 l6 ) . He admired th e
methodology of Mao and Che and had come a long way from
h is e a r l i e r b ro th e r, who had taken beatings in th e South
while folded in to a womb-like p o s itio n .
In December, an in c id e n t took place a t San F ran cisco
S ta te th a t was to s ig n a l th e beginning of a long, tw o-year
p r o te s t on th a t campus, and begin what was to be a much
more v io le n t period of campus p r o te s t across th e n a tio n .
That c o lle g e ’s Black Student Union (BSU), angry about
r a c i s t im p lica tio n s in th e campus newspaper, marched to
th e A dm inistration B uilding and broke in . One of th e i r
lead ers was a fa c u lty member, John G erassi. C lasses were
d isru p te d as stu d e n ts moved to jo in th e e f f o r t . The
tr u s te e s c a lle d in p o lic e , and P re sid e n t Summerskill
closed th e campus, S. I . Hayakawa asked th a t th e p o lic e
occupy th e lobby of the A d m in istratio n . They did so and
128
were p elted w ith rocks and o th er o b je c ts as approxim ately
*100 s tr ik e r s and s e v e ra l thousand o th e r stu d en ts ran over
the campus. The tr u s te e s of th e C a lifo rn ia S ta te C olleges
made th e d e c isio n th a t stu d en ts and employees who had d is -
| rupted c la s s e s would be p en a liz ed . Although an in v e s tig a -
! tin g committee would l a t e r uphold S um m erskill's handling
j
| of the ev en t, he made th e d e c isio n to re s ig n a t th e
I beginning of th e next y ea r. This was th e f i r s t c le a r ly
i
v io le n t and " i l l e g a l " a c tio n of stu d en ts on a campus w ith
p o lic e . I t was th e e n tre e in to a new era on th e campus.
By th a t tim e, th e re had been d e f in itiv e changes in
asp e c ts of the stu d e n t p r o te s t movement. Yet re se a rc h e rs
continued to e x h ib it two major themes or c a te g o riz a tio n s
| in d e scrib in g stu d en t a c t i v i t i s t s . On th e one hand, they
I
were c la s s if ie d as "a lie n " or "deviant" and, on the oth er
j i
hand, they were lumped to g e th e r under a blanket of "new j
i
idealism " (See: Chapter 6 ). K eniston ( 1968a , 1968b ), j
Solomon and Fishman ( 196* 1) , and West by and Braungart
I ( 1 9 6 6) a l l found a strong c o n tin u ity between th e p o l i t i c a l !
i
o rie n ta tio n s of p a re n ts and t h e i r s o c ia liz a tio n of t h e i r
|
c h ild re n . K eniston ( 1968a , 1968b) was staunch in r e je c
t in g th e n o tio n of g e n e ra tio n a l re b e llio n as a s im p lis tic
one and emphasizing t h a t , although many p a re n ts had f a ile d
to uphold t h e i r id e a ls in th e i r own liv e s , they were never
th e le s s " p rin c ip le d ," th a t t h e i r youngsters id e n tif ie d ,
129
and were try in g to uphold th ese p r in c ip le s .
Most a c t i v i s t s were found to be Jewish and from
i n t e l l e c t u a l and middle or upper-m iddle c la s s backgrounds.
F lacks ( 1967, 1970) was perhaps most emphatic in empha-
j
! s iz in g th e stro n g id e alism of these a c t i v i s t s whom he
i
| found to be c h ild re n of an upper-m iddle c la s s hum anistic
I
| s u b c u ltu re . They a re , as described by him, ty p ic a lly
"urban, highly educated, Jewish or ir r e l i g i o u s , p ro
f e s s io n a l and a f f lu e n t" ( 1967* P* 66)•
D espite t h e i r own fre q u e n tly p riv ile g e d and success
f u l p o s itio n s , he saw them as having a lack of commitment
to such t r a d i t i o n a l values of America as m aterialism ,
r a t i o n a l i t y , and s e lf - c o n tr o l, and being imbued w ith a j
stro n g hum anistic value o r ie n ta tio n (1970). He saw the |
basic c lu s te r of values under th is hum anistic framework
f a l l i n g under: a concern w ith in d iv id u a l development and I
s e lf-e x p re s s io n , and a sin c e re concern fo r the s o c ia l
co n d itio n of o th e rs . F lacks f e l t th i s second category was
p a r tic u la r ly i n f l u e n t i a l in th e value systems of th e ir
I
sons and d au g h ters. Flacks him self was, as mentioned j
|
p rev io u sly , an e a rly SDSer a t Michigan and had, beyond a
i
doubt, g re a t lo y a lty to th e a c t i v i s t movement on campus.
At any r a t e , re g a rd le ss of the degree of accuracy in
th e se d e s c rip tio n s of a c t i v i s t le a d e rs and a c t i v i s t o r
g a n iz a tio n , I f e e l i t s ig n ific a n t to note th a t many
130
re se a rc h e rs were, a t th is p o in t, in a "Honeymoon" stag e so
f a r as n e g le c tin g to n o tic e th e changing n a tu re of p ro te s t
a l l over th e country, and in f a i l i n g to c o n tra s t th e
j
f r u s t r a t i o n , in te r n a l schism s, and c o n tra d ic tio n s w ith in
th e rapidly-grow ing p ro te s t to the more pure-form student
p a r tic ip a tio n th a t had e x iste d in th e C iv il R ights Move-
!
ment, j
Furtherm ore, re se a rc h e rs were h a b itu a lly concentrating
i
on s t r i k e lead ers and t h e i r cad re, ignoring th e larg e bodyj
of stu d en ts who flo a te d in , about, and through th e move- j
ment, but whose support was necessary fo r any "strong i
|
show." This to p ic s h a l l , however, be tr e a te d more c a re
f u lly in P a r ts I I and I I I .
What is s ig n if ic a n t, in summary, is th e gradual
s h i f t of stu d en t p ro te s t and a c tio n from i t s nonviolent
philosophy of the e a rly c i v i l r ig h ts years to th e " g u e ril
la f ig h te r " model. Like th e g h etto b lack , I f e e l th a t th e
stu d en t him self ta s te d b itte rn e s s and f r u s t r a t i o n , i f not
d ir e c tly , th a t he id e n tif ie d w ith i t , e ith e r out of g u ilt
or empathy. Somehow, along th e way, he had become more
than a m artyr. Formerly a id in g th e oppressed, he now
f e l t him self to be a v ictim . This n o tio n i s embodied
in th e t i t l e of Je rry F a rb e r’s a n ti-E sta b lish m e n t c o lle c
tio n of e ssa y s, The Student as Nigger ( 1969). R egardless
th e p a r tic u la r degree of a c tiv ism , th is id ea c irc u la te d
131
among stu d en ts during th e se y e a rs, and i t was widely
popular among both a c t i v i s t s and more p assiv e co u n ter
c u ltu re people. I t was w ith t h i s concept th a t stu d e n ts
would e n te r 1968, a year of tremendous c r i s i s , and th e
beginning of a th re e -y e a r period of violence and d e sp a ir
in America.
CHAPTER 3
1968 - 1970: DESPAIR, ABSURDITY, AN D CA M PU S VIOLENCE
1968 did not dawn w ith th e promise of b e tte r days to
come. The hangover of th e p ast year and th e p ast period
of h is to ry joined w ith New Y ears's Eve hangovers. I f j
people made p erso n al r e s o lu tio n s , many of them undoubtedly
f e l t they would e ith e r be helped or hindered in t h e i r
success by th e s t a t e of th e n a tio n . This would be a year
th a t would show a massive growth in th e an ti-w ar movement,!
both among stu d en ts and a d u lts , and increased a c t i v i t y
by black m ilita n ts and th e new fe m in ist movement. Some
tim es masking the a c tiv e n a tu re of th e se s o c io p o litic a l
movements, a p a s s iv is t youth c o u n te rc u ltu re was a ls o
growing q u ie tly , smoking t h e i r dope, m e d ita tin g , and
i n i t i a t i n g moves to leave urban ce n te rs fo r uncharted
la n d .
By t h i s tim e, SDS claimed 350 chapters and some
3 0 ,0 0 0 members.
Ten thousand American boys had by now migrated to
Canada to avoid th e d r a f t and were helped by various
o rg an izatio n s lik e th e Toronto S tudents Union fo r Peace
132
133
| A ction. They had to face th a t e x ile might be permanent.
| In th e meantime, many a d u lts who had been v e rb a lly
i
i
a n ta g o n is tic to the war came f o rth yet more s tro n g ly .
! Respected Yale c h a p la in , W illiam Sloane C o ffin , was
in d ic te d on January 5th fo r co u n sellin g young men on how
I
to get out of the d r a f t.
On January 2 9 th , the "enemy" su rp rise d American
I tro o p s w ith what would l a t e r be c a lle d th e "Tet offensive,!"
j
! th e la rg e s t Communist o ffen siv e of th e war. This move i
| I
c le a r ly dem onstrated t h a t , c o n tra ry to many r e p o r ts , the j
enemy was by no means fatig u ed ou t. Westmoreland asked i
I |
| fo r 260,000 more men to add to th e 500,000 already in ;
| Vietnam. S enators such as Kennedy (RFK) and P u lb rig h t
began to openly admit they had been m istaken in th e i r
; |
previous war p o lic y . Johnson, however, was standing firm ,
and he replaced Defense S e c re ta ry McNamara w ith C lark
■
j C liffo rd when he began to suspect th a t th e former was
I p o ssib ly g e ttin g to o s o ft reg ard in g the war.
In March, 1968, S enator Eugene McCarthy launched what
some were to c a l l h is "C h ild ren ’s crusade" in en te rin g the
P r e s id e n tia l primary campaign in New Hampshire. McCarthy
was brav ely , and w ith l i t t l e hope of su p p o rt, coming out
| ag a in st the Johnson A d m in istratio n . He developed a
devoted follo w in g , la rg e ly composed of stu d en ts and a n t i - i
| war a c t i v i s t s . The f a c t th a t he almost beat Johnson in a
132 *
co n serv ativ e s t a t e (th e lo ss was by only 203 votes)
su rp rise d th e n a tio n and got him o ff to a ro arin g s t a r t .
This event and th e f a c t of the growing rumbles about
the war had a grave e f f e c t on th e P re s id e n t, who was
aging ra p id ly , and p o ssib ly f e l t him self th e v ic tim of
circum stances, having "been l e f t a foundling" and
burdened w ith f o s te r in g th a t c h ild . He came out over th e
networks on March 31st and to ld a su rp rise d audience of
i
j
m illio n s of Americans t h a t :
I am ta k in g th e f i r s t ste p to d e -e s c a la te th e
c o n f l i c t . I have ordered our a i r c r a f t . . . t o j
make no a tta c k s on North Vietnam, except in !
th e area (im m ediately) n o rth of th e DMZ...
There is d iv is io n in th e American house now.
A ccordingly, I s h a ll not seek, and I w i l l not
a c c e p t, th e nom ination of my p arty fo r another |
term as your P re s id e n t.
A c tiv is ts r e jo ic e d , fo r Johnson had become, fo r many of
them, a whipping boy. They threw t h e i r support behind
McCarthy. Soon a f t e r th e P r e s id e n t's announcement, Bobby
Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey were to announce t h e i r can d i
dacy. Although some r a d ic a ls were to back Bobby, th e
g e n e ra l consensus among a c t i v i s t s was th a t both Kennedy
and Humphrey had waited u n t i l th e co ast was c le a r , then
jumped in . In p a r tic u la r , Humphrey, an e a rly l i b e r a l
le a d e r in th e n a tio n , was now unpopular with younger
a c t i v i s t s because he had supported th e Johnson p o lic y in
Vietnam during h is years as v ic e -p re s id e n t.
135
In A p ril, M artin L uther King had what was perhaps a
psychic v is io n of th e imminent p o s s i b ilit y of h is own
I d eath . He spoke of h is encounter w ith Death courageously,
| saying he was not a f r a id b ecause: "i*ve been to th e
m o u n ta in -to p ..." W ithin a week, King was dead, shot to
! death in a Memphis m o tel. The shooting was soon alleg ed
| t o be th e a c t of escaped convict James E a rl Ray. In
; |
years to fo llo w , however, as w ith th e Kennedy a s s a s s in a -
i
i
! t i o n , o th e r ex p lan atio n s would be o ffe re d , though seldom
pursued.
R io ts follow ed in s e v e ra l c i t i e s , th e most se rio u s of!
j
| which was Chicago, where 20,000 p o lic e , guardsmen, and j
| fe d e r a l tro o p s had to in t e r f e r e to check th e t o t a l l y
! c h a o tic scene. Miles of bu ild in g s were burned. More
! severe in damage than th e d e s tru c tio n of those b u ild in g s,
| however, was th e r e n t in th e nonviolent f a c to r of th e
| C iv il R ights Movement, se a rin g th e optimism of those who
! had liv e d through years of f r u s t r a t i o n and were now in
I d e s p a ir. On an even broader base, th e people of America
were ask in g : "What has happened to us? How did we come
t o t h i s place?"
W ithin days of K ing’s d eath , on A p ril 23rd, v iolence !
| erupted on th e Columbia U n iv ersity campus. Columbia, to
i ;
j th a t tim e, had been much lik e any o th e r la rg e u n iv e rs ity ,
i
| had seen many dem onstrations but "none equal to scenes
136
a t B erkeley, W isconsin, or Michigan" (Cox, 1968, p . xv).
Tension had been b u ild in g between th e more r a d ic a l f a c
tio n s of SDS and th e A d m in istra tio n . Many f e l t SDS had
| not been competent in le a d e rsh ip and th e S tudents A fro-
American S o ciety (SAS) had not form erly been p o l i t i c a l l y
a c tiv e .
| The events th a t ensued between A p ril 23rd-May 1st
were s e t o ff by a SDS r a l l y to p ro te s t th e u n iv e r s ity 's
re la tio n s h ip to th e I n s t i t u t e fo r Defense A nalyses, i t s
supposedly r a c i s t p o lic ie s and t a c t i c s . Furtherm ore, s ix
SDS le ad ers had been placed on p ro b atio n fo r v io la tio n of
a ru le ag a in st indoor dem onstrations. The Cox Commission
i
j
claim ed, however, th a t though th e se events were th e c a ta
l y s t s , th e r e a l causes were th e deep f r u s t r a t i o n over the
|
j continuing war in Vietnam, c i v i l r ig h ts and community
I
r e la tio n s , and grievances and problems of black s tu d e n ts .
Columbia was next door neighbor to both Harlem and Morning4
sid e H eights, and stu d en ts and fa c u lty were tremendously
aware, by th is tim e, of the s itu a tio n s in th e se g h etto es
and could not remain " is o la te d " from them. SDS and SAS j
led some 1 ,0 0 0 stu d en ts in to th e occupation of f iv e j
buildings on th e Morningside Heights campus and remained
in s id e , defying th e A d m in istratio n , fo r s ix days, u n t i l
they were removed by 1,000 policemen. During the s ix
days, many r a d ic a l le a d e rs from the community, from CORE,
137
j
! e t c . , had come to stand by both black and w hite caucuses
| (an in te r e s tin g asp ect of th e s it u a ti o n was th e se p ara-
! ti o n m aintained by th e p a r tic ip a n t s ) .
Attem pts a t a p ea ce fu l r e s o lu tio n f a i l e d , and th e
b u ild in g s were c le a re d , not w ithout v io le n c e , although th e
Cox Commission Report does not attem pt to estim a te th e
I degree of v io len ce or th e so u rc e (s) of c u lp a b ility .
I H o sp ita l re p o rts showed over 100 i n j u r i e s , th e m a jo rity j
i to stu d e n ts , some to su p p o rtiv e f a c u lty , and some to
p o lic e . "The c h a ra c te r of in ju r ie s ranged from heavy
b ru ises and scalp la c e r a tio n s to sp ra in s and severe fright?!
| (Cox, p. 1*12). The a r r e s t s t a t i s t i c s as rep o rted by th e j
I Cox Commission show th a t th e a c tio n was not th e work of
i ;
i :
I o u tsid e a g ita to r s or a minute band of Columbia r a d ic a ls
j
; bent on re v o lu tio n . Five-hundred tw en ty -fiv e ( 5 2 5) , or
i
j 75$, were Columbia s tu d e n ts . Another 3.6$ were Columbia
; alum nia. Approximately 20$ were stu d e n ts of o th er u n i-
j
v e r s i t i e s . Some were, as we m entioned, a c t i v i s t lead ers
from off-campus lik e Tom Hayden. By th e end of th e i n c i
d e n t, over 12,000 Columbia stu d e n ts had, in some way,
p a r tic ip a te d . A s ig n if ic a n t f a c to r was th e fin d in g by th e
i Cox Commission t h a t , even a f t e r a second in c id e n t near
th e end of May had been q u e lle d :
I The campus was in chaos. For th e r e s t of th e
| academic year ed ucation was a t a s t a n d s t i l l
I (except a t some p ro fe s s io n a l s c h o o ls), and a
L _______ s t r i k e committee claim ed th e a lle g ia n c e of j
138
many members of th e fa c u lty as w ell as a vast
number of s tu d e n ts . The f a b ric of th e Univer
s i t y 's l i f e is now tw isted and to r n . The
violence has now yielded to b itte r n e s s and
d i s t r u s t . Only h e r o ic a lly open-minded and
p a tie n t e f f o r t s can r e p a ir th e damage. (pp.
xv-xvi)
Of yet f u rth e r s ig n ific a n c e was th e new, more revo
lu tio n a ry "model" given stu d e n ts a l l over th e n a tio n ,
th a t of c le a r ly v io le n t encounters between stu d en ts and
p o lic e . As described by th e Scranton Commission (1970), i
i
j
th e "Columbia in v en tio n " m odified th a t of th e B erkeley j
model in th e follow ing ways. I t involved, in i t s new
form, d e s tru c tio n of p ro p erty , pap ers, and records of the j
A dm in istratio n by s tu d e n ts . Spender w rite s about th e
fe rv o r of th e se young re v o lu tio n a rie s who had "an
absorbing, tr a n c e - lik e q u a l ity " ( 1968, p. 9 ). B e ll &
K r is to l ( 1969) a ls o w rite about th e v iolence ag a in st
p ro te s tin g stu d e n ts by law enforcement o f fic e r s (which
would bring many charges of p o lic e b r u t a l i t y ; many of
th e s e , according to th e S cranton Committee, were j u s t i
f i e d ) . This new form of p r o te s t displayed th e t o t a l lack
of preparedness of the U n iv e rsity , even in an era when
p ro te s t was now the ex p e cta tio n (Scranton, 1970). Other
m inority group stu d e n ts , Chicanos and P uerto R icans, began,
a f t e r Columbia, to p r o te s t. The growing violence crea ted j
a need fo r immediate le g is la tiv e ac tio n (by mid-1970,
over 30 s ta te s would have enacted almost 80 laws d ealin g
139
j
! w ith campus u n r e s t) . I t a lso helped b ring about a g re a t
| p u b lic backlash a g a in st campus u n re s t, th e m a jo rity of
i
| Americans abhorring v iolence on th e campus, a s s o c ia tin g
| p o l i t i c a l a c tio n w ith "a more g en e ra l re v u lsio n ag a in st
i th e d i s t in c t iv e d re s s , l i f e s ty l e , behavior, or speech
; adopted by some young people"(S cranton, p. 4 0 ). The
more p assive c o u n te rc u ltu re empathized w ith th e abuse of
: student a c t i v i s t s . j
i j
I O verlapping th e f i r s t and second takeovers a t Colum- j
i {
b ia , an event abroad in te n s if ie d th e growing stu d en t !
i
p r o te s t in th e United S ta te s . In Prance, te n sio n had been!
' I
! r is in g ag a in st both th e A dm inistration of th e N anterres j
j campus and th e G a u llis t regim e. Leader D aniel Cohn-Bendit:
! and o th e r stu d e n ts of N a n te rre 's Mouvement de 22 Mars
i joined w ith stu d e n t and fa c u lty l e f t i s t s in P a ris to take
I over almost the e n t ir e L atin Q uarter, B arricades were
I b u ilt on May 6th in P a r is , the f i r s t sin ce th e A lgerian
War, The m a jo rity of th e p u b lic joined stu d en ts in fe e lin g
: th a t th e p o lic e were using Gestapo t a c t i c s and many e ld e rs
joined the "May re v o lu tio n ." By th e 11th, workers had
joined th e e f f o r t , and by th e 13th, most of th e major
fa c u lte s had been taken over. A g en e ra l s t r i k e over a l l
j th e c i ty began on th e 13th. R enault workers closed t h e i r i
! :
j f a c to r ie s . A ll tru c k and m ail d e liv e r ie s ceased, thanks
| to supporting workers. This spread to th e t e x t i l e
! in d u s try , to department s to r e s , and to banks. A se rio u s
|
I g aso lin e shortage ensued. By th e 2 1 s t, a l l France was
!
| paralyzed as a r e s u lt of th e united e f f o r t of ap p ro x i-
I
| m ately seven m illio n s t r ik e r s (Bourges, 1 9 6 8; Seele &
I McConville, 1968; Spender, 1 9 6 9).
: I
Student movements were a ls o gain in g stre n g th in
; I t a l y , Belgium, A fric a , Poland, C zechoslovakia, and Yugo-
| s la v ia . Major incidenls took p lace in West Germany, where
j young Rudy Butschke led stu d en ts in opposing th e govern- !
I !
I ment of Kurt K issin g e r, and in C zechoslovakia, where th e
! S t a l i n i s t government collapsed under th e combined a s s a u lts I
of Communist reform ers and stu d en t re b e ls (L ipset & |
A ltbach, 1969) . Many f e l t as did Sauvaugeot (In : Bourges
\ 1 968) , th a t th e re was an in te r n a tio n a l stu d e n t movement
| - 1
| whose commonality was a d efiance of oppression or re p re s -
| sio n of any group of people. I agree w ith him in t h a t ,
| d e s p ite th e f a c t th a t stu d en t p r o te s t throughout th e world
! has been v aried in regards to s t y l e , p e rsu a sio n , and goals
: (A llen, 1971); th e re has o s te n s ib ly always been a "wipe
out -th e -o p p re sso r" f a c to r o p e ra tiv e . This was tr u e a t
le a s t during th e peak years of p r o te s t , g iv in g th e move
ment in th e l e a s t an in te r n a tio n a l f e e l in g . F u rth e r, I
I f e e l th a t th e ac tio n s of stu d e n ts in o th e r c o u n trie s ,
i :
j p a r tic u la r ly in th e bold May G eneral S trik e in P a r is ,
| re in fo rc e d th e American s tu d e n t’s "sense of th e rig h tn e s s"
m i
of h is own a c tio n s , o r, In many c a s e s , provided him with
a model of a c tio n and values he "thought he should"
em ulate.
|
| In th e meantime, many claimed th a t th e number of
| stu d en ts involved In campus p ro te s t to t h i s time was
minimal in the lig h t of the la rg e American c o lle g e stu d en t
pop u latio n . F euer, fo r In stan c e, claim s th a t u n lik e
Russian student a c t i v i s t s of th e 19th century (80# of the
stu d en ts in Russia had p a r tic ip a te d in p r o te s t a t th a t
tim e ), and a p a rt from th e Columbia in c id e n ts , between
January and June of 1968, only 38,911 stu d e n ts were in
volved in th e 221 dem onstrations th a t had occurred a t 101
co lleg es and u n iv e r s itie s . This rep resen ted only 2.6#
|
of American s tu d e n ts. T herefore, s ta te s F euer, " i t be- j
i
comes c le a r th a t i t remained p e rip h e ra l to the phllosophtesj
and liv e s of the v ast number of American stu d e n ts" (p. 491)i
There a re a couple of p o in ts wherein I would l i k e to
q u estio n F e u e r's co n ten tio n . In th e f i r s t p la c e , th e
number of p a r tic ip a n ts i s a measure of a c tu a l Involvem ent,i
but does not begin to give us an e stim a te of th e e f f e c t ofj
the dem onstrations on o th e rs , nor of th e degree of support
o ffered by those who did not d ir e c tly p a r tic ip a t e . For
in sta n c e , although th e p a r tic ip a n ts were, in most c a ses,
a m inority of th e campus p o p u latio n , o th e r stu d e n ts seldom
r e ta lia t e d to stop the dem o n stratio n s.
1-42
Another im portant p o in t i s i l l u s t r a t e d by th e commen
ta r y of L ip set (1968) and Meyerson ( 1966). L ip set de
s c rib e s , as does F euer, th e f a c t th a t p r o te s te r s had been
in th e m inority of stu d e n ts in the follow ing sta tem en t:
I t remains t r u e , as H erbert Marcuse pointed out
re c e n tly , th a t th e m a jo rity of th e stu d e n ts in
a l l co u n trie s are p o l i t i c a l l y quiescent and
moderate in t h e i r views. According to n a tio n a l
surveys of stu d e n t opinion taken by th e H arris
P o ll in 1965 and th e G allup P o ll in 1967*
approxim ately o n e - f ifth of the stu d e n ts have
p a rtic ip a te d in c i v i l r ig h ts or p o l i t i c a l
a c t i v i t i e s . . .The r a d ic a l a c t i v i s t groups general*
ly have tin y memberships. S tudents fo r a Demo
c r a t ic S o ciety (SDS) claim s a t o t a l membership j
of about 3 0 ,0 0 0 out of a n a tio n a l stu d en t body j
of 7 m illio n of which about 6 ,0 0 0 pay n a tio n a l j
dues. A H arris P o ll of American stu d en ts taken j
in th e sp rin g of 1968 estim ates th a t th e re are j
about 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 r a d ic a l a c t i v i s t s or somewhere
between 1 and 2 percent of th e c o lle g e popula- |
t i o n . . . (p. 51)
N onetheless, does L ip s e t's documentation mean th a t the
r a d ic a l fo rces a re an in e f f e c tu a l m inority? Douglas
i
( 1970) fe e ls th a t s tre n g th is determined by ab so lu te
r a th e r than p ro p o rtio n a te m agnitudes. This i s a ls o th e
claim of Meyerson ( 1966) , speaking of the m illio n
American stu d en ts a t th a t tim e:
With th e se v ast numbers, p a ra d o x ic a lly , even a
sm all m inority may be la rg e . I f 98$ of th e
stu d e n ts were " s i l e n t , " and th e o th er 2 percent
d is s e n tin g , th e l a t t e r category would have over j
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 s tu d e n ts , a la rg e fig u re fo r any kind
of p r o t e s t . . .even a r e l a t i v e l y sm all number can,I
i f concentrated a t a few i n f l u e n t i a l i n s t i t u
t io n s , have a p o te n tia l n a tio n a l im pact, (p.
2 6 7 )
Perhaps th e most emphatic p o in t of a l l , however, is
made when one co n sid ers th e cum ulative e f f e c t of a l l th e
; a c ts and a l l th e r h e to r ic of stu d e n ts d ir e c tly and i n -
i ;
j d ir e c tly involved. Douglas (1970) a p tly d escrib es t h i s
as a growing "su b je c tiv e sense of poweiJI (p. 1 5) , in d i-
| e a tin g th a t th is fe e lin g cannot be captured by th e o b je c-
i
I tiv e numbers in and of them selves.
Time (May 3* 1968) rep o rted th a t th is was th e biggest|
| year fo r stu d e n t re v o lt sin ce 1948 in Europe. During th e
| previous th re e months, th e re had been in c id e n ts in 20 j
c o u n trie s , and th e pace showed no signs of d ecre asin g . j
In June, an o th er p o l i t i c a l fig u re was to jo in th e j
growing l i s t of m artyrs and plunge America back again in to |
i
grave q u estio n in g . Ju st a f t e r acknowledging h is success
; in th e C a lifo rn ia prim ary, Bobby Kennedy l e f t th e platform
| to be f e lle d (o ste n s ib ly ) by th e b u lle ts of a s s a s s in
| i
! S irhan B ishara S irh a n , a 2 4 -y ear-o ld Jordanian who despised
Kennedy’s stand on th e Middle E a st. Kennedy had been a
I popular candidate of various m inority groups and of many
i stu d en t a c t i v i s t s . Once again Americans had to face th e
: growing fev er of v iolence in both l e f t and r ig h t elem ents
: of the n a tio n .
j This theme of violence was a prim ary m otif in th e
! summer convention of SDS wherein a major s p l i t was to
| occur w ith in th e alre ad y d iv is iv e o rg a n iz a tio n . Powers
1 M
(1971) d escrib es th a t on May 2 1 st he had spoken w ith Mark
Rudd, SDS lead er of th e Columbia in c id e n ts , and Rudd had
i made c le a r h is d e c isio n t o t r y to move th e o rg a n iz a tio n
s
| toward a p o licy of determined c o n fro n ta tio n ;
| . . . a f t e r Columbia, th e stu d en t movement was
irre p a ra b ly s p l i t between re fo rm ists and
genuine re v o lu tio n a r ie s . The c e r titu d e ,
s te e ly rig h teo u sn ess and c h a rism a tic appeal
of th e re v o lu tio n a rie s re s u lte d in a kind of
m oral confusion among th e re f o rm is ts , who
faded in to in a c ti v ity . The re v o lu tio n a rie s
f a ile d to achieve anything beyond a kind of
s t r e e t th e a te r , but w ith each v io le n t e p i
sode (in which they were g e n e ra lly th e c h ie f |
v ic tim s ), the re v o lu tio n a rie s sensed t h e i r j
own moral s u p e rio rity more k e e n ly ... (pp. I
x i i - x i i i ) !
|
At th e SDS convention a t M3U, an encounter developed j
between th e New L eft and PL f a c tio n s . Powers e x p la in s: i
The New L eft had no coherent ideology but was
in c lin e d toward a p a ssio n ate ra d ic a lis m which
combined a b e lie f in community and a m y stica l
! f a i t h in The People w ith a t a s t e fo r th e new
| youth c u ltu re of rock, dope and freak y c lo th e s
coming out of San F ran cisco . PL was dour and
| o ld -fa sh io n e d , a highly organized group of
s h o rt-h a ire d , w e ll-re a d , thoroughly e a rn e st
k id s in work clo th es who might have attended
union r a l l i e s in th e 1 9 3 0’s , and were led by
i men who had. PL was founded ( f i r s t as th e
P ro g ressiv e Labor Movement, l a t e r as a p a rty )
; e a rly in th e 1960s by former members of th e
American Communist P arty who sided w ith th e
m ilita n t w orld-revolution-now lin e of Peking,
in ste a d of the c a u tio u s , accommodating,
" r e v is io n is t" lin e of Moscow. PL members were |
under d i s c i p l i n e , which meant th a t d ec isio n s 1
came down from above, r a th e r than up from below
. . . I t a lso meant th a t they behaved as a s o lid
bloc w ith in SDS, fo rc in g th e New L eft f a c tio n
to re a c t as a bloc in order to win c r u c ia l
v o te s, (pp. 6 2- 6 3 ) I
1^5
PL did not succeed in ta k in g over th e le a d e rsh ip of SDS
a t th e Convention, but what was dem onstrated was th e
growing fe e lin g of se v e ra l SDS members, such as Rudd, th a t
i
rev o lu tio n a ry th eo ry should be f a c i l i t a t e d and joined w ith
! re v o lu tio n a ry a c tio n —now. Powers claim s th a t th e
I
| form erly re fo rm ist stan ce of SDS (as described both by
| Jacobs and Landau, 1966, and P e te rse n , 1968) was changed
| by c e r ta in major e v e n ts, which turned members and non-
| member a c t i v i s t s in to "self-proclaim ed M arxist-L eninist"
i
i re v o lu tio n a rie s (p. 6 ). These events were the Tet offen-j
i
| siv e of January, th e in s u rre c tio n a t Columbia, th e May
I
| re v o lu tio n " in P a r is , and th e police-crow d encounters a t
| th e Democratic Convention in Chicago. S ta te s Powers:
j The e a rly stu d e n t movement had borrowed i t s
p r in c ip a l moral stan ce from A lb ert Camus, who
in s is te d th a t th in k in g men had t o fin d a way
in th e modern world to be n e ith e r victim s nor
e x e c u tio n e rs. Having been the victim in a
I thousand b a ttle s w ith th e p o lic e , student
ra d ic a ls began to see them selves as execution-
i e r s . (p. 6 l)
In Ju ly , a f t e r s ix years in th e an ti-w ar movement, one
j of th e most c o n s is te n tly a c tiv e American p r o te s to rs , Dr,
i Benjamin Spock, was sentenced to two years imprisonment
I fo r co n sp irin g to counsel d r a f t dodgers. The d e c isio n
| was l a t e r rev erse d .
| Then in August th e most dram atic encounter between
i ;
| p ro te s to rs and p o lic e in the h is to ry of th e country took
I I
S p la c e in Chicago, a " s id e lig h t" of th e Democratic P r e s i- j
146
d e n tia l Convention. At th e same tim e th e Convention was
being h e ld , Abbie Hoffman and dropout J e r r y Rubin led th e
Youth I n te r n a tio n a l P a rty , re fe rre d to as th e "Yippies"
in a mock convention. The Yippies did savage parodies
| of America and of them selves, flau n te d them selves before
th e media, organized wild happenings, and adm itted th a t
| th e s e c re t of th e Yippie myth was i t s own nonsense. At
| t h e i r m eetings, they nominated a 2 0 0-pound pig fo r th e
P residency. (The fa c t th a t i t was a "pig" had symbolic
I
! meaning to them .) j
Sack t r ie d to re c a p tu re some of th e Yippie demands, j
i
! which were: "A co n serv atio n program fo r p reserv in g our !
i . . !
i n a tu ra l re so u rc e s; a program (fo r) cable te le v is io n ; we i
j j
! b elieve th a t people should fuck a l l the tim e, anytim e; |
! The a b o litio n of any housing, pay media, pay tra n s p o r-
| t a tio n , pay food, pay ed u catio n , pay c lo th in g , pay medical!
| !
| b i l l s , and pay t o i l e t s " ( S e e : Hayes, 1970> PP« 180-181).
I The c i ty of Chicago had been deluged w ith a flow of
; young people, both a c t i v i s t s and q u ie te r co u n te rc u ltu re
members who had come to enjoy the scene. W riting of the
panorama in E squire (November, 1 9 6 8), v is i t i n g w rite r
| Genet s ta te d th a t " ...T h e dem onstrators a re young people
i of a g en tlen ess alm ost too g e n t l e .. .E verything s tr ik e s me j
j i
| as being very chaste?' (See: Hayes, 1970, p. l 6 l ) .
147
I t d i d n 't , however, remain g e n tle fun. The Chicago
p o lic e fo rc e had been placed on 12-hour s h i f t s . Thousands
of guardsmen stood by in case they were needed fo r r e in -
i
forcem ent, and some 7,000 Army troops were prepared to
j move i n .
i i
And th e p o lic e charged, wearing what Genet c a lle d
I th e i r "grimacing masks." Here is an excerpt from h is
| d e s c rip tio n :
| I t is a good, h e a lth y , and u ltim a te ly moral
| th in g fo r th e se f a ir - h a ir e d , g e n tle h ip p ies to j
j be charged a t by th e se lo u ts decked out in
t h i s amazing snout th a t p ro te c ts them from th e |
e ffe c ts of th e gas th ey have em itted . (See: j
Hayes, 1970, pp. 163-164) j
! And here i s G enet's f i n a l ode to th e v ic tim s: !
H ippies, young people of the dem onstration,
you no longer belong to America, which has
i moreover repudiated you. Hippies w ith long
' h a i r , you are making A m erica's h a ir c u r l,
I But you, between e a rth and sky, are th e
beginning of a new c o n tin e n t, an E arth of
F ire r is in g stra n g e ly above, or hollowed out
below, what once was t h i s sic k co u n try —an
| e a rth of f i r e f i r s t and, i f you lik e , an e a rth
I of flo w ers. (See: Hayes, 1970* p. 1^7)
I I r o n ic a lly , as th e marchers were in te rru p te d o u tsid e
j ;
th e Convention in t h e i r attem pt a t p ea ce fu l dem onstration,
] :
j t h e i r "philosophy" was sim ultaneously lo sin g ground in s id e .
One candidate had already been a s s a s s in a te d , a second,
j
McCarthy, could not hold out a g a in st th e power of Hubert
Humphrey. What they had l e f t , however, was th e b la ta n t
f a c t of th e sig h t of the u n ra v e llin g of th e sc e n a rio over ,
148
n a tio n a l te le v is io n . So they shouted: "The whole world
: i
| is watching" as numbers of them were clubbed to th e
!
pavement and ro se again to sh o u t: "TwoJ Four,' Six,1
Eight,1 W e don’t want a p o lic e s ta te ,’" By th e end of the
I Convention, many Americans b e tte r understood why, waving
i
! red f la g s , Yippies were sh outing, "Revolution NowJ" In j
j |
j order to vote fo r a P r e s id e n tia l candidate who believed j
!
th a t Chicago p o lic e had been excessive in t h e i r a c tio n s ,
Americans had to vote fo r e ith e r E ldridge C leaver, Black
I
P an th er, who ran on th e Peace-and-Freedom t i c k e t , or |
j
Fred H alstead of th e SWP.
|
The memory of Chicago, however, became th e e f f e c tiv e j
I ;
| symbol of Chicago, to be used as th e j u s t i f i c a t i o n by many'
! fo r v io le n t and ille g it im a t e a c tio n , to be u s e fu l in
| r a d ic a liz in g former la n e - s tr a d d le r s , to say to on e's
p a re n t: "Well, can you give me an answer fo r t h i s one?"
! And p ainted g la rin g ly red and black a l l over th e fro n t of
th e B erkeley Barb (August 30-September 5, 1968) were the
| h e a d lin e s: Yippie re p o rts on: Czechago, U,S.A.
So th e new school year began, fa te d to surpass th e
previous one in both number of dem onstrations and in c re ase
of v io le n t a c tio n . And, alm ost im m ediately, th e c ity of
Berkeley was plunged in to a co n d itio n of c i v i l d iso rd e r,
j ;
| Student a c t i v i s t s in Berkeley were organizing demon- ;
i 1
| s tr a t io n s in behalf of Chicago " v e te ra n s," S ev eral
149
ra d ic a ls had been charged w ith conspiracy to cro ss s t a t e
lin e s to c re a te a r i o t . Among th e se were Bobby S e a le ,
J e rry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and Tom Hayden. T herefore,
in B erkeley, r a l l i e s were a conglom erate of th e Young
S o c i a l i s t ’s A llia n c e , the Black Panther P a rty , Peace and
Freedom P a rty , McCarthy and Kennedy campaign groups, and
various o th er o rg a n iz a tio n s . The Berkeley campus was
!
flooded with h o s t i l i t y , aimed mostly a t th e p o lic e "pigs."j
Knowing t h i s , c ity a u th o r itie s increased emergency p o lic e j
power and s e t curfews fo r the s tu d e n ts .
Of t h i s increased period of r a d ic a liz a tio n , S h ils
j
( 1970) wrote s ig n if ic a n tly th a t th e student movement was j
no longer th e p o ssessio n of r e la tiv e l y small s e c ts w ith in j
la rg e r student bodies "but o fte n reaches out toward th e
sympathy of a la rg e m in o rity , even th e m ajo rity of s tu
d en ts" (p. 5 ). Furtherm ore, S h ils f e l t th a t th e i n t e r
n a tio n a l events had c rea ted a m oral im perative fo r the
stu d e n ts: The moral re v o lu tio n c o n s is ts in a demand fo r
a t o t a l tra n sfo rm a tio n —a tran sfo rm atio n from a t o t a l i t y
of u n d iffe re n tia te d e v i l to a t o t a l i t y of u n d iffe re n tia te d '
p e rfe c t" (p. 12).
On campuses a l l over th e co u n try , the g en e ra l s ta te
of being was one of te n sio n .
Is o la te d moments of hope came in those moments where-4
in S h irle y Chisolm, a former Brooklyn n u rsery -sch o o l
150
te a c h e r, was e le c te d th e f i r s t black Congresswomen. T his
was considered both a symbolic v ic to ry f o r blacks and fo r
j
jth e growing fe m in ist movement. But i t was more than
j
|dampened in i t s e f f e c t by th e e le c tio n of Richard Nixon
i
I over Hubert Humphrey. The slim margin of . 65# between
j
them was symbolic of the fe e lin g of r a d ic a ls in the n a tio n
|t h a t , between Nixon and the former l i b e r a l le a d e r, Humphrey,
|th e re was now l i t t l e choice, or l i t t l e d iffe re n c e .
! That same month, on November 4 th , a C a lifo rn ia
c o lle g e , V alley S ta te a t N orthridge, long involved in th e
!
peacefu l p o l i t i c a l aren a, erupted in v io len ce when Black
Student Union members and supporting white stu d e n ts seized
:
j c o n tro l of the A dm inistration B uilding, th re a te n in g o ff i - i
i |
!c i a ls w ith k n iv es. The stu d en ts were p ro te s tin g the
! j
|n a tu re of the Economic O pportunities Program which had
brought them to school but l e f t them ill-p re p a re d fo r
c o lle g e , and presented them w ith l i t t l e " r e le v a n t” to
!t h e i r own ed u catio n . Some 250 blacks and Chicanos asked
| fo r new kinds of programs, s p e c if ic a lly in black and
Chicano s tu d ie s .
| Although th e i n i t i a l phase of the p r o te s t a t V alley
iS ta te was s h o r t- liv e d , p o lic e remained on th e campus fo r
| weeks a fte rw ard , keeping students and fa c u lty in uncom-
! f o r ta b le te n sio n , u n t i l v io len ce again erupted in January.
151
The w inter months a ls o brought a r e v iv a l of th e
i
| s tru g g le a t San F ran cisco S ta te . The b asic issu e a t
! th a t lo c a le was a ls o th a t of racism a t the c o lleg e and
| demands fo r black s tu d ie s . George Nason Murray, a black
j i n s t r u c t o r , had urged th a t stu d en ts should " k i l l a l l
! I
I s la v e m a s te rs ." He was promptly dism issed, th is r e s u ltin g
! in BSU, SDS, and the Third World L ib e ra tio n F ront deman-
I i
|d in g : M urray's re in sta te m e n t, black s tu d ie s , the admis-
|s io n of any black stu d en t re g a rd le ss of q u a lif ic a tio n s ,
land 12 o th er demands. I f not s a t i s f i e d , they would s tr ik e .
! New P re sid e n t Smith closed down the campus in Novem- I
I !
Ib er. I t was in chaos. The S ta te tr u s te e s countered by
| ;
j o rd erin g the reopening of th e school, and refused to
n e g o tia te w ith th e stu d en ts involved. At the end of
November, a f t e r more than a month of c o n f lic t, Smith
r e s ig n e d , unable to re so lv e the is s u e s . Sesaue Hayakawa
i
j :
I was named A cting P re s id e n t. He opened c la sse s with San
F ran cisco p o lic e on th e campus, but d is a s te r continued.
lOver 80 stu d en ts were a r r e s te d . Hayakawa closed school
I fo r Christmas vacation e a r ly . At a news conference, he
;s ta te d th a t stu d e n t government would not be given a ro le in
c o lle g e d is c ip lin a r y c o u rts because i t s o ffic e rs were rebels
Ilio u s and ir re s p o n s ib le . S tudents were fu rio u s and more
| !
| v io len ce ensued. On December 5 th , 400 stu d en ts were stopped!
by mace and guns from ta k in g over th e A dm inistration
152
B u ild in g . The next day Hayakawa announced a black stu d ies
program to begin im m ediately, and the opening of new s lo t s
; fo r 400 ed u catio n ally -d e p riv e d stu d en ts in th e S pring.
I He a ls o announced, however, th a t suspended stu d en ts would
! be refused amnesty amd th a t th e p o lic e would remain on
I
I campus. These re s o lu tio n s were found untenable by s t r i k e
i
!le a d e rs , and they announced th a t r e s is ta n c e would con-
| tin u e . Tanks were on campus. There were b la ta n t f ig h ts |
I !
w ith p o lic e . At th e recommendation of fa c u lty members, j
i I
Hayakawa l i f t e d the suspensions of some 40 stu d e n ts, but |
i
th e dem onstrations continued. Students were joined by
fa c u lty members in th e ir s t r i k e . Hayakawa th reaten ed to
I ;
I !
| dism iss many te a c h e rs . V arious department heads refused
I to give him t h e i r names. In January, 483 a r r e s ts took
; p lace as s tu d e n ts defied new campus r e s t r i c t i o n s on demon
s tr a tio n s and fought with p o lic e tr y in g to break up a
|r a l l y . C o n flic t continued w ith le s s v io len ce follow ing th e
announcement of Hayakawa th a t he would r e h ir e (though
! w ithout te n u re ) 199 of th e 208 te a c h e rs he had declared to
be "resigned because of n o n attendance." Things would not
be "cool" again on th is campus fo r a long tim e.
A p o ll taken by Fortune magazine during 1968 id e n ti-
1 fie d two groups of co lleg e s tu d e n ts , one which was a t te n
ding co lleg e la rg e ly fo r i t s p r a c tic a l value in p o st-
| c o lle g e y e a rs, th e o th er group le s s fo r p r a c t ic a l m atters
| j
| or ta n g ib le th in g s . They termed th e f i r s t group " p ra c ti-
jc a ls " and the second group "fo re ru n n e rs*" comparing these
l
; groups with one another and w ith a c o n tro l group of non
c o lle g e s tu d e n ts . The fo reru n n ers dem onstrated c le a r j
d ep a rtu re from such t r a d i t i o n a l American values as
m a te ria lism , hard work, and p r a c tic a l a p p lic a tio n of a l l
; ex p erien ce. In t h i s way, they were sharply d i s t i n c t from
j both th e p r a c tic a l c o lleg e and the non-college groups.
| I
i The p r a c t i c a l group and th e non-college group were highly j
| s im ila r both in r e la tio n to a t titu d e s and b e lie fs on !
; i
i c u rre n t is s u e s , on p o l i t i c s , and on v alu es. A cau tio n j
! should be given the reader to remember th a t such s e l f -
I ■
| re p o rts may be ta in te d by whatever id e n tif ic a tio n with
v ario u s re fe re n c e groups and the need fo r s o c ia l acceptance
of s u b je c ts . T h erefo re, F o rtu n e 's conclusion th a t they
| expected th e re to be a growing tren d toward the e th ic of
| th e fo reru n n ers i s somewhat su sc e p tib le to c r itic is m .
In e a rly January, on th e V alley S ta te campus, th e
A dm in istratio n s ta lle d o ff attem pts of black stu d e n ts and
white su p p o rters to meet with them. Angered, stu d e n ts
e n lis te d community le a d e rs to come to th e ir a id . On the
campus a t th a t tim e as a graduate stu d e n t, I stood with
1,000 o th e rs to watch some 400 stu d en ts being adm itted to
I the A d m in istratio n B uilding fo r th e long-aw aited m eeting.
i ;
As they e n te re d , they were met with troops of p o lic e , th e ir
154
b illy - c lu b s swinging w ild ly , racin g out of th e b u ild in g .
To onlookers, t h i s seemed in c re d ib le , w ithout provocation.
The stu d e n ts had been to ld to form a lin e to e n te r ; they
did t h i s . They could not see in sid e the blue g la ss of
th e b u ild in g . P o lice could see o u t. L a te r, th e claim
was th a t some stu d en t had thrown a rock through a window.
I f th is happened, no one I knew saw i t . Suddenly, cops
|
were stampeding through th e m a d lj'-re tre a tin g crowds, and j
th e next th in g I knew a boy I had been ta lk in g w ith , who J
|
had " ju s t come to see what was happening," lay beside me, j
one of his eyes hanging out of h is head. i
Community lead ers and stu d e n ts met a t a r a l l y th e
next day. The campus was supposedly sealed o f f . H e li
co p ters flew overhead and p o lic e cars f i l l e d the parking |
l o t s . As they s a t in t h e i r c h a ir s , 286 people were
a rre s te d fo r unlaw ful assembly and bussed in to p o lic e
s ta tio n s . Many a rr e s te d were prominent lead ers in th e
V alley. F acu lty lead ers were dominant fig u re s in leading
th e p ro te s t which ensued in th e days to fo llo w .
In F ebruary, while being in v e stig a te d by th e Michi
gan S ta te L e g is la tu re (they were a ls o then being "studied"
by the Senate Subcommittee on R io ts , C iv il, and C rim inal
D iso rd e rs), SDS o ffic e s a t Ann Arbor were broken in to , I
ransacked, and records were s to le n . Much harassment of
members follow ed.
155
By A p ril, Michigan-Ohio SES was emerging as th e most
r a d ic a l bloc in th e o rg a n iz a tio n , along w ith Columbia.
Seven hundred stu d e n ts atten d ed a r a l l y a t Kent S ta te ,
Ohio, p ro te s tin g u n iv e rs ity d is c ip lin a r y proceedings.
F is t fig h ts broke out in an unusual counter-dem onstration
of f r a t e r n i t y boys a g a in st th e a c t i v i s t s , who were asking
fo r removal of ROTC, among o th er demands. F ifty -e ig h t
were a rre s te d by p o lic e . L ater th e SDS "Kent S ta te V
would be prosecuted fo r a s s a u lt and b a tte ry and in c itin g
to r i o t . They would be re le a se d only a few days before
May 1970 in c id e n ts on t h i s campus began.
In B erkeley, tro u b le broke out again in May over a
piece of p ro p erty o ff Telegraph Avenue c a lle d "P eople's
P a rk ." The land had form erly housed stu d e n ts and co
o p e ra tiv e liv in g groups, but th e u n iv e rs ity claimed i t
had become th e s i t e of h ip p ie co n c en tratio n and r is in g
crim e. T h erefo re, th e U n iv ersity suddenly converted i t
in to a w asteland where c a rs parked in muddy ground. The
people of th e area got to g e th e r in A p ril and began p la n t
in g , cle a n in g , and seeding. Merchants from th e area
cooperated, but th e U n iv e rsity was not im pressed. They
proposed i t be th e s i t e of an environm ental design f ie ld
re se a rc h s ta tio n but gave th e Park n e g o tia tin g committee
only a couple of days to come up w ith a v ia b le plan fo r
th e proposed p r o je c t. P ro te c tin g th e park, people moved
156
in , spending th e n ig h t, claim ing they were not looking fo r
a c o n fro n ta tio n , but n e v e rth e le ss a n tic ip a tin g one. On
May 15th, p o lic e moved in by th e hundreds, routed sleepers,
j and by morning had erec ted an e ig h t- f o o t, co n crete-an d -
l
| chored c h a in -lin k fen ce. P ro te s ts began; thousands
| r a l l i e d on th e campus, marching from S proul to Telegraph
i
| Avenue, P o lice waded in to th e crowds, s e ttin g o ff te a r
| gas and beating marchers m e rc ile s sly . R e ta lia tin g , the
people fought back with th e only weapons they themselves
possessed, ro ck s, b o ttl e s , e tc . R io ts continued through
May; Berkeley was again a d is a s te r zone. James R ector,
i
a stu d e n t, had been picked o ff by a p o lic e sn ip e r b u lle t
1
I
as he lay watching on a ro o fto p . At th e h eig h t of th e J
se ig e , th e re were thousands of p o lic e , and 2 ,7 0 0 guards
men a t B erkeley. During th e se e v e n ts, underground film
makers shot documentary footage th a t made H askell W exler’s
Medium Cool, a se re n d ip ito u s re v e la tio n of th e unfolding
| of "Chicago," look lik e a p ic n ic .
During th e Spring of 1969, major dem onstrations,
concerning a wide range of issu es occurred a t Columbia,
j W isconsin, C o rn ell, CCNY, and o th e r larg e sch o o ls.
TA BLE 1
P ro te st Issues a t I n s titu tio n s Experiencing In cid e n ts of V iolent
or Nonviolent D isruptive P ro te s t: 1968-1969 Academic Year
(Weighted P opulation E stim ates)
P ro te s t Issue
Among I n s titu tio n s
Experiencing Vio
le n t P ro te sts
(N = 145)
N Percent
Among I n s titu tio n s
Experiencing Non
v io le n t P ro te sts
(N = 379)
N Percent
1. U.S. m ilita ry policy ( e .g .,
Vietnam, CBW , ABM)..............................................56
2. S e le c tiv e se rv ic e p o lic y . ........................ 40
3. ROTC p ro g ra m s .......................................................55
4. On-campus m ilita ry or govern
ment r e s e a r c h ......................................................*13
5. On-campus r e c ru itin g by
government or in d u s try ..................................... 52
T o ta l, w ar-related issu es ( 1 - 5 ) .............................71
”67 Instrcu-cionai serviced ( e . g . ,
food and medical se rv ic e s ,
housing and re c re a tio n f a c i l i
t i e s ) ....................................................................... *15
7. I n s t i t u t i o n a l p a r ie ta l ru le s
( e .g ., d re ss, dormitory re g u la
tio n s , d rin k in g , sex, required
attendance a t school fu n ctio n s) . . . 20
3 8 .6
2 7 .6
37.9
2 9 .6
33.9
*19.0
31.0
13.8
1 *14
88
65
40
114
194
105
136
38.0
2 3 .2
17.1
10.6
30.1
51.2
27.7
35.9
1
1
h !
v j i :
- ' i i
T A BL E
8. I n s t i t u t i o n a l student d is c ip lin a ry
p r a c t i c e s .........................................................
9. I n s tr u c tio n a l procedures ( e .g .,
c la ss s iz e , q u a lity of in s tru c tio n ,
grading system, student e v a lu atio n . .
10. T u itio n charges and fe e s . . . . . . .
Tota l , serv ices to student issu es ( 6 , 9.
S p ecial educatio n al programs fo r
m inority groups ( e .g ., black
s tu d ie s , compensatory programs. . . .
I 12. S p ecial adm issions p o lic ie s for
m inority g r o u p s ................................... . .
j T o ta l, m inority group students issu es
| ^C iv il rig h ts ( e .g .. desegregation,
voter r e g is tr a tio n ) ....................................
: 14. Labor problems ( e .g ., wages,
b e n e fits , u n io n izatio n ) ...........................
| 15. A dm inistrative in d iffe re n c e or
in a c tio n concerning lo c a l commu-
| n ity p ro b le m s...................................... ..
! T o ta l, off-campus issu es (1-5; 13-15)« • .
i 16" P o lice b r u ta li ty . . . . . . . . . . .
I 17. Requests or demands fo r amnesty • . .
I 18. A dm inistrative in d iffe re n c e or
I in a c tio n concerning previous
| p ro te s t g riev an ces........................................
I 19. A dm inistrative response to
| previous p ro te sts ..........................................
: Continued
N P ercent
67
46.2
36
24.8
17 11.7
64 44.1
96 6 6 .2
55 37.9
101 69.1
7
4.8
28
19.3
61 42.1
102
70.3
37 25.5
46
31.7
63
43.4
45
3 1 .0
N Percent
102
26.9
125
33.0
36 9.5
193 50.9
194 51.2
97
2 5 .6
196
51.7
17 4.5
10 2 .6
29
7.6
214
56.5
13
3.4
50 13.2
106 28.0
67 17.7
TA BLE
20. Mourning fo r students or others
k ille d or wounded . . . . . . . . . .
T o ta l, secondary issu es (16-20). . . . . .
Student p a rtic ip a tio n in oecis ion
making ( e .g ., in c lu sio n on com
m ittee) ..............................................................
22. Free expression ( e .g ., censorship
of p u b lic a tio n s, exclusion of
"c o n tro v e rsia l" speakers) . . . . . .
23. F aculty ( e .g ., academic freedom,
h ir in g , tenure) ............................................
T o ta l, student power issu es (7, 8,
21-23! . . # / . v . ; . . . .
241 O t h e r ...................................................................
Grand t o t a l (1-24) . . . . ...............................
| Reprinted from Bayer, A. E. & A stin , A. W .
| 1908- 1969, in E ducational Record, F a ll 196
: Continued
N Percent N Percent
22 15.2
3 * »
9.0
96 66.2
157
41.4
78 53.8
1*7
3 8 .8
19 13.1 51 13.5
51
35.2
65 17.1
113 77.9 283 74.7
30
20.7
60 15.8
14 5
100.0
379
100.0
V iolence and d isru p tio n on the U.S. campus,
, 5 0, p. 3^5.
TA BLE 2
S t a t i s t i c a l Summary of Campus D isturbances Covering th e Period
October 1967 - May 1969
1. T o ta l colleges or in s titu tio n s of higher le a rn in g .................................................................2,374
2 . T o tal colleges involved in d istu rb a n c e s............................................................. ....................... 211
3. T o ta l d istu rb a n ces1..................................... . . . . . . * ......................................................... 471
*1. Types of alleg ed grievances leading to disturbances
a. M ilita ry r e c r u i t i n g ................................................................... 24
b. M ilitary r e s e a r c h ................................................................................ 9
c . ROTC................................................................................................................................................... 41
d. Vietnam war and d r a f t ........................... 44
e. Corporate r e c r u itin g ............................... 28
f . Black s tu d e n ts ' dem ands............................................. 125
g. A dm inistrative p o l i c y ........................................................................................................... 192
5. Damage:
a. T o ta l in cid en ts o f—
Bombings and attem pted bombings......................................................... 25
Arsons and suspected arso n s. ...................... 46
General d e s tru c tio n , such as windows, f u rn itu re , e tc . .............................. 67
b. T o ta l estim ated persons in ju red ........................... . 593
6. A dm inistrative response to d istu rb an ce:
a. T o ta l disturbances where a d m in istra to rs—
Called campus, lo c a l, S ta te p o lice . . . .................. . . 110
Called N ational Guard.................................................... 12
Closed the i n s t itu ti o n or suspended c la s s e s ........................................................ 26
Granted amnesty.................................................................................................................. 3
Granted student demands.................................................................................................. 39
1 19 percent of th e t o t a l disturbances occurred a t th e U niversity of C a lifo rn ia a t
B erkeley, Columbia U n iv e rsity , Harvard U n iv ersity , San F rancisco S ta te C ollege, and
p th e U n iv ersity of Wisconsin a t Madison. c r>
Some disturbances had more than 1 cause. 0
TA BLE 2: Continued
b. T o ta l estim ated a r r e s t s .................................................................... ................................... 6 ,1 5 8
c . T o tal suspensions and expulsions ................................................................................ 645
d. T o tal disturbances rece iv in g fa c u lty support .................. . . . . . . . . 15
7. T o ta l in c id en ts of methods used by dem onstrators:
a . Marches, r a l l i e s , te a c h -in s , p ic k e ts, e t c .......................... l 4 l
b. Occupation of b u ild in g s, o f fic e s , s t r e e t s .............................................................. 207
c . Boycotting c la sse s ................................................................................... 46
d. D isruption of e x tra c u rric u la r a c t i v i t i e s (ROTC d r i l l s ,
r e c r u itin g , tr u s te e m eetings, speakers, e t c . ) .................................................... 66
e . Holding of h o stag es................................................................................................ 14
R eprinted from S ta ff study of campus r i o t s and d is o rd e rs —October 1967-May 1969, in
R io ts , c i v i l and crim in al d is o rd e rs , June 16 and 17, 1969, P a rt 18, pp. 3669- 3 6 7 0.
1
i-»
cr\
H
i6s
Table 1 (Bayer & A stin , 1969* P. 3^5) shows th e
range of p ro te s t Issu es a t th e co lleg es during th is
academic p erio d . Table 2 i s a summary of campus p r o te s t
between O ctober, 1967 and May, 1969 (Government Hearings |
on R io ts, C iv il and C rim inal D iso rd ers, June 16-17, 1969?
pp. 3669- 3 6 7 0).
Table 2 shows th a t of *171 d istu rb an ces during th e
p erio d , 19$ occurred a t B erkeley, Columbia, Harvard, San j
F rancisco S ta te , and Madison. j
|
I w ill r e f e r back to th e se ta b le s subsequently. j
The Harvard in c id e n ts of th a t Spring received particu-j.
!
la r a tte n tio n from th e press as in d ic a tiv e th a t even th e |
most hallowed of in s t i t u t i o n s had "joined th e s tr u g g le ."
Time magazine had as i t s cover p ic tu re (A p ril 18, 1969) a ;
fa m ilia r Harvard s ta tu e , th e fig u re holding a placard on
his la p , reading "S trik e H arvard." A p a stic h e of black
and w hite candids of enraged s tu d e n ts , helmeted p o lic e ,
e tc . was the backdrop. Time in d ic ated th a t th e "academic
calm of c e n tu rie s has been broken by a rampage" (p. 2*1).
Harvard had been q u ie t fo r 333 y ears] Local SDS-ers
e v icte d nine deans from th e A dm inistration B uilding and
occupied i t .
I n i t i a l l y stu d en ts had decided on a p o licy of non
v io len ce, but P re sid e n t Pusey c a lle d in th e p o lic e , in -
i
c itin g stu d e n ts to r i f l e f i l e s and secure evidence th a t
163
Harvard was involved in CIA p r o je c ts . The demands of th e
s t r i k e r s followed a by-now fa m ilia r p a tte r n : elim in a te
ROTC, i n i t i a t e black s tu d ie s , u t i l i z e u n iv e rs ity aid fo r
poor urban a re a s . A fte r e v ic tio n by th e p o lic e , 196
stu d e n ts were charged w ith tre s p a s s and j a i l e d . There
were numerous in ju r ie s . A g e n e ra l s tr ik e followed w ith a
rap id gain in p a r tic ip a n ts to 1 0 ,0 0 0 stu d en t and fa c u lty
i
members. As L ife (A p ril 25, 1969) in te rp re te d i t , some
of the very stu d en ts who had i n i t i a l l y decried th e SDS !
|
a c tio n were se t o ff by th e p o lic e t a c t i c s and i t became j
t h e i r cause, to o . This p a tte rn (th a t in d ic a te d p rev io u sly j
as th e Columbia Inv en tio n ) had by now become th e " r u le ."
I t i s described in some manner by B e ll & K r is to l ( 1 9 6 8),
Reich (1970)* Roszak ( 1969)* and th e Scranton Commission
Report (1970).
The s ig n ific a n c e of t h i s p o in t to me is th e a b i l i t y
of th e cad re, or core group of r a d ic a ls , t o m obilize what
I w ill c a l l a "rea r e c h elo n ," which was probably comprised
of a very d if f e r e n t element of stu d e n ts than th e core
them selves. This would happen given a c e r ta in response by
u n iv e rs ity a u th o r itie s and p o lic e . This point w ill be
discussed fu rth e r in a l a t e r c h a p te r. What I am hypothe
s iz in g h erein is th a t stu d en ts in th e re a r echelon were
re a c tin g more to scen ario (as described in : Douglas,
1970; Hoffman, 1968; Klapp, 1965$ Myerhoff, 1 9 7 1 b ;C an tril,
164
1 9 6 3; H offer, 1951) and to symbol (Myerhoff, 1971b) than
I to th e p a r tic u la r iss u e involved. Such re a c tio n s were
|
: f u rth e r stim u lated by s t r i k e p o ste rs which included such
; r h e to ric as th e follow ing a t Harvard (L if e , A p ril 25,
I 1969):
S trik e fo r th e r ig h t demands. S trik e because
! you h ate cops. S trik e because your roommate
| was clubbed. S trik e to stop expansion. S trik e
to se iz e c o n tro l of your l i f e . S trik e to be
come more human. S trik e to re tu rn Paine H all
| sc h o la rsh ip s. S trik e because t h e r e ’s no poetry !
in your le c tu r e s . S trik e because c la sse s are a
i bore. S trik e fo r power. S trik e to smash the
I C orporation. S trik e to a b o lish ROTC. S trik e
because they a re try in g to squeeze th e l i f e out j
of you. S trik e . (p. 35) ;
i
What could be more e f f e c tiv e propaganda? Here we have j
I j
j social and political issues intermingled with pleas con- j
I cerning one’s life blood. Perhaps you didn’t give a damn :
! about ROTC, or about Paine Hall s c h o la rsh ip s, but you
i goddamn w ell did care if your roommate ( i t could be you
! n ex t) was clobbered, and you were not about to be accused
j of not "being human." The tremendous m ixture of s o c ia l,
i economic, and p o l i t i c a l is s u e s , both lo c a l and n a tio n a l,
were a ls o blended in to a r h e to r ic which spoke of in d iv id u a l
and c u ltu r a l re p re s s io n . This a ls o bore tremendous impact
: because i t had become th e language of y o u th ’s music and
! I
; y o u th ’s s w e a t-s h ir ts , even in th e more p assiv e c o u n ter- j
| c u l tu r a l elem ent.
165
What I am saying is t h a t , i f th e re was indeed a youth
i
movement e x is te n t a t t h i s tim e (and no one seemed to doubt
| th is in 1969* in te r e s tin g ly enough), the movement was very
much an e r s a tz one. Viewing Tables 1 and 2 gives us a j
I c le a r dem onstration of my co n te n tio n , showing th e broad
j number of is s u e s , covering numerous asp ects of campus l i f e
| and n a tio n a l p o lic y , on-campus and off-cam pus. F u rth e r-
!
I more, th e range of issu e s was equally as broad whether th e j
I
p ro te s t was v io le n t or n o n v io le n t. I n te r e s tin g ly enough, j
S
Table 1 shows us th a t th e most v iolence occurred not in
re sp e c t to w a r-re la te d issu e s as many people believed but
in re a c tio n to s p e c ia l ed u c atio n al programs fo r m inority !
groups, c le a r ly showing th a t a t th a t tim e stu d en ts became
| :
| most enraged about is s u e s , th a t f a c to r concerned them
i
! m ost.
j At any r a t e , re g a rd le ss of the fun one might have
I
; playing w ith th e a v a ila b le s t a t i s t i c s , my only purpose in
■ r e f e r r in g to them a t t h i s tim e is to i l l u s t r a t e th a t
i campus d is s e n t in i t s most flamboyant period between
! 1967-1969 was by no means a o n e-issu e m atter such as had
1 been th e case w ith th e C iv il R ights Movement in i t s e a r l i e r
: days. I t lacked even th e sense of d e f in it e purpose of th e j
I e a rly Free Speech Movement in prompting u n iv e rs ity reform , j
R a th er, i t took from a l l th e se e a r l i e r movements, and from j
th e by-now fa m ilia r slogans and symbols of th e co u n te r-
166
c u ltu r e , and from th e spontaneous re a c tio n s of le ad ers on-
| th e - s p o t, and had become a "movement movement." This was
| not re b e llio n w ithout a cau se, but r e b e llio n w ith i n f i n i t e
• j
| causes.
i
Perhaps t h i s is what Powers is g e ttin g a t in h is diary
; of Diana Oughton, which d ia ry developed, se c o n d a rily , in to
I an a n a ly sis of th e r i s e and f a l l of SDS. Always id e o lo g i-
: c a lly weak, as I have described i t p rev io u sly , fa c tio n s in i
j SDS were by now rip e to f ig h t but they were not com pletely
i
i su re what to focus on, what to u t i l i z e in order to muster
i
I
th e tro o p s they needed to support t h e i r h ard -co re, r e s t -
i
le s s , committed (and by now fa tig u e d ) Army. T heir |
| s tr a te g y , therefore,am ounted to th e fo llo w in g , according
| to Powers:
| !
During th e f i r s t h a lf of 1969 SDS was engaged
in what amounted to a prolonged experim ent:
th ey were try in g to fin d a way in which rev o -
| lu tio n a r ie s could c re a te a re v o lu tio n a ry s i t u a -
| t io n , r a th e r than subm itting to th e exigencies
j of h is to r y and w aitin g fo r such a s it u a ti o n to
j c re a te i t s e l f , (p . 8 5 )
| Here is an example, quoted by him, which shows p re c is e ly
; what he means. This was Jim M ellen, speaking to th e Kent
S ta te r a l l y in A p ril of th a t same sp rin g :
I know th e re are some pigs out th e re who s t i l l
th in k we should occupy Vietnam. And th e re are i
some pigs out th e re who s t i l l th in k they can go
in to g h etto s and push people around. W ell, what
we’re t e l l i n g you i s th a t you c a n ’t do i t any
more.’ W e a re no longer t e l l i n g you to come and
help us make a re v o lu tio n . W e're t e l l i n g you
| th a t th e re v o lu tio n has begun, and th e only j
167
choice you have to make is which sid e y o u 're
on. And w e're a ls o t e l l i n g you th a t i f you
get in th e way of th e re v o lu tio n , i t ' s going
to run r ig h t over you.' (p. 8*10)
i Remembering my own fe e lin g s as a graduate stu d en t in 1969
I and in 1970, I r e c a l l such speeches, and th ey were, a t
I le a s t fo r me and most of my f r ie n d s , highly e f f e c tiv e .
[
| What r e a l ly h i t were two f a c to r s : I f y o u 're not w ith th e
j R evolution, y o u 're one of them, a p ig , in other words
i ( " i f y o u 're not p a rt of th e s o lu tio n , y o u 're p a rt of th e
problem1 1 ); and - - B ut, d o n 't you know, i t ' s begun a lre a d y ,
and y o u 're th re e ste p s behind. Move i t , you dummy, or l e t j
y o u rse lf get stepped on and squeezed o u t. — j
| For those of us who had been on what we thought of as j
| th e "brink of re v o lu tio n ," who saw th a t innocent student
| |
| g e ttin g h is eye knocked out by th e p o lic e , who lis te n e d
j to Bobby Dylan sin g in g , " i t 's a l l r i g h t , Ma, I'm only
!
! b le e d in g ," and th e B e a tle s, "Taxman," i t somehow a l l
| seemed to come to g e th e r, p a r tic u la r ly in th e heat of
j emotion when one d id n ’t stop to th in k of " ju s t what i t is
| I want to help them accom plish." So began th e build-up
a sometimes m o bilizeable "re a r echelon," most of us
s o f t- c o r e , I suppose, but very much th e re a t le a s t a f t e r
| something s ta rte d happening. ;
The essence of th e above th e s is w ill be reconsidered
in th e l a s t ch ap ters of t h i s book, but i t is im portant to |
| in tro d u ce i t a t t h i s p o in t sin ce i t was a m atter of j
168 :
p a r tic u la r irony t h a t , ju s t a t th e peak of i t s su ccess,
in terms of recru itm en t of a "mass," SDS began to f a l l
ia p a r t. Having designated i t s e l f as le a d e rs , supported by
i high id e a ls but a w in d y -fre e -flo a tin g -flim s y -th in body of
J i
; ideology, i t found i t s e l f suddenly being follow ed, and i t
would lead i t s own membership to t h e i r dow nfall.
i
As Powers described i t , th is sm all band of dream ers,
i
! fin d in g themselves suddenly speaking fo r hundreds of j
! i
|th o u san d s, began to ta s te power, r e a liz in g th a t i f they j
!could c a rry th ese hundreds of thousands w ith them they i
I could change th e course of h is to r y . But, as Powers asks:
j
"Who was going to run the rev o lu tio n ?" (p, 8 l ) . And, I j
would add, i f th ere was going to be a re v o lu tio n a ry move-
i
i ment, what was being moved tow ard?
At th e Annual Convention in June, th in g s began moving!
I to a head in SDS. A new fa c tio n had formed, c a llin g them-
; selv es the R evolutionary Youth Movement (RYM). Form erly,
! in SDS, the New L eft element had deferred to the Black
; P anthers as th e genuine le ad ers of th e re v o lu tio n . PL had
claimed i t s e l f as the vanguard (w ith Peking as i t s model).
RYM was formed out of the old New L eft elem ent, and
I i t s aim was, as described by Powers, to fo rg e t about con-
I i
c e n tra tio n on dom estic is s u e s , and jo in th a t in te r n a tio n a l j
i
| re v o lu tio n alread y under way. They wanted to jo in
i
| w ith th e blacks and get in to th e in te r n a tio n a l s tru g g le
16&
against the "imperialists" in this country, thusly: "It
provided a world view with which to fight PL, and it pro-
| vided a theoretical basis for taking militant action j
| immediately" (Powers, p. 8 7 ). A tremendous struggle
I occurred at the Convention, eventually resulting in the
I triumph of RYM, the election of RYM national officers (led
by Mark Rudd as new President), and their expulsion of PL
! ' 1
from SDS. j
Following the Convention, SDS was definitely a new j
I
organization and taking a line from Dylan's Subterranean
Homesick Blues; "You don't need a weatherman to know i
1
which way the wind blows," RYM dubbed themselves "Weather- |
man."
During the rest of the summer, the "Weatherman" began
| to "brew" violence, planning for anti-war militant demon-
| strations in the autumn. The members became rigidly self-
! disciplined and began to study revolutionary theory more
| diligently. In preparation for the Days of Rage in
| Chicago, violent summer demonstrations were held by Motor
City SDS in Detroit. Several SDS members believed that
: winning over working-class kids would bolster their forces,
i The new thirst for violence caused the split-off of two of
I the top leaders, Bob Avakian and Mike Klonsky. The
| majority of SDS members began calling themselves "revo
lutionaries." New slogans were: "Criticism— Self-
170
criticism— Transformation"; "Politics in Common"; and
"Everything for the revolution." All were adopted from
the political theory of Mao.
Life in the communes of SDS was now rigid, and, as
described by Powers, totally dedicated to what one might
call a kind of "political-gestalting," or interpreting
every move as part of the preparation for the revolution
to come.
In the midst of what had been a violent summer and
as prelude to what would be a yet more violent autumn, an
event took place in the farm country of New York, on a
field rented to rock producers by middle-aged youth
advocate, Max Yassky. The three days would later become
known by the name of a near-by town: Woodstock. Over
500,000 young people, the largest group in history ever
assembled in one place, came together in sunshine (and
later in storm and mud) to smoke dope and swim nude and
listen to music and make love and not hurt anyone. Those
who did suffer did so by way of freak-outs, bad trips,
homesickness, crowd phobia, but there was no violence,
even given the presence of police. It was the largest
youth happening to date, and it had little to do with
revolution, or, if there was a revolution, it was of a
very soft nature, more a turning backward to what had
been, than any kind of violent movement forward. It
171
I was th e la rg e s t youth happening to d a te , and i f the
| Weatherman wanted a fo rc e of thousands, th e re they were
i s tr e tc h in g out 35 acres from th e s ta g e , but th e Weatherman
! d id n 't appear to "m obilize" them. I t was p ea ce fu l and
! a d u lts of th e community helped out and to ld documentary
; film makers they loved th e k id s. And i t was pow erful in
i t s p eacefu l way, dem onstrating th e s tre n g th of th e passive
I c o u n te rc u ltu re , which was not to be confused w ith the
I
s tre n g th of th e re v o lu tio n . Woodstock became a new symbol,!
a new myth, blowing in th e opposite d ire c tio n of th e
i I
i ]
| Weatherman. j
i In September, 1969* th e Weatherman began t h e i r F a l l j
i i
| " a tta c k ." They spent s ix weeks preparing fo r th e four
| la y s of Rage in Chicago by d is tr ib u tin g l e a f l e t s and
! holding r a l l i e s in o th er c i t i e s , c re a tin g d istu rb an ces
! a t sc h o o ls, y e llin g : "He liv e s " and "Free Huey." The
|
| t id e was tu rn in g a g a in st them, however. Many campus SDS
groups turned o ff on t h e i r p o licy of non-stop v iolence and
; voted a g a in st jo in in g th e n a tio n a l p ro te s t in Chicago which
Weatherman were p re d ic tin g would be a hugh trium ph w ith
I la rg e p a r tic ip a tio n . In th e meantime, a r r e s ts of W eather-
I man (in clu d in g many of t h e i r fe m in is ts , who were among th e i
j :
| most m ilita n t) were ta k in g place fre q u e n tly around th e
I country.
172
j Though th e Weatherman cadre was no la rg e r than 400,
they b lith e ly p red ic ted anything between 50,000 - 100,000
! would be in Chicago. The a c tio n th e re began on October
| 5th w ith th e burning down of a s ta tu e commemmorating
I seven policemen in th e 19th cen tu ry . They t r i e d to appear
i stro n g , p rep arin g t h e i r a rse n a ls of chains and clubs
| masked in paper bags, but when they moved in to th e s t r e e t s
I th e next morning to begin t h e i r a tta c k , th e re were only j
| i
300 of them. D espite t h e i r concentrated onslaughts on I
j
p o lic e , p o lic e c a r s , and some p assersby, they were quickly j
! stopped, but not before some JO a r r e s t s . Three had been
i
j
| wounded by buckshot. A subsequent a c tio n out of Grant
I Park by a women's cadre intended to march on a Chicano
j
! d r a f t board was a ls o a f a i l u r e . The women marched in
; b o o ts, chanting f o r Ho, th e V ietcong, and a g a in st th e
| " p ig s ," "Oink, o in k ." They plunged in to th e p o lic e lin e s ,
i
i
! were e a s ily stopped, and numbers were a r r e s te d .
I t was th e middle of the end fo r th e Weatherman, th e
i beginning of th e end was a t th e June Convention; th e end
of th e end came q u ie tly . Between June and November, th e re
had been 372 a r r e s t s . They had lo s t se v e ra l of t h e i r most
e f f e c tiv e le a d e rs . They had, ju s t a t th e moment wherein
; SDS had gained th e power t o m obilize g re a t numbers of
| stu d e n ts , changed p o licy and begun to tu rn them o f f . They
j had named them selves as cadre fo r a re v o lu tio n they said
173
had begun, but which, in fact, never came to be. As
Powers wrote:
The Weathermen plunged beyond politics, which
measures things in the here and now, to a higher
realm where the student movement could not
survive. In effect, the movement died because
the revolutionaries killed it. (p. xiii)
But this is perhaps anticipatory to our climax. Let me
say at this point that the "movement" that was SDS was
dying, taking with it a large part of the force behind
student protest in the nation.
In October, another highly-publicized event was
taking place in Chicago, the trial of the so-called !
i
Chiacgo Eight, the accused "conspirators" of the 1968 !
Democratic Convention. Following the trial for Life
1
(October 10, 1969) , author Furlong entitled his account,
"The Straights vs. the Chicago 8." These were the first
people to be accused under the provision of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968 tacked on by Strom Thurmond to control
the crossing of state lines "in order to provoke disorder."
Furlong quoted Jay A. Miller, executive director of the
Illinois division of the ACLU, who stated: "This is
probably the most important political trial in the history :
of the United States"(p. 28d). Furlong agreed because: |
"it could bring into focus such matters as freedom to
! speak, freedom of assembly, freedom to travel, and pro-
j tection against unreasonable search and seizure^(p. 28D).
17*
Judge Hoffman had an im possible time m aintaining "decorum"
in th e courtroom and e v e n tu a lly charged Bobby S eale w ith
Contempt of C ourt, se p a ra tin g him o ff from the others
(who l a t e r became known as th e Chicago Seven).
D espite th e i n a b i l i t y of th e Weathermen to muster
support fo r t h e i r an ti-w a r and a n ti-E sta b lish m e n t moves,
nonvio le n t p ro te s ts toward th e same ends were highly
i
su c c e s sfu l in gaining la rg e p a r tic ip a tio n . N atio n al ;
Moratorium Day on October 15th had over one m illio n j
Americans acro ss th e n a tio n p a r tic ip a tin g in daytime and
c a n d le lig h t marches. Most campuses acro ss th e n a tio n had j
Moratorium Day Committees and a c t i v i t i e s . To am plify th e
success of th e Day, se v e ra l s o ld ie r s in Vietnam wore black !
armbands to jo in in th e ex p ressio n .
The i n i t i a t i n g Moratorium Committee was led by former
su p p o rters of Eugene McCarthy, and t h e i r plans were
endorsed by th e New M obilization and SMC. The p eacefu l and1
le g a l a c tio n s of th is la rg e -s c a le p r o te s t is o ften ignored
in re fe re n c e to i t . I t was th e t r u ly big event on th e
Campus th a t F a l l season and one of the reasons th a t the
a c t i v i t i e s in Washington on November 15th were to be
so su c c e s sfu l on a la rg e s c a le .
When Moratorium le ad ers had met to organize in J u ly , j
Mark Rudd had proposed th a t th e an ti-w ar conference group
support th e SDS’s Chicago v en tu re. A debate took p la ce in ;
175
which many expressed th a t th is was counterposed to a
mass dem onstration in Washington. I t was a t t h i s point
! th a t th e re was a c le a r c u t- o f f between th e Weathermen and
! an ti-w a r movement people. The Committee f o r th e November
; 15th event involved people lik e Dave D e llin g e r and Rennie
i
I D avis.
! On November 15th, in Washington, 250,000 marched in
! p r o te s t, in a h ighly-organized a f f a i r rem iniscent of the
| c i v i l r ig h ts dem onstration of 1963. S upporters came from !
1
a l l over th e n a tio n . This was th e biggest an ti-w a r demon- !
i
s t r a t i o n in the n a tio n ’s h is to ry and th e la rg e s t g ath erin g i
of d is s e n te rs Washington has ever seen. B a sic a lly th e I
p r o te s t was n o n v io le n t, w ith P ete S e e g e r's music th e m otif !
as had been Joan B aez's s ix years b efo re. There were some
! r i o t s , but the r i o t e r s rep resen ted only about 2% of th e
I crowds. The dem onstration rein fo rc ed what se v e ra l p o lls
! now showed, th a t ^ 5- 50^ of th e n atio n were e ith e r doves
1 or ag a in st th e governm ent's p o licy on Vietnam. Nixon was
j s t i l l promising to p u ll out 200,000 more tro o p s by m id-1971*
! but an ti-w ar veteran s could no longer "afford to b eliev e "
; in prom ises. More and more the n a tio n was d evastated by
! th e d e s tru c tio n to th e n a tiv e s and c u ltu re of Vietnam.
In December, th e Weathermen held a "war co u n c il" in
F l i n t , Michigan and decided to go "underground." By now
they were g e ttin g a g re a t d ea l of a tte n tio n from p o lic e
176
| and from the FBI. They featured posters a t th e ir la s t
|
| open meeting of Che, Ho, Fred Hampton (the slaughtered
I Black Panther who had avidly opposed them), and, in what
i Powers describes as an amazing act of s e lf-h a tre d , chanted
| "All white babies are p ig s." Bernadette Bohrn, an in f lu -
! e n t ia l leader, held up the acts of Charles Manson and his
I family as admirable, saying "Big i t . "
| At the term ination of the council and the beginning
of the new year, the Weathermen destroyed "what was l e f t
of SDS," a l l of i t s records, i t s f i l e s , i t s h isto ry p re
vious to th e ir going underground. Powers has a revealing
! comment to make about th is act and i t is a sad one because
| of the combination of viciousness and tragedy involved in
i
I the "funeral":
|
| The Weathermen destroyed the records of SDS for
j two reasons: f i r s t , to prevent i t s renaissance
| a f te r they went underground. They intended th a t
| white ra d ic a ls would do i t th e ir way, or not at
i a l l . Second, they were in the mood to indulge
j in a f i n a l gesture of contempt for a l l who were
not with them. When they l e f t the o ffic e , the
white student-movement which SDS had once led
was dead. (pp. 13^ - 1 3 5)
By the beginning of 1970, the growth of p ro te s t on
! the campus had been p a ra lle le d by the growth of the
| id e n tif ic a tio n of masses of college students with a more
l passive youth subculture. Many students walked away from
dem onstrations, or stood, h e s ita n tly , on the edge, but
few d id n 't have an "appropriate" c o lle c tio n of records,
177
few maintained short h a ir (at le a s t on the major campuses),
and, according to the AM A, most had sampled drugs. Whereas
only a few hundred thousand Americans had tr ie d drugs in
| i 960, 8 m illion Americans now had, and most were college
| age (See: Bowen, 1970). Communes were on the r is e in
i
I college dorm itories and d isresp ect fo r police had resu lted
| in a high r a te of crime in the Berkeley area, during the
i
| fiv e years following the FSM u p risin g (Feuer, 1969). The
i
|
stu d e n ts' revulsion toward the police was, claimed many,
a mutual fe e lin g . P o lice , in various college communities
cruised the campuses, drove clo sely to "long-hairs" on
i
the road, often ro u tin ely stopping them fo r a "quick j
| search." Students an ticip ate d t h i s and developed a t t i -
i ;
| tudes toward the police th a t showed a mixture of hatred
I and paranoia.
I ^
F urther, students who were p o litic a lly - o rie n te d
j
| and th e ir passive counter-culture "brothers" and " s i s t e r s " '
j
had by now become aware of the paradox of "progress,"
| made in being th a t th ere now were 1 ,5 0 0 blacks holding
e le c tiv e o ffic e , while 29$ of blacks s t i l l lived at the
: poverty le v el as compared to 8% of white America (Scran-
: ton, 1970). Black Panthers lik e Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, i
j 1
i Eldridge Cleaver, Erica Huggins, and Fred Hampton were
e ith e r ja ile d , in e x ile , or dead.
178
Another irony existed in th a t while we were "saving"
South Vietnam, we had somehow k ille d 300*000 c iv ilia n s
l
i in th a t country.
i
!
! Even our p o litically -m o d erate parents cringed at the
j p ain fu lly -v iv id p o r tr a its of women and ch ild ren , some shot
i
| in th e i r nakedness, a symbol so clear as to be unbearable,
tangled together in mud and blood somewhere in a country
| th a t was half-razed by bombs. I f th ere were a "generation j
! i
I I
I gap," i t disappeared as we sat to g eth er, student and j
i i
| p aren t, and asked each other Just how many M y L a i's there
I
| had been or were at th is very moment. I
j
And so, though many of us s t i l l remained p o l it ic a lly
naive in so f a r as being able to tra c e cause or e f f e c t,
i
I and though many of us listened to music and leaned back
i
j and d rifte d off instead of ta lk in g p o lit ic s , some awareness
| of the importance of the issues was now th e r e .
| And, as Gallup reported in his May, 1969 p o ll
! (Los Angeles Times, May 2 5, 1 969), most students agreed
; with the aims of campus m ilita n ts , though only 28$ had
p a rtic ip a te d . Regardless of the fac t th a t they were
saying th a t the end does not J u s tify th e means, 4 out of
10 (and 6 out of 10 who had p a rtic ip a te d in demonstrations)
i said th a t students who broke laws while p ro testin g should |
not be expelled.
179
In the meantime, another movement was beginning to
gain steam, the fem inist movement. In one organization,
the Women’s Equity Action League, Dr. Beatrice Sandler
wrote an open l e t t e r to the Department of Labor on
January 31st, concerning sex discrim ination a t a l l u n i
v e r s itie s holding fe d e ra l c o n tra c ts. In the following
two years, over 300 sim ilar actions would occur.
On March 6th , th ree of the 100 Weathermen who had j
!
i
gone underground were k ille d in a New York apartment j
house while preparing bombs in the basement. Among them
was Diane Oughton, the daughter of an a fflu e n t family from j
the Midwest who had forsaken her e l i t i s t background and j
gone through a gradual development toward f u l l r a d i c a l i - !
I
zation. She is the subject of one of the few sin g le-case ;
studies involving a student of th is period, Diana: The
Making of a Revolutionary (Powers, 1971).
Following these deaths, there were th ree bombings in
New York buildings on March 12th, a l l tied to the under
ground Weathermen through phone c a l l s . There followed
thousands of bomb scares a l l over the country during the
next weeks. This "scare t a c t i c " became a "successful"
method for evasion of college exams or other u n iv ersity
a c t i v i t i e s on several campuses. I
P ro test over the t r i a l s of sev eral Black Panthers
in New Haven was heated a t Yale and other Eastern campuses.j
180
| A Time-Louis H arris p o ll (April 6, 1970) described
the new mood among blacks as c le a rly more m ilita n t, yet
i
I more hopeful and determined. The p o ll showed th a t pride |
j
in themselves and th e ir ethnic background was a strong
; fa c to r as 85$ of them endorsed Black Studies programs,
I regarding them as an important symbol of black id e n tity
! and pride. Most blacks f e l t th a t the most important needs
| in the near future were the achievement of equal educa-
I
| tio n a l opportunities with American w hites, g re ate r black
i
; u n ity , and continuing the black stru g g le. In te re s tin g ly j
j
enough, the average black student showed a great deal of
I !
! f a ith in the fed eral government, but was fru s tra te d and j
i ;
S disappointed over the fa ilu r e of the nation to attack
| I
| s o c ia l conditions th a t were causing in te rn a l divisiveness
i
: and maintaining conditions of in e q u ality . According to
; the p o ll, 97$ of blacks expected to fin is h high school,
i
j
; and 67$ expected to go to college. Although black e n ro ll-
; ment had doubled since 1964, the proportion among college
I students was only up from 5 to 6$ of the t o t a l n a tio n a l
college enrollment.
In the Spring of 1970* the Gay Liberation Movement
began demonstrations on the East and West Coasts, often
; sporting flamboyant garb to gain a tte n tio n and "lighten j
| the scene." That in no way tempered the seriousness of
t h e i r cause, to change the tr a d i t i o n a l picture of the ;
181
homosexual and lesbian as "sick,,1 1 and to work for equal
rig h ts and removal of the overt and subtle exclusions of
: homosexuals in c i v i l and p riv ate employment.
On A pril 22nd, Earth Day was "celebrated" across the
: United S ta te s. Long prepared fo r by " e c o -a c tiv is ts ,"
| th e event was a huge success, p a r tic u la rly on college
i
i campuses, where nonviolent p ro te s ts and teach -in s took
| place across the natio n .
! But what was to become the most s ig n ific a n t ca ta-
i
| lyzing event in the year came on A pril 30th when P re s id e n t]
I i
I Nixon appeared on n a tio n a l te le v is io n , armed with maps
! and p o in te r, to "explain" why, out of n e c essity , he had j
| ordered United S tate s forces In to Cambodia to "move j
; I
I against enemy sa n c tu a rie s." The Defense Department had
S i
always claimed the U.S. was staying c le ar of Cambodia, buti
for months reports had been c irc u la te d , p a rtic u la rly in
| left-w ing newspapers, th a t a "secret war," re p le te with
* bombings and heavy C IA -activity, had been going on.
I Not u n t i l 1973 would th is be demonstrated to be the tr u th .
: In the meantime, America was jo lte d by the unexpected
I expansion of the war, p a r tic u la rly as Nixon had previously
indicated we were "winding down." Minutes l a t e r , p ro tests
i I
j were underway at Princeton and Oberlin co lleg es.
Nixon’s move was the c a ta ly st fo r the la rg e st mobili-i
i ;
| zation of students and fa c u lty in American h isto ry . No
182
other student event had (or has) ever equalled th is one,
in number of p a rtic ip a n ts , number of in c id en ts, nor
| in te n s ity . The Cambodia S trik e would be the subject of
! endless re p o rts , both fa c tu a l and f ic ti o n a l. S im ilarly,
| i t would launch a p re s id e n tia l commission, led by William
i Scranton, to in v e stig a te "campus u n re s t." Since th is
j event is a focus in my f in a l se c tio n , my comments a t th is
i
time w ill be, in the main, a review of some relevant j
s t a t i s t i c s . The two most complete sources on the subject
are the Scranton Commission Report (1970) and On S t r i k e . . .
!
Shut i t Bovin J (1970), an ex cellen t analysis of the s tr ik e j
as i t developed at 760 colleges and u n iv e rs itie s , compiled
I
! w ithin the month of May by the Urban Research Corporation
of Chicago.
Some conclusions reached by th a t Corporation are
i
| important to th is study. Perhaps the most important i s :
|
| Although demonstrations had taken place on sev eral campuses
! during th e three days a f t e r Nixon's speech, they broke out
i
j only at the r a te of 20 per day. On the fourth day, a f te r
the shocking k illin g of four students by National Guards-
| men on the Kent S tate campus, th e re were 100 new s trik e s
per day. This broke with the customary p a tte rn of the
I :
I past two years and was unprecedented. Therefore, the
i |
1 1
| Urban Research Corporation contended t h a t : "in sp ite of
| Cambodia, without the Kent S tate deaths, there would have j
183
been no n atio n al student strike" (p. 1). (What they
| r e f e r to here is th a t, although the s tr ik e had been called
previous to Kent, i t s "popularity" would not have been
j nearly so wide-spread.)
Furthermore, there was a wide range of t a c t i c and
i
i
! much d iffu sio n in to other causes on the campuses but a
I general unity as fa r as demands occurred. This a lso
j d iffere d from the past p atte rn s (as noted by our previous j
discussion in th i s ch ap ter). Most students were asking j
i
fo r : immediate and u n ila te r a l withdrawal of the U.S. fromJ
i
Southeast Asia, the end of u n iv e rsity p a rtic ip a tio n in
I
w ar-related e f f o r ts , and a release of a l l p o l i t i c a l
| p riso n ers.
! A th ird point made by the study was th a t although
black students and black issues had been c e n tra l to other
j s tr ik e s , the black student did not customarily take part
| ;
I in the May, 1970 events, and following the deaths of two
| black students a t Jackson S ta te on May l^ th , there was
i no fu rth e r acce leratio n of the b a sic a lly white n atio n a l
I s tr ik e .
Although an average of 23% of student p ro te sts had
| led to violence during the previous two years, fewer than :
! I
| 5# of the campuses p a rtic ip a tin g in May had violent e p i-
!
sodes. This, I would f e e l , possibly showed the p a r t i c i
pation of a cle a rly d iffe re n t element of stu d en ts, very
184
possibly th a t "rear echelon" already refe rre d to , probably
in continuous neg o tiatio n with more revolutionary leaders
' about t a c t i c s .
| The heavy p a rtic ip a tio n of u n iv e rsity facu lty was
i s ig n ific a n t.
| Another fa c to r was th a t the m ajority of s trik e s
|la s te d for only one day. Twenty percent (20$) of campuses
;p a rtic ip a tin g had th e ir schools closed for a week,
jSeventy-five (10$) closed for the remainder of the academic
i year.
! Previous to the N ational Student S trik e , the war
| had been the issue of only 22$ of student p ro te s ts .
| Although large schools s t i l l had more p ro te s ts (as
had been the p a ttern during the past two y e a rs), there
i was increased p a rtic ip a tio n over 1969 in every size
l
I
school.
Another highly s ig n ific a n t fa c t in my estim ation
I was the movement of students into the community. Most
; freq u en tly , previous p ro te sts had been campus-bound,
: reminding one of the blacks burning down th e i r ghetto
I homes over th e ir heads. As the Urban Research Corporation
i reported (less emphatically than I believe they should
h av e):
j '
i One dominant c h a ra c te ris tic of the N ational
Student S trik e was the dedication of the p a r t i
cipants to work for change through the le g is -
I la tiv e process, through leg itim ate channels, j
185
i and in a non-violent manner. The la rg e st p er
centage of off-campus p ro tests were conducted
in s ta te c a p ito ls , and were addressed p a rtic u
la rly to le g is la to r s . The next highest p er
centage were held in lo c a l fe d e ra l buildings.
! (P. 11)
| Students flooded communities, campaigning fo r anti-w ar
candidates in p o l i t i c a l prim aries. This "new mood" and
I "new mode" demonstrates to me again th a t the ranks were
i
I being f i l l e d by a d iffe re n t kind of student. !
i !
i I
| Fred Halstead, in reviewing my work, pointed out to
! I
! me a highly sig n ific a n t aspect of the N ational S trik e , j
i
th a t being the fa c t th a t , at most u n iv e r s itie s , i t was
not "shutting down" th a t was the basic m otif, but
I i
"opening up" the campus to a new form of education, one j
i
in which the major forces operative in the society are i
exposed as not ju s t re le v a n t, but e s s e n tia l, to the
| I
i student. As described by Boehm (1971) in a remarkable
I
and little-know n pamphlet, the r a d ic a l movement, in
p u rsu it of i t s own o b jectiv es, resu lted in the conception
i
of a new ro le for the American u n iv e rsity :
This new phase, the transform ation of the
campuses in to anti-w ar u n iv e r s itie s , was
an unprecedented development and a c r i t i c a l
turning p o in t...T h e antiwar u n iv e rsity offered
the best means of organizing the powers of the
student antiwar forces and of linking th is power!
with other s t r a t a of s o c i e t y ... (p. *1) !
I This included the concept of attem pting to
j take over and u t i l i z e th e f a c i l i t i e s of the
j u n iv ersity to advance the struggles of the
j oppressed and exploited, (p. 10)
186
The heterogeneity now involved in campus dissent is
re fle c te d by th is statement given as one of the conclu
sions in the Scranton Report:
! I t is a misconception th a t campus unrest is a
sp e c ific problem whose sp e c ific cause is moral
f a ilu r e and which th erefo re has a sp ecific
s o lu t io n .. .In and of i t s e l f campus unrest is
not a problem and requires "no so lu tio n ." The
existence of dissenting opinions and voices is
I simply a s o c ia l condition, a fact of modem
l i f e ; the rig h t of such opinion to e x ist is i
protected by our C o n s titu tio n .. . i t is not a !
single or uniform th in g . Rather i t is the |
aggregate r e s u l t , or sum, of hundreds and j
thousands of individual b elie fs and discontents,!
j each of them as unique as the individuals who j
| f e e l them. These individual feelin g s r e f le c t j
; in tu rn a se rie s of choices each person makes !
j about what he w ill believe, what he w ill say, |
and what he w ill do. (p. 5*0 j
| i
j The key period in the s trik e was the f i r s t two weeks j
I i
i ;
I in May. By May l6 th , some * 1 * 1 8 campuses were closed down. :
! i
j The Scranton Report also lis te d s t a t i s t i c s from a
sp e c ia l Harris p o ll which had been taken a f te r Kent.
| This p o ll found th a t , whereas in 1965* °nly 6$ of Ameri-
! can students favored immediate withdrawal from Vietnam,
5*)$ now wanted an end to the fig h tin g with the troops
: home as soon as possible.
At those schools which had experienced p ro test in
May, 75$ of the students favored the goals of the pro-
j te s to r s and 58$ a c tu a lly p a rtic ip a te d .
Despite the fa c t th a t most students claimed to be
supporters of ra d ic a l e ff o rts on th e ir campuses, Harris
187
found a pervasive liberalism * and* in some cases* a basic
conservatism. For instance* 25$ f e l t th a t ROTC should
stay* with 37$ believing th a t students should get c re d it
fo r i t . Seventy-two percent (72$) f e l t th a t companies
doing defense business should be allowed to r e c r u it on
campus. Seventy percent (70$) f e l t th a t school a u th o ri
t i e s are rig h t to c a l l in police when students are occu
pying a building or th reaten in g violence. And* even
a f te r Kent* *12$ f e l t th a t in most cases the N ational Guard
i had acted reasonably. |
| i
Whereas only 4$ of students had id e n tifie d them-
| |
selves as ra d ic a l or f a r l e f t in 1968* 11$ now id e n tifie d j
themselves as r a d ic a l. Also* 76$ f e l t th a t basic changes !
were necessary to improve the q u ality of American l i f e
! and * 1 *J$ f e l t th a t r a d ic a l moves outside the system were
| more lik e ly to bring about desired s o c ia l change. F urther-
; more* 56$ of students disagreed with the following s t a t e -
I ment: "Since colleges and u n iv e rs itie s are intended as
a place for serious in t e l l e c t u a l study and learning,
they are too important to our so ciety to be continually
' tt
disrupted by p ro te sts and dem onstrations.
The Scranton Report was e s s e n tia lly highly favorable ;
j j
to what they had fe rre te d out as idealism in th e American i
j student p ro testo r and highly empathetic toward his fru s -
t I
| t r a ti o n and growing a lie n a tio n . On the other hand* the j
188
Commission deplored violence in both student elements
and in the authorities. They clearly cited University
Administrations for their lack of preparedness and in-
| appropriate actions, and police and guardsmen for inade-
i
| quate training methods. Yet, within a year, the state
investigation of Kent would be dropped, and no guardsmen
I
i would be disciplined at that time. Only as this book
j |
goes to press (197*0 have eight guardsmen been cited for j
! their actions at Kent. j
During the summer months, despite the tension over j
the nation, both ghettos and campuses were quieter than i
I
they had been in months. j
A tragic incident took place in August when the !
| ;
I Mathematical Research Center at the University of Wis
consin was bombed, killing one young man. This was,
however, to be one of the final acts clearly connected
| with Weathermen forces. Another was the freeing of
1 Timothy Leary from a security prison in San Luis Obispo.
i ■
I He hid out with a few of the remaining "cadre," including
leaders Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn before he fled
the States.
In November, despite the heavy pitch of "law and
order" candidates, many of them were defeated in Congres- !
i ;
sional elections. Progressives were elected and Democrats;
remained in control of Congress.
189
! At the end of 1970, the country lay battered, sus-
i
| pended In shock, and t o t a l l y unable to predict what would
|
; come next. The events of th e past three years had demon-
! s tra te d c le a rly the in c ip ie n t unrest a liv e in a l l elements
of the natio n , not ju s t in i t s youth. The number of
| issues had expanded so th a t they touched home for a l l
j
! Americans, fo r, by th is tim e, even the seemingly invul- j
; nerable economy was in jeopardy. The most s trid e n t and j
^ 1
| r ig id of Conservatives noticed t h i s , i f he noticed nothingj
e ls e . ;
Furthermore, the fa c t of overt p rotest could no
longer be treated as ste re o ty p ic a lly irresp o n sib le or |
adolescent behavior as n a tio n a l leaders had joined the
expression, many of them v a lid atin g the c ru c ia l nature
of the issu e s, a c tu a lly supporting the stand of the
I !
j r a d ic a ls , and frequently holding up the idealism of the
i p ro te sto rs.
! Abe F ortas ( 1968) did t h i s , while making a cle a r
d is tin c tio n between v io len t and nonviolent p ro te st.
Ju stic e Douglas c le a rly spoke to the germinating i l l s in
our so ciety in Points of Rebellion (1970). While decry-
| ing v io len t t a c t i c s , he wrote: "The dissent we witness
j i
is a p ro te st against the b e l i t t l i n g of man, against his !
debasement, against a so ciety th a t makes ’law fu l 1 the J
e x p lo ita tio n of humans. This period of d issen t based on ;
190
b e lie f in man w ill indeed be our great renaissance (p.
33)."
I The Scranton Commission (1970) also looked a t dissent
j as a n a tu ra l product of our times and came fo rth in
| support of youth, but, more im portantly, in support of
l
| the rig h t to p r o te s t.
I
| Yet in the midst of some degree of "adulation" by a
i
| new breed of adults who were also enraged and wanted to
bridge the so-called generation gap, while many journals
now idealized youth as they had been denigrated previous
ly, c e rta in fa c ts became subordinated.
i j
The la s t th ree years had contained a modicum of
the v io len t ta c ti c s disavowed by these new advocates in j
| th e i r d esc rip tio n of "idealism" and "ideal youth." Con-
| i
| c u rre n tly , with the r is e of violence, had come an end to
|
the most organized e f f o r t at putting together a genuine
"movement of college youth," the strength of SDS. In the j
demise of th e campus New Left nucleus, there would be an
end to even the vestige of leadership provided by former
leaders of PSM, SDS, and other re la te d organizations. A
large rea r echelon had been developed. They showed th e ir
i m o b iliz e a b ility in the unprecedented S trik e of May, 1970. |
i i
' i
I With the disappearance of old leaders, new ones had come j
fo rth on the spot, attem pting to u t i l i z e some of the New j
L eft ten ets lik e "p a rtic ip a to ry democracy." But, during
191
the summer months of 1970, most of these leaders seemed
to disappear. Where to? Back to Law School, back to
community work, back to Crosby, S t i l l s , and Nash, and
perhaps back to th a t m editative s ta te where everything
seems to be a l l r ig h t, and the environment, whether i t is
s a tia te d with smog or mace, can ’t touch you.
Therefore, despite the sudden advocacy of elders
i
looking upon the scene as a "new renaissance," th e re were j
signs th a t the renaissance was holding i t s fu n eral j
j
immediately upon i t s b irth . And th a t had about i t a !
tragedy th a t could only be seen as absurd. The absurdity j
I
issued out of the fa c t th a t within a short decade, a
!
powerful and smug nation could be shaken to i t s roots by ;
a conglomerate of movements, some pure-form, some e r s a tz .
The nation was shaken by a conglomerate of "movers,"
Some were seriously committed; others sensed th a t i f they :
stayed with the cu rren t, they might see God; others f e l l
|
ra th e r blindly in to ranks a b it crooked and ch a o tic , lik e
a bum t r i p when you do n 't know how you got there but,
man, you're there and you gotta be somewhere. In the
| wake of a l l th is "movement," the nation was deeply shaken,
! j
I deeply stunned. By the time the people of America r e
covered enough to think about i t , a strange quiet would
ensue, and i t would seem to be a l l over.
192
Epilogue
| 1971 - 1972: Is America Cooling?
j
j "1971 just may be b e tte r" - So did Time (January 11,
| 1971) harken in the New Year. They pictured a moment
j in history wherein:
i
I ...the vagaries of the weather matched the
| novelty of the national mood, as Americans
! took stock of 1970 and looked to the year
ahead. However tentatively, the feeling was
that things have been so bad that maybe, just
maybe, they are about to get better. (p. 9) 1
The article was also significant in several items of
I
I
information. It reported, for instance, that, despite the
tension in the nation over several controversial issues, j
the number one concern of Americans was not over any of |
these problems (not the war, nor campus protest, nor
race relations) but, according to a Louis Harris-Time
| survey, the economy.
| The survey reported that President Nixon’s "job-
| performance" ratings were gradually getting lower. It
quoted Patrick Moynihan and David Riesman in requesting
I that government leadership admit that "simplicities in
j government no longer suffice"(p. 9) and that they simply |
1 j
| did n ’t know how to solve many of our problems.
j “
j It reported Bernadette Dohrn’s statement to the
Liberation News Service postulating that bombings of |
193
Weathermen had been a t a c t i c a l e rro r "because they isolated
the bombers from sen sib le supporters"(p. 9) and th a t she
called for a re tu rn to peaceful p ro te s t. (But, I might
| add, i t was, for the crippled SDS, too l a t e .)
I t reported th a t the gloom showed signs of l i f t i n g
! because fern, libbers were making some p o in ts, the campuses
! were q u iet, and i t seemed to be a time of "consolidation." j
I t is a tim e...w hen people tu rn from the weari- j
! ness of insoluble problems to a refuge in romance
I and the kind of new innocence incarnated by j
j ac tress A li McGraw in Love S to ry . j
! From the th e sis of c h a ra c te ris tic American o p ti- j
| mism and the a n tith e s is of wild d isillu sio n m en t, j
there may come a synthesis th a t is more honest j
and appropriate to the modern world than e ith e r , j
I f th a t happens, paradoxically, Americans could I
tu rn to a n tiq u ity for a te x t for th e ir tim es.
| "Perseverance is more p rev ailin g than violence,"
| wrote P lutarch. (p. 9) ;
| I
I I might r e c a ll for you my own reactio n s to th is a r t i c l e
j :
| in re tro sp e c t. Like so many of my fellow students and
| ;
| te ach e rs, I , too, was fru s tra te d , fatig u ed , and had a
| sense of f a ilu r e . On the other hand, I hoped th a t Time
; was re a lly serious in promoting a Hegelian p attern as the
■ best one, fo r, in the le a s t, i t spoke of a f a i t h , which,
I i f blind, was tender in i t s "naturalness" of evolution.
; I c e rta in ly hoped th a t Time was not preaching a retu rn to
i :
A ll McGraw and to the era of cloying and s u p e rfic ia l
! :
| escapism she and Eric S eg al’s Love Story represented, for
| !
! th is would be an attempt to in je c t one period of time with |
194
the blood of another, and such attempts are not sublime,
they are simply rid ic u lo u s, and given the tragedy of
current h isto ry , outrageous.
Yet Time's article was, I think, an accurate
measuring-stick of the period to follow, one which would
| be singularly vague and nebulous, one in which the light
i
; of insight and concern, consciousness and conscience which !
! |
had been l i t in the s ix tie s remained burning, but which |
was flic k e rin g , f l i c k e r i n g .. .symbolic of the determ ination j
I
i !
! and d ire c tio n of the people i t represented.
I j
I i
I Furthermore, much lik e the white backlash a f t e r the
i |
| Ghetto riots of the mid-sixties, there was by now an on- j
| campus reaction of activism "on the other side." Students |
| were joining adults in disapproving of campus dissent,
according to a detailed article by Methvin in the Reader's :
Digest (January, 1971). Anti-radical organizations had
| been formed on many activist campuses like Valley State,
| UCLA, Columbia, and Stanford.
Time (February 22, 1971) offered a sp e cia l section
called "The Cooling of America," on which the t i t l e of
th is epilogue is based. The t i t l e was an obvious take-off
on the commercially popular Greening of America wherein
Reich, the author, g lo rifie d the counter-culture and seemed!
to pacify adults into believing th a t they were a l l "sweet |
kids" who d id n 't mean to do anybody any harm, while re -
195
assuring youth th a t they d id n ’t need to fig h t to accomplish
so c ia l change. Getting th e ir heads s tra ig h t would ( if
!only gradually) turn the t r i c k (See: Chapter 6). Time
j
|reported th a t Americans seemed to be d e fin ite ly sick of
j violence* th a t ra d ic a l groups were "largely sp lin tered or
defunct" (p. 13) and th a t there had been, in p a r a l le l to
the p o l i t i c a l change, a s h ift from hard to so ft rock.
i
|They quoted President Kingsman Brewster of Yale who spoke
|o f the "eerie tra n q u ility " (p. 1*1) on the college campuses.
|
| Yet, i f the d issen t on campus was over, echoes of i t
were heard, d ir e c tly , in the explosion of a bomb in the j
Senate Wing of the C apitol Building, or, in d ire c tly , as j
i I
sev eral students shifted gear, fusing in to other movements,!
or becoming active in the p o l i t i c a l campaign of lib e r a l
reform er, George McGovern.
And, A pril 2*1, 1971 saw the la rg e st anti-w ar demon
s tra tio n s in h isto ry in Washington, D,C, and San Francisco.
Because these events were completely peaceful, they did
not receive the a tte n tio n previous anti-w ar a c t i v i t i e s had.
In May, fu rth e r demonstrations in Washington (spon-
i
: sored by the May Bay C o llec tiv es, led by Rennie Davis
j and supported by the People’s C oalition for Peace & Justice)
! saw 12,000 a r r e s t s . !
i
How cool was the cool?
196
The ram ifications of the s ix tie s were a lso f e l t in
such events as the passage of the 26th Amendment in the
| Spring, wherein the rig h t of 18-year-olds to vote was
i
! secured, adding 12 m illion p o te n tia l youth votes to the
| e le c to ra te . By 1976, youth would represent of the
| voters.
Other echoes were heard in the Berkeley City Council
i
j electio n where three members were elected with the com-
1
| bined e ffo rts of young black and white ra d ic a ls .
I
But the mushrooming movement of th is period was j
the Women's Liberation Movement. Within a short period
of time, i t birthed a huge body of l i t e r a t u r e , i t s "bibles"
being Kate M ille tt's Sexual P o litic s (1970) and Germaine
i
G reer's The Female Eunuch (1971). I t established i t s own
] ‘
! rh e to ric , wherein even women could be fire d on with the
i
i !
term, "male chauvinist" (onto which the attachment of
I "pig" c le a rly connected i t with other ra d ic a l movements).
; Female SDS members had been among the f i r s t students to
; support the fem inists. Now campus student and facu lty
women formed organizations by the score and joined n a tio n a l
| groups with a fervor. Women's "consciousness-raising"
| groups were formed.
Furthermore, i t wasn't a l l rh e to ric . E lizabeth
i :
B arrett began a defense of child-care deductions on income:
tax returns in the United S tates Tax Court while 60 Mothers
197
from N O W formed a baby carriag e picket lin e brigade in
| support. Joe Namath was picketed by several women who
i
| protested the f ir in g of six w aitresses in his resta u ra n t
I with only fiv e days’ n o tic e . Signs read: "Namath is a
| pigskin.'"
j
| Bella Abzug, a congresswoman from New York, in tr o -
! duced a b i l l to amend the IRS code to allow f u l l tax de-
ductions for ch ild -c are during the month of July. The
same month more than 300 women formed the National Women’s !
!
P o l i t i c a l Caucus of N O W in Washington and demanded equal |
I
rep resen tatio n of women in a l l government bodies and on
|
the 1972 delegations of both p o l i t i c a l p a rtie s in the j
I !
n atio n al conventions. Two days l a t e r , th is new group 1
sought elim ination of tax in e q u a litie s th a t affe ct women;
i
j in p a r tic u la r , they asked for lower rate s for single
| persons.
I The Women's N ational Abortion Action Committee was
| also formed in July, including women from 3^ s ta te s and
I four foreign co u n tries. They made plans for large demon-
I s tra tio n s in New York and San Francisco during the F a ll.
S t i l l in July, Bella Abzug introduced another b i l l in
I Congress. Demanding th a t women be seen as individuals !
! i
| rath e r than wives of in d iv id u als, she asked th a t the !
i '
government be prohibited from designating a woman's marital:
sta tu s on any o f f i c i a l forms, and change the co rrect t i t l e j
196
to "Ms."
On August 26th, women a l l over the nation commem-
| morated the passage of the 19th Amendment, the rig h t of
; women to vote, by demonstrating for eq u ality in marches,
! fu nd-raising events, and r a l l i e s .
| Near the end of the summer, Margie Tannenbaum was
! elected the f i r s t woman president of the N ational S tu d en t’s
| A ssociation.
In the midst of a l l the movement for and by women,
| I
j the campuses of major c i t i e s did seem qu iet.
| |
| Other events of the spring and summer were somewhat j
I i
| shadowed by the unprecedented act of Daniel E llsberg in j
th e rele ase of to p -se c u rity documents from f i l e s a t the
Rand Corporation. E llsb erg , a decorated veteran and a
[ ‘
t 1
i leading s t r a t e g i s t in war planning, "blew" his successful
j ;
| corner on the Establishment by turning over documents which
I
j j
j revealed the tru e nature of the involvement of the United
| S tates in the p o litic s and war of Southeast Asia from the
I Kennedy Administration onward. Claims made by leading
; ra d ic a ls during the s ix tie s could no longer be scoffed a t.
They had been v e rifie d . Furthermore, the rig h t of news-
: papers to publish such papers was almost immediately upheld
j in the Courts, a highly s ig n ific a n t action.
Adults had been increasing th e ir p a rtic ip a tio n in
the anti-w ar movement. A fu rth e r increase followed the
199
p ublication of the "Pentagon Papers." By Spring, 1972,
the antagonism against the war could no longer be sw iftly
branded as the opinion of adolescents. On the other hand,
i t would not reach revolutionary proportion.
In September, George Jackson, one of the "Soledad
b ro th e rs," who was believed to be connected with Angela
Davis, was k ille d in a bloody prison-escape attem pt.
Jackson’s death became the subject of a song by Dylan; he |
joined the ranks of martyred folk heroes in the counter- |
|
c u ltu re . There was some s t i r r i n g over the controversy of ;
" p o li tic a l p riso n e rs," yet i t was quiet compared to the
I
demonstrations over Black Panther ja ilin g s and k illin g s j
in the s i x t i e s .
At the beginning of the school year, fem inists con
tinued to "score." The U niversity of Oregon became the
f i r s t campus in the S tates to grant equity pay increases
to women fa cu lty who had been paid less than male col
leagues. At the n atio n al convention of NOW , members
called for an immediate end to a l l war, which they stated
was the "ultim ate expression of the masculine mystique"
(L.A. Times, September 12, 1971). In the same month,
Betty R o llin , a former Look e d ito r, decried the "mother
hood myth," t e l l i n g the National Committee on Population j
Growth and American Future th a t population problems would ;
be perpetuated and b irth control programs would be
200
in e ffe c tiv e as long as American g ir ls were conditioned
with the idea they had to grow up to be wives and mothers
i to be normal.
Despite the quiet "look" of the American campus,
Time (October 1971) reported th a t the appearance had
S been deceptive. Quoting an ACE re p o rt, they challenged
| t h i s . The ACE report indicated th a t campus p ro te st had
j i
j declined to ju st below the number of incidents in the
i
j 1968-1969 school year. However, said the ACE, commenting
|
on the power of the mass media, while *J0$ of the events
got n a tio n a l news coverage at th a t time, in 1970-1971* !
i
I
only 10$ did. A stin and Bayer, the authors of th is report^
1
said th a t nearly h alf of the n a tio n 's campuses, some 1250,!
! ;
; had experienced some d iss e n t, and th a t *J62 (20$) had
j :
i experienced at le a st one "severe" incident (th is being
| defined as action re s u ltin g in in ju ry , i l l e g a l building
I occupation, destru ctio n of property, e t c . ) . The authors
I claimed th a t in addition to the fa c t n a tio n a l media was
| turning off on reporting the in c id en ts, the p ro te sts had
"moved" from the la rg e r, urban campuses to sm aller,
i lesser-known colleges "in the Podunks." Therefore,
| one might conclude th a t , although the model of p ro te st j
was s t i l l a liv e , i t s organization was d iffu se, and there i
was an e f f o r t , though possibly not a "conspiracy" to
temper i t s effect by ignoring i t .
201
On November 20th, in Washington, D.C. and San Fran
cisco , 30*000 women demonstrated for the end of a l l laws
preventing abortion, free access to contraceptive devices,
and involuntary s t e r i l i z a t i o n laws.
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, m ilita n t black
prisoners a t the maximum se c u rity prison at Rahway, New
York (known as A ttica) led a violent rev o lt which ended
in the death of 43 inmates and hostages. Prisoners
claimed the conditions were unbearable, u n ju st, and brutal!,
|
On December 6th, 3*000 student leaders from 46 states!
met in Chicago to found the N ational Youth Caucus in order?
i
to gain p o l i t i c a l power in the 1972 e le c tio n s. Allard j
I
Lowenstein, New York congressman and peace advocate,
helped them organize. The consensus of the members was
to move toward ac tiv e p a rtic ip a tio n and voter re g istra tio n !
of youth during the coming months. George McGovern would ;
become a clear fa v o rite among college youth.
Some youth were moving out of the scene completely,
however. Clark Kerr, head of the Carnegie Commission on
Higher Education, reported an enrollment of college
freshmen (L.A. Times. December 16, 1971), projecting th a t
there would be 110,000 vacancies at 1,500 in s titu tio n s in
1972 (based on the fact th a t there were 40,000 openings
at 444 colleges in 1971* a 14# drop in enrollment over
1970). What were the reasons fo r th is decrease? On the
202
other hand, there had been a 15# increase of black
students, a 26# increase of Chicano students, and a 5#
increase in graduate enrollment.
In the winter and spring of 1972, the most active
! movement was again th a t of th e Fem inists. They made
s tr id e s in a l l levels of American l i f e . Harvard announced
!plans fo r women to be e lig ib le fo r Rhodes Scholarships in
| 1972. Women began to take seats on college Trustee Boards,
iS hirley Chisolm became the f i r s t female candidate for
P resid en t. The Senate passed le g is la tio n to give the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission power to order
1
employers or unions to stop discrim inating against women j
and to deny fed e ra l funding to u n iv e rs itie s th a t d iscrim i- ;
nated against women. A P re s id e n tia l Commission recommended!
I ■
j th a t a l l s ta te s g reatly lib e r a liz e abortion laws, help to
provide q u ality day-care, and make av a ila b le contraceptive
information for teenagers. On March 22nd, a f te r 103 years
of lobbying, the Equal Rights Amendment was passed in the
I Senate (8*1-8) to a cheering g a lle ry . The same day the
I Supreme Court ruled th a t sin g le people have the same
I rig h t to contraceptive devices and information as do
married people.
On A p ril 22nd, there were various marches across the
| nation in p ro test of the war. P a rtic ip a tin g in the Los
1
j Angeles March, I noticed th a t our ranks were largely
203
f i l l e d by a d u lts. This was both a pleasant su rp rise and a
sig n a l th a t student anti-w ar p ro te st did not nearly equal
;th a t of the S trik e ju s t two years in the p a st. This was
I
jreinforced by the ac tio n s of early May when Nixon announced
h is mining of the Haiphong Harbor. Despite attem pts of
groups of students across the nation to "get i t together
I again*" most re la te d events were unsuccessful, sh o rt-liv e d .
i I
|There was not even the semblance of a "national s t r i k e ." j
j
Few incidents of violence occurred. j
|
| The subdued and chaotic p ro te st of May came as ratherj
ja " la st gasp" or even a "la st whisper." In another rep o rt !
j of the Carnegie Commission (L.A. Times, June 23, 1972), j
|
Clark Kerr concluded th at violence was passe' and th a t
| students were withdrawing into " p r iv a tio n ." The Commission
I did conclude, however, th a t the turm oil of the s ix tie s
j had not been due to a gradual d is in te g ra tio n of the Ameri-
| can campus but to an awareness of g reat n a tio n a l Issu es.
I
In the middle of 1972 one was l e f t with the question:
| Was America cooling? Was i t a l l over? This epilogue has
c le a rly demonstrated c o n flic tin g evidence, in th a t regard.
I f there was r a d ic a l p ro te s t, i t was most emphatic in
groups lik e the women’s movement. Within the student popu
la tio n , i t had taken on a more reform ist p atte rn again. Itj
| had sh ifte d away from i t s headquarters on the large uni-
i :
i v e rsity campus to the g rassro o ts. Yet fewer young people
204
were going to college; many were organizing toward e ffe c
tiv e and ac tiv e influence in the p o l i t i c a l e le c tio n s (and
i
; would, in f a c t, be w ell-represented a t the n a tio n a l con-
| v e n tio n ).
i
A p o ll of the Gallup people published in the Reader’s
| Digest (September, 1972) fu rth e r reinforces some of the
| irre so lv a b le nature of our questions: For instance, 14$
| of youth between the age of 1 6-19 (college and non-college
; !
| students were polled) could be described as "m ilitant j
i
l e f t i s t s , " said Gallup; but, on the other hand, 72$ gave |
1 i
the United S tates a highly favorable ra tin g , saying they j
j
believed th a t "America jLs the land of opportunity (where) j
j
anyone can get ahead i f he wants to "(p . 7 8). Furthermore,!
| whereas 71$ said th a t America should never have engaged in !
| the Vietnamese c o n f lic t, 63$ disapproved of d ra ft dodging.
F ifty -s ix percent ( 56$) favored cutting defense expend!-
I ;
tu r e s , but approximately the same percentage (over 50$)
f e l t th a t we should keep up our m ilita ry stren g th to equal
th a t of Russia.
One thing th a t did seem to be clear at th is point of
time was th a t if there had been a student movement, i t was
no more. Though students continued to p ro te s t, they did
| so with no coherent organization nor ideology to bind them ;
| together. Furthermore, a large body of stu d en ts, id e n ti-
i 1
I j
| fying with a passive counterculture had l e f t a c tiv e protest;
205
to r e t r e a t to in c e n s e -f ille d bedrooms, c re a te stro n g e r
g rass by tr e a tin g i t with hashish o i l , and m elt in to a long
b lu r of mellowness and music. When asked, they to ld me,
" P o litic s i s n o t where i t ' s a t . " I ' l l t e l l you more about
what some of th ese stu d e n ts said in P a rt I I I of t h i s
d is s e r ta tio n . Many of them were the same stu d e n ts who had
been rab id ly m ilita n t in S pring, 1970. They were now as
in te n se in t h e i r s ile n c e as they had been in t h e i r form er j
i
r h e to r ic . Many of them s t i l l considered them selves to be
r a d ic a ls , however, and, c u l tu r a lly , many of them were. |
O thers, however, whose " r a d ic a liz a tio n " had come
I
about perhaps more ra p id ly (some w ith in th e space of a j
fiv e-m in u te speech or th e wave of a bloody handkerchief)
were adm ittedly " d e -ra d ic a liz e d " now. They looked back on
t h e i r sh o rt period of " p o li tic a l ac tiv ism " w ith some
n o s ta lg ia , but a b it of scorn, a ls o , ju s t as one might
remember a p le a su ra b le , but somewhat c h ild is h all-w eekend
c e le b ra tio n of high school g rad u atio n . I t Is th is group
th a t somehow fa s c in a te s me, fo r they were e s s e n ti a l to th e ,
success of the "movement," and fo r one sh o rt period of
tim e, they were m alleable and th e re fo re "moveable," and
with th e i r "d ro p -o u t," th e cadre would be "d e fe a te d ." But
much of th is is m a te ria l fo r a l a t e r c h a p te r.
Richard F la c k s, th e s o c io lo g is t and former SDS membeij
f e l t th a t th e re had been both a student movement and a
| c o u n te rc u ltu re . In h is book (1972), he d escrib es th a t
i
a f te r th e schism in SBS occurred, "no n a tio n a l o rg an iz atio n
j had th e cap acity to speak fo r white ra d ic a ls or to m obilize
; i
i
| r a d ic a l a c tiv ism "(p . 9 1). I t is th is p ro g ressio n of
| events th a t I have sought to d escrib e in t h i s h is to r y . I
| a ls o agree with Flacks th a t a c le a r break in th e s o li d a r ity
! of youth destroyed i t s e ffe c tiv e n e ss to gain support from
| w ithin i t s own ranks or from w ithout. j
i j
j L ip set and Altbach ( 1969, p. x v n ) w rite t h a t : " i t !
i
| is im portant to n o t e . . . t h a t although stu d e n ts may be
i
! c a ta ly s ts fo r p o l i t i c a l a c tio n , they can seldom bring a
|
j rev o lu tio n a ry movement to fu n c tio n ."
i
Along the same lin e , Flacks concludes: "The lo g ic
of student movements is th a t they must transcend them
selves i f th e c o lle c tiv e consciousness they express is to
survive and r e a liz e i t s e l f " ( p . 101) and t h a t ' I t was
c le a r th a t re v o lu tio n a ry s p i r i t was r e s t r i c t e d to youth and
no basic s o c ia l tran sfo rm atio n could occur w ithout th e
| support or acceptance of the m a jo rity of A m ericans"(p. 90).
Flacks agrees with my own a n a ly sis t h a t , in i t s
I development, student p ro te s t had followed the lead from
1 other movements, the f i r s t group in te g ra tin g th e mode of
; i
th e c i v i l r ig h ts movement, the l a t e r group im ita tiv e of
th e mood and techniques of th e black m il ita n ts . He a ls o
I ag rees, however, th a t although they were ab le to e s ta b lis h ;
207
e f f e c tiv e rh e to ric and symbol (Myerhoff, 1971b), they
found it im possible to work out co n cretely t h e i r " p o l i t i c a l
| m eaning." I have tr ie d to emphasize in th is se c tio n m y
I own f e e lin g , th a t the g re a te s t weakness in those few move-
s
| ments which were mainly comprised of stu d e n ts , th e FSM and
| th e SDS9 was th e i r in a b ilit y to develop an ideology.
| T heir dependence on other movements fo r ideas and concepts
| and t h e i r f a ilu r e to weave them in to a comprehensive whole
; ( p a r tic u la r ly a f te r members of the cadre began to combine
|
fragmented dreams of re v o lu tio n w ith t e r r o r i s t t a c t i c s ) j
destroyed t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y and lo s t them th e i r support.
"The era of campus c o n fro n ta tio n and student rev o lu - i
tio n has ended not because i t f a ile d ," s ta te s F lac k s, "but !
|
I because i t reached th e lim it of i t s p o s s i b i l i t i e s " (p. 101) .1
, One f e e ls th a t i f such lim ita tio n s e x is te d , they were
defined both by the membership and by th e overpowering
; s o c ie ty i t confronted.
I ;
What remains is a resid u e of rh e to r ic and symbol, and
: a p assive c o u n te rc u ltu re which grew in p a r a l l e l , yet some-
; how not q u ite p e rip h e ra l, fo r during one period the two
! were united by r h e to r ic , b^ symbol, and by one c le a r
| id e o lo g ic a l in g re d ie n t they both advocated and shared, th e
! r e je c tio n of oppression and of dehum anization. I t is t h i s !
i j
m otif th a t liv e s on in th e c o u n te rc u ltu re , and in o th er
r a d ic a l movements which have not d ied .
208
Although one cannot d e f in ite ly describe th e d is s e n t
of co lleg e youth in th e s ix t ie s as a vanguard fo r revo
lu tio n a ry movement in America* one can c o n fid e n tly
d escrib e i t as a highly i n f l u e n t i a l p a rt of a network of
unprecedented a c tiv i ty toward s o c ia l change in th is
country. No tru e re v o lu tio n can be traced to th ese
a c tio n s . No Utopian home of newly-powerful l i t t l e people
and le ss-p o w erfu l big people equally p a r tic ip a tin g in a
democracy re s u lte d from th ese a c tio n s . In a sense* i t
was a r e b e llio n th a t occurred* one which sought to re s to re
a long-abused philosophy of lib e r a tio n . Am erica's head
was turned around* and Am erica's head is no longer in th e
same p la ce.
PART I I
RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THEORY AND RESEARCH
CHAPTER
THE NATURE OF M A SS M O V EM EN TS AND SOCIAL CHANGE
In order to explore th e n a tu re of any group behavior
we r e f e r to as s o c ia l or p o l i t i c a l movement, i t is
a d v isa b le , I b eliev e, to attem pt to d iscover commonalities
in a l l such movements. F req u en tly , group a c tio n is
la b e lle d as in d ic a tiv e of a "mass movement" p r io r to ever
having defined the term , or having explored th e tru e
n a tu re of th e phenomenon in focus.
What then ijs a mass movement? I s any a c tio n by a
la rg e c o lle c tiv e in d ic a tiv e of th e ex isten c e of a mass
movement? I f n o t, what are th e d is tin g u is h in g fe a tu re s
between such a movement and o th e r types of c o lle c tiv e
actio n ? What are th e d if f e r e n t sp ecies of s o c io - p o l itic a l
movement th a t we can id e n tify ? Are a l l such movements
re v o lu tio n a ry ? What occurs in a s o c ia l system so as to
make p o ssib le such phenomena? What i s req u ired in order
th a t a movement become popular or su c c e ssfu l? Can we
d is tin g u is h phases of development in such movements, and
what are some of the t a c t i c a l a c tio n s they u t i l i z e ?
210
211
L ater ch ap ters w ill consider in g re a te r d e t a i l th e
psychology of the members of such movements and the
! stereo ty p ed notions of re se a rc h e rs regarding p a r tic ip a n ts .
Max Weber (196*1) a s s i s t s us in remarking th a t th e re
j a re two broad forms of human b e h a v io r: a c tio n and s o c ia l
| a c tio n . "Action is a l l human behavior when and in so f a r
as the a c tin g in d iv id u a l a tta c h e s a su b je c tiv e meaning
I to i t " ( p . 8 8 ). By th is d e f in itio n , Weber is attem pting
I to exclude p h y sic al or mental processes of which we are
I not consciously aware, even though we ourselves are
re a c tin g to th e se p ro cesses. S o c ia l a c tio n , according to j
Weber, "is s o c ia l in so f a r as by v ir tu e of th e su b je c tiv e j
I
meaning attached to i t by th e a c tin g in d iv id u a l (or
in d iv id u a ls ), i t takes account of others and is thereby ;
I o rien ted ( I t a l i c s : th is a u th o r's ) in i t s cours^’ (p. 8 8).
Johnson ( 1966) c a rr ie s th e Weberian idea of o rie n
ta tio n one ste p fu rth e r to sp e c ify th a t
j O rie n ta tio n occurs because th e a c tin g in d iv id u a l
possesses s ta b le ex p ectatio n s of the behavior
and responses to behavior of id e n tif ia b le in d i
v id u als in a f u l l range of c u ltu ra lly -c irc u m
sc rib ed s o c ia l s it u a ti o n s , (thereby g iv in g us)
i . . . a rough, in tro d u c to ry approxim ation of the
idea of s o c ia l a c tio n in a s o c ia l system. ( p . 8 )
; He claim s th a t almost every major s o c ia l th e o r is t holds
i ;
| th a t th is concept is the sin e qua non of a s o c ie ty , |
i i l l u s t r a t i n g th e mutual ex p e cta tio n s which allow members j
! ;
j to adapt th e i r behavior to th a t of o th e rs.
212
The th e o r e tic a l and c r i t i c a l a n a ly sis of commonalities
i
of a c tio n in the so -c a lle d s o c io - p o l itic a l or mass move
ment is a c o n tro v e rs ia l (and b a s ic a lly open) issu e o ften
i
: masked by a tte n tio n to in d iv id u a l movements ra th e r than
i
! concerted attem pts to d escrib e the g en e ra l phenomenon.
i
i C e rtain c l a s s i c a l works e x is t such as th o se of Heberle
j
( 19^ 9* 1951). Few au th o rs have w ritte n books d ire c te d
j coward th is end. Analyses lik e th a t of C a n tr il ( 1 963) j
I are ra re and* even in h is v aluable book, a tte n tio n is |
| i
j la rg e ly focused on psycho- s o c ia l f a c to r s , and a tte n tio n j
|
to th e case h is to r ie s of in d iv id u a l movements. Much th a t j
is valuable in the l i t e r a t u r e must be garnered from the
r ip e r f ie ld of theory of re v o lu tio n , bu t, of cou rse, the
! j
! sch o lar must, in such e f f o r t , beware of those a t tr i b u te s
| !
| which p e rta in so le ly to re v o lu tio n which is only one
i 1
| form of s o c ia l change.
i
I 1
j As we s h a ll note in t h i s c h a p te r, se v e ra l authors
| disag ree as to c e rta in c h a r a c te r is tic s and components of
| such movements. C a n tr il, fo r in sta n c e , considers the
in d iv id u a l lynching or mob as c h a r a c te r i s tic of a type of
I s o c ia l movement. This conforms to the d e s c rip tio n of
I G usfield (1970) as the p ro te s t movement. C ontrary to
I |
I th e i r typology, Heberle (19^9* 1951) does not t r e a t the
I is o la te ev en t, or episode as a s o c ia l movement, although
I he does agree th a t such in c id e n ts may be o p erativ e as
213
p a rt of a broad movement, or as p relim in ary to th e e x is -
ten se of such a movement.
The Nature of th e Mass Movement
j
| The d i f f i c u l t y in d e fin in g th e n a tu re of mass move
ments is exem plified by th e lay w r ite r , E ric H offer (1951)
who s ta te s th e follow ing in his in tro d u c tio n to The True
'
| B e lie v e r: "How a re we to id e n tif y such people (A uthor’s
I
! Note: he r e fe rs to th e members of mass movements) except
i by th e fa c t th a t they tend to jo in mass movements. And
what are mass movements? They a re what f r u s tr a te d people
tend to join" (p. x iv ) . This c ir c u la r and s im p lis tic
d e f in itio n has, n e v e rth e le s s , a fo lk sy t r u th to i t , bu t,
d e sp ite th is f a c t , gives us l i t t l e inform ation beyond i t s
pat g e n e ra liz a tio n . Hoffer n e a tly avoids any fu rth e r
| c o n fro n ta tio n with th e issu e by plunging in to th e psycho-
| lo g ic a l a n a ly s is of th e " fru s tra te d " membership of s o c ia l
i
i
| movements. Many authors do not even make such a rudimen-
j ta ry g estu re as does H offer, however, and attem pt analyses
| of in d iv id u a l movements as case stu d ie s w ithout ever
providing us a d e f in itio n of th e concept.
King (195*0 mentions th a t th e s o c io lo g ic a l legitim acy
; of th is phenomenon is garnered from the fa c t th a t th e
; c o n s titu e n ts comprise a "group, sh arin g behavior and
thought as w ell as re g u la rly defined s o c ia l re la tio n s h ip s "
(p. v ). Yet what is i t about t h i s type of group which
21H
d is tin g u ish e s i t s behavior, i t s thought, and i t s s o c ia l
re la tio n s h ip s from any of the many species of groups
e x is te n t in form al and inform al o rg a n iz a tio n in th e
so c iety ?
The term " s o c ia l movement" has i t s c o r o lla r ie s in
I
almost every language in Western c i v i l i z a t i o n . Equiva
le n ts are such terms as S o ciale Bewegung (German),
j
Mouvement s o c ia l (French), s o c ia le ro e re ls e (Sw edish), j
bevegelse (D anish), movimento s o c ia le ( I t a l i a n ) , e t c . ;
each of th ese terms im plies ex a ctly what i t s t a t e s , th a t j
a group e x is ts which is not in s t a s i s , but in movement.
W e s h a ll see in surveying th e analyses of v arious w rite rs j
th a t th e n o tio n is u su a lly th a t of s t i r r i n g , or r e s t l e s s - ;
i
n e ss, or momentum in the d ir e c tio n of some sp e c ifie d goal
or aim.
This n o tio n is s e t out in the Random House D ictionary!
as: "a d iffu s e ly organized or heterogeneous group of
people or o rg an izatio n s tending toward or fav o rin g a
g en eralized common goal" ( 1967* PP* 9^6-9^7).
According to G usfield (1970), a l l s o c ia l movements
a re " s o c ia lly shared a c t i v i t i e s and b e lie f s d ire c te d
toward th e demand fo r change in some aspect of th e s o c ia l :
o r d e r n(p. 2 ) . !
King d istin g u ish e s the s o c ia l movement from s o c ie ta l ;
in s t i t u t i o n s , from lo c a l ev e n ts, or from passing ep iso d es,:
215
and from o th er o rg an izatio n s which are a ls o c h a ra c te riz e d
| by group a c tio n and a c t i v i t y , some type of s o c ia l i n t e r -
| r e la tio n s h ip , or some s o r t of o b je c tiv e by placing
I emphasis on th e dynamicism in h eren t in the p a r tic u la r type
| of development c h a r a c te r i s tic of the s o c ia l movement.
| In K ing’s d isc o u rse , th e n o tio n of movement is
i
| always connected w ith two other co n cep ts, those of s o c ia l
j u n re st and s o c ia l change. The movement is product of the
i
gradual coming to g e th e r of r e s t l e s s , u n s a tis fie d in d i-
I v id u als to u n ite toward some commonly shared goal of
change. Obviously, we c le a r ly understand th a t not a l l
s o c ia l o rg an izatio n s stem from such r o o ts , nor do a l l j
i ;
| s o c ia l o rg an iz atio n s aim toward such a purpose.
H eberle (19^9) agrees w ith K ing’s d e f in itio n in
! s tip u la tin g th a t the genuine s o c ia l movement "is an
I attem pt of c e rta in groups to being about fundamental
| |
| changes in th e s o c ia l o rd er, e s p e c ia lly in th e basic
j
i n s t itu ti o n s of p roperty and labor r e la tio n ^ ’ (p. 3**9).
i H erein, Heberle is s tr e s s in g those m otifs which have been
; common purposes h is t o r i c a l l y in s o c ia l movements, various
com binations of s o c ia l, economic, and p o l i t i c a l ends.
I
H eb erle's works (19^9* 1951)* which are c la s s ic s in
i \
| the f i e l d , borrow much from the p r o lif ic work of Tonnies, j
I who commonly u tiliz e d the term " s o c ia l c o lle c tiv e " in his :
d isc u ssio n s . Heberle sees a movement not as a s t a t i c
216
o rg an iz atio n but as an ever-changing s o c ia l phenomenon
i
which can endure beyond the commonly experienced aspect
!of lo ss of membership. He embroiders upon h is more
|
I g en eral d e f in itio n in s ta tin g th a t "A movement is a c o lle c -
! tiv e ready fo r a c tio n by which some kind of change is to
i
i
! be achieved, some innovation to be made, or a previous
| j
I co n d itio n to be mustered" (p. 350). In a l l these
| in s ta n c e s , Heberle is making i t c r y s ta l c le a r th a t th e j
; membership shares a d e s ire to approach a c e r ta in g o al. i
!
T h erefo re, although he concurs with th e concept th a t th e !
j i
j movement may c o n s is t only of a p a r t i a l l y organized,
j f lu c tu a tin g membership, th e re is th e notion th a t th e re is i
i I
| some nucleus of people which remains m obilizable ( i . e . ,
I j
ready fo r a c tio n ) a t moments a p p ro p ria te to th e s tr iv in g
fo r th is s p e c ific goal,
| He s tip u la te s t h a t , p r a c tic a lly , the movement must
j
I be la rg e enough to survive beyond th e f a lli n g away of old
' members and th e ab so rp tio n of new ones. This "turn-over
j f a c to r" i s , we can see, the reason we can best conceive
of a movement as a ru d im en tarily , or d if f u s e ly , or lo o sely
organized group, or s e t of sub-groups. An example of our
: p o in t is the r a p id ity with which th e N ational Student
| S tr ik e was su c c e ssfu l in c a llin g out sym pathizers in
I hundreds of u n iv e r s itie s in our country during May, 1970*
C e rta in ly , th is was a heterogeneous mass never before
i
217
form ally co n scrib ed , or brought to g e th e r, th e re must have
been o p e ra tiv e th e tendency to r i s e up, th e re a d in e ss to
m obilize a t c e r ta in commonly-recognized sig n a ls or cues.
Though th e N atio n al Student S trik e of 1970 w ill
be tr e a te d q u ite e x te n siv e ly in a l a t e r c h a p te r, I mention
i t now as an in d ic a tio n of th e rap id g a th e rin g -to g e th e r
of a s o c ia l c o lle c tiv e acro ss re g io n a l boundaries sup
posedly dedicated to a c tio n toward th e common goal of
sta y in g th e hand of P re sid e n t Nixon, who had ju s t sen t
fo rces in to Cambodia, broadening th e war in S outheast
A sia. I am u t i l i z i n g t h i s example because of th e f a c t j
th a t we assume th a t a l l p a r tic ip a n ts in th e v ast Student
S trik e were not "old members" of th e an ti-w a r movement,
but th a t s e v e ra l, perhaps even a s ig n if ic a n t m ajo rity ,
were "new r e c r u i t s , " many of whom would never p a r tic ip a te
ag a in . The an ti-w a r movement, however, would e x is t beyond
t h i s rap id build-up and drop-out of membership.
Heberle points out th a t th e n o tio n of a c tio n toward
s o c ia l change, th e same f a c to r s tre s s e d by King (195*0 >
is th a t which d is tin g u is h e s th e s o c ia l movement from any
one of a number of o th er s o c ia l phenomena sim ila r in some
a s p e c ts , but not th e same. Among th e s e , Heberle includes :
new vogues or s ty le s in a r t , fa d s , s o c ia l innovations
"which have no immediate ( I t a l i c s : t h i s a u th o r's ) s o c ia l
re le v a n c e "(19*19, p. 3**9)«
218
During m y d o c to ra l exam inations, Dr. A1 Marston
asked me i f X f e l t th a t "swinging" was a s o c ia l movement.
(By swinging. A1 Marston was not r e f e r r in g to the backyard
i
s p o rt, or t o th e b ra c h ia tin g of our immediate p recu rso rs j
through tr e e s .1) "Swinging" in t h i s context re fe rre d to j
th e contemporary pastim e of exchanging p a rtn e rs , g i r l
f rie n d s , b o y frien d s, lo v e rs , and (more d ram a tica lly ) wives
and husbands. Swinging has d e f in ite ly gained p o p u la rity
as an a c t i v i t y in our country during th e la s t few y e a rs.
|
S ev eral n ig h tc lu b s o p erate in la rg e c i t i e s to f a c i l i t a t e
th e a c tio n . S uburbanite couples h o st p a r tie s w ith th is !
a c t i v i t y as th e le itm o tif fo r th e evening’s fun. But is_ j
swinging a s o c ia l movement? - - I s th e re the n o tio n here of
a la rg e body of c itiz e n s organized, i f only on a d iffu s e
le v e l, to promote and in te g r a te swinging as p a rt of our
American modus operand1? Has th e re been a concerted
e f f o r t to p ic k et or preach f o r swinging? Have swingers
marched to demand t h e i r " rig h t to swing" as the Gay
! L ib eratio n F ront has marched and marched again during th e
l a s t decade? Are th e re proposed b i l l s fo r swinging up
; before s ta te and n a tio n a l le g is la tu r e s ? I th in k you w ill
i
j Join me in answering a l l th e se questions w ith a stro n g
"No."
j ;
C e rta in ly various people are o ffe rin g new plans fo r
'
j a lte r n a te modes of m arriage (open m arriage, s e r i a l
219
m arriage, group m arriage, and th e lik e ) but in and around
i
th e s p e c ific a c t i v i t y of sw inging, we have not experienced
| a concerted and d ire c te d move toward changing our c u ltu re
| to in te g r a te th a t p a r tic u la r a c t i v i t y or v alu e.
The in d iv id u a l a c tio n s of in d iv id u a l c itiz e n s a re
j n o t, th e r e f o r e , th e same as th e c o lle c tiv e a c t ion of a
: membership d edicated to a common g o a l. Should th e
| tendency toward th e in te g ra tio n of swinging in c re a se
| g rad u ally w ithout any such d e lib e ra te a c tio n u n t i l i t
i were to become an e s ta b lis h e d p a rt of American behavior,
l i
! we would then say th a t i t had come about e v o lu tlo n a rlly ,
|
| r a th e r than through concerted s o c ia l a c tio n d ir e c tly
i I
| aimed a t th a t g o a l.
j |
In th e same manner are o th e r fads in c lo th in g , foods,|
i l i f e s t y l e , e t c . , fed ra p id ly through our l i f e experience.
| Many of th e se involve no r e a l s o c ia l change. Many of
| th e se involve no p u rposeful a c tio n toward some permanent
! end goal and thereby do not involve s o c ia l movement per
i Sj3. Many of th e se r e s u l t in change which i s o fte n so
I s u b tle and g rad u al we might th in k of i t as long-term
change of th e s o c ia l order as opposed to r a d ic a l,
| d e lib e r a te d , sh o rt-te rm change.
Such changes could be compared to th e grad u al muta-
| tio n of a s p e c ie s . In t h i s way they a re e v o lu tio n a ry , and!
j :
| a re not th e f r u i t of planned, p u rp o sefu l, d ire c te d a c tio n .
220
In d iv id u a ls who never share a c o lle c tiv e experience
or who never pool th e i r en erg ies toward some common goal
| may p o ssibly a r r iv e a t the same end. But t h i s is a very
| d if f e r e n t p o r t r a i t than th e n o tio n of s o c ia l movement
! as dynamic and g o a l-o rie n te d , and th e l a t t e r is th e con-
; cept I wish to m aintain in t h i s d is s e r ta tio n .
M y f e e lin g about such a c tio n s of in d iv id u a ls not
| c h a ra c te riz e d by group cohesion, s o l i d a r i t y , a sense of j
i j
| common f a t e , or a c le a r ly defined group g o al, meshes w ith j
| j
; th a t of H eberle (19*19), who s ta te s th a t "mere lik e
j j
| sentim ents and lik e ac tio n s which occur Independently
i i
] among a la rg e number of people does not c o n s titu te a j
j movement, nor does mere im ita tiv e mass ac tio n " (p. 3*19) •
| The consciousness of group id e n tity and s o li d a r ity
I toward a c tio n toward a common goal is req u ired in order
i
| to s ig n ify th e e x isten c e of a s o c ia l movement.
To i l l u s t r a t e : W e a l l remember N eh ru -sh irts in
i ,
! fash io n in t h i s country in th e la te s i x t i e s . This was a
s ty l e of dress th a t became popular on both th e h ip p ie
and th e sub u rb an ite f r o n ts . At i t s peak, i t was so in
! vogue as t o rep la ce the tuxedo a t d ressy a f f a i r s , and
become a mode of garb on campus, in in d u s try , a t c o c k ta il
| p a r tie s . But, among th e owners of N e h ru -s h irts, we have
i i
no evidence th a t th ey experienced a sense of belongingnessj
| and s o li d a r ity w ith a l l those o th e rs who chose to wear
I N e h ru -sh irts.1 " im ita tiv e mass a c tio n " can be e a s ily
i
dem onstrated by th e tro o p s of men and women who a rriv e d
; a t th e Academy Awards in N eh ru -sty le. What evidence did
j
| th ey give th a t t h e i r a c tio n was d ire c te d toward th e
, commonly-defined goal of co n v ertin g th e e n t ir e n a tio n
| to th e Nehru s h ir tJ J I n te n t in o n e’s m otivation and in
o n e's a c tio n i s then a c o n sid e ra tio n in te g r a l to th is
d isc u ssio n . What does one mean to achieve when one selects
th e Nehru s h i r t from h is c lo se t? Does he mean to look
! I
p retty * to approximate th e c u rre n tly popular s ty le ? I f
! th is i s h is in te n t, he is a c tin g fo r him self in deference j
| to th e common mode. His a c tio n i s , th e re fo r e , c le a r ly
I ’
co n fo rm ist. I f , on th e o th er hand, h is s e le c tio n of th e
| s h i r t can be held analogous to an I t a l i a n 's choice of a
| black s h i r t in the t h i r t i e s , h is a c tio n is very p o ssib ly
I sym bolic, d ire c te d to something o u tsid e and beyond him
s e l f , and may, in f a c t , be re v o lu tio n a ry .
Dwelling upon what may seem to be a t r i v i a l a c t is
im portant in th a t much of th e weight of t h i s d is s e r ta tio n
i s very lik e ly present in microcosm in such "m inutia."
I am involved h erein in a c o n s id e ra tio n , i f la rg e ly
th e o r e tic a l and e x p lo ra to ry , of th e In te n t and purpose
behind th e id e n tif ic a tio n and/or p a r tic ip a tio n of young
I ;
stu d en ts in something which came to be c a lle d a "youth
movement." Does wearing blue jeans and a headband make
222
one p a r t of a " so c ia l movement."
The c lu s te rin g of in d iv id u a ls in to groups w ith which
they f e e l the aforem entioned cohesion, or s o li d a r ity ,
I comes about in th o se in stan ces wherein movements a re
|founded as a r e s u l t of f r u s t r a t i o n s , d is s a tis f a c ti o n s ,
lo r chronic u n re s t. But I would venture to s a t th a t ,
j u ltim a te ly , the group w ill not be held to g e th er because
j of shared f r u s t r a tio n . Rather i t w ill be su sta in e d , i f
: such occurs, on i t s shared ideology, or c o n s titu tiv e
i " ” "
id e a s . The ideology becomes the c u ltu r a l backdrop of
th e group, giving the membership, in most in s ta n c e s , i f
th e ideology i s complete and p r e s c r ip tiv e , th e d e f in ite
i
| look of a su b c u ltu re . But th e group may go f u r th e r .
| Heberle (1951) compares the ideology of a movement
! II
I to th e p o l i t i c a l platform of a p a rty . I t is th e e n tire
i complex of id e a s, th e o rie s , d o c trin e s , values, and
s tr a te g ie s and t a c t i c a l p rin c ip le s th a t i s c h a r a c te r is tic
! of the movement" ( p .23). These f a c to r s , which c o n s titu te
; th e id eas bonding the membership to g e th e r in c lu d e, ac co r
ding to H eberle, (1) th e f i n a l goals or ends; (2) th e
! ways and means by which th e se goals or ends are to be
| o b tain ed ; and (3) th e s o c ia l philosophy of th e movement,
i or the ex p lan atio n s, r a tio n a le , and J u s tif ic a tio n s fo r
I the g o als. Although th e re may be many a d d itio n a l ideas
and b e lie fs not shared or held in common by the membership,;
223
th e se c o n s titu tiv e ideas a re c le a r ly those which are th e
I mos-t e s s e n t i a l *
We cannot th e re fo re consider a mass movement as such
I w ithout ask in g : "What is i t th e se people a re aiming
I toward? What do they want? What are they tr y in g to do?"
| And ag ain , we are asking t h i s question of th e c o l l e c t i v e ,
j not of th e in d iv id u a l member. T his d is tin c tio n between
! in d iv id u a l m otivations and group goals is one which I shallj
i i
| make again and again in th e course of our d isc u ssio n .
| C a n tr il ( 1963) e x p la in s, fo r in s ta n c e , th a t th e Bohemian, |
th e n u d is t, th e reform er, and th e rev o lu tio n a ry are a l l j
examples of in d iv id u a ls who do not accept c e rta in fa c e ts j
! j
| of s o c ia liz a tio n s and th e s o c ie ty . But i t should be
| s tre s s e d th a t t h i s disagreem ent and i t s p o ssib ly ensuing
; _ i
| f r u s tr a tio n s does not n e c e s s a rily mean th e se men or women
| are members of a s o c ia l movement.
! Two o th e r fa c to rs we should co n sid er in attem pting
j
to c o n stru c t th e c r i t e r i a fo r a genuine s o c ia l movement
are d u ratio n over tim e and in flu en c e over space (extension
beyond a lo c a l or re g io n a l t e r r i t o r y or e v e n t).
These f a c to r s , however, are d i f f i c u l t to t r a p . How
long must a s e rie s of events la s t in order to be considered;
i evidence of a movement? To what ex ten t must th e re be a
; sphere of s o c ia l in flu en ce g re a te r than th e lo c a l in th e
| ,
| b u ild in g of a movement? I am not able to answer th e se
| |
224
q u e stio n s, nor have I discovered o th er authors who make
im pressive responses to t h i s p a rt of my in q u iry . W riters
| lik e G usfield (1970) and C a n tr ll ( 1963) , fo r In sta n c e ,
i consider th e mob or in s u rre c tio n as a s o c ia l movement,
i whereas o th e r authors lik e Heberle do n o t.
In my own d e f in itio n , I do not consider th e one-tim e
event, or th e lo c a l p ro te s t to have a c le a r e f f e c t upon
th e so c ie ty in g e n e ra l.
j C a n tr ll considers a lynching mob as one of h is case
1
| s tu d ie s . I would th in k t h a t , unless t h i s lynching mob !
! were p a rt of a complex of such mobs who were attem pting to
impose th e i r s ty l e of "government" and "c o n tro l" on th e j
so c ie ty as a whole, we would not have a tr u e s o c ia l move-
! ment. There have been, of co u rse , mobs w ith in a la rg e r
| s o c ia l movement. Lynching was a t a c t i c of th e Ku Klux
j K lan, which I would consider a s o c ia l movement.
King (1954) agrees w ith me In s tr e s s in g th a t geographi'
! c a l scope and th e a b i l i t y to m aintain mass communication
; over tim e are c r u c ia l fo r a s o c ia l movement to la s t p ast
i a p re p a ra to ry , or rudim entary sta g e .
[
K ing's d e f in itio n i s very c lo se to my own: "A s o c ia l
! movement is a group venture extending beyond a lo c a l
community or a sin g le event and involving a system atic
i ;
| e f f o r t to inaugurate changes In th o u g h t, behavior, and
s o c ia l re la tio n sh ip s" (p. 2 7 ).
225
The degree of o rg a n iz a tio n im plied by h is use of the
term "system atic" is again debated by many w r ite r s , a l l of
j whom seem to agree th a t some manner of o rg a n iz a tio n is
; n ecessary fo r more than random, or a c c id e n ta l "mustering
i „
| of tro o p s. This is the reason I co n sid er H eb e rle’s
!
i " p a r ti a lly organized" a more a c cu rate term , sin c e i t is
i
! c l e a r ly congrous w ith th e n o tio n of " m o b illz a b ility " I
| o ffered e a r l i e r in t h i s c h a p ter.
King agrees w ith Heberle and w ith me in s tr e s s in g the
need fo r group cohesion, a common ideology which, a t le a s t
in p a r t, is e x p l ic i tly s ta te d .
C a n tr il compares a s o c ia l movement to a "microcosmic
s o c ie ty ." He sees th e members of a s o c ia l movement as
! having "a common s u b je c tiv e world composed of s o c ia l
i
i
| values th a t are not held by th e m a jo rity of people in th e
! la rg e r c u ltu re " (p . 8 5 ). T h is, however, could a ls o be
|
! tr u e of a c o u n te r-c u ltu re .
1
In th e f u r th e r development of th is c h a p te r, I s h a ll
l t r y to d escrib e th e kinds of s o c ia l movements, th e phases
in th e i r development, and o th e r s ig n if ic a n t a s p e c ts , but
; i t is perhaps im portant th a t I make a rudim entary attem pt
! to define what a s o c ia l movement is n o t. Often th ese
mass c o lle c tiv e s are confused or Id e n tifie d as being th e
same as s o c ia l tre n d s , p o l i t l e a l p a r t i e s , s o c ia l c la s s e s ,
or temporary a l l i a n c e s .
I have alre ad y sta te d my argument a g a in st th e n o tio n
|
| of temporary a llia n c e s ( i . e . , race r i o t s , lynching mobs,
coup d 'e t a t s , s tr ik e s ) as s o c ia l movements per s e . I
| remind th e re a d e r, however, th a t th e se phenomena o ften
| occur as t a c t i c s , as p relim in ary stag es in , or as c a ta ly s ts
! o f, mass movements.
One type of s o c ia l tren d we have alre ad y mentioned
is th e fad ( e .g ., th e Nehru s h i r t ) which may e ith e r endure
or fade away but which involves no c le a r and concerted j
j J
|e f f o r t to " s e l l ” or "convert" the so c ie ty to a s p e c ific :
d o c trin e or s e t of b e lie fs and is th e re fo re not a candidatej
t o be a tru e "movement." !
G usfield mentions g rad u al and pervasive change in i
! so c ie ty as h is concept of s o c ia l tre n d . Blumer (1939)
| h i t upon t h i s same concept and likened g en e ra l movementst
those having d iffu s e and gradual change, w ith G u sfie ld 's
concept of s o c ia l tr e n d s , whereas s p e c if ic movements
! (which could be included in g en e ra l movements) had s p e c if ic
g o a ls . He mentions the many changes in conceptions of
women's r ig h ts and d u tie s as i l l u s t r a t i v e of th e f i r s t
j concept, whereas th e s u f fr a g e tte d riv e fo r equal voting was
i in d ic a tiv e of th e second. I compliment G usfield in a lso
| d e lin e a tin g th e d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in th e study of th e
| g en e ra l movement or s o c ia l tren d because of i t s d iffu s e
and vague n a tu re .
Heberle (19*19) d is tin g u is h e s between s o c ia l movements
and contemporary p o l i t i c a l p a r tie s in America by in d ic a tin g
| th a t th e u n itin g f a c to r in a p a rty :
| ...m ay e ith e r be a s e t of p o l i t i c a l p rin c ip le s
in which a l l members a re agreed, or i t may be
a complex of common " in te r e s ts " or simply th e
d e s ire to secure o ffic e s and patronage f o r
] members of th e group, or i t may be an em otional-
a f f e c tu a l attachm ent to a le ad er of r e a l or
imagined e x tra o rd in a ry q u a lif ic a tio n s . Genuine
s o c ia l movements on th e o th er hand are always
! in te g ra te d by a s e t of c o n s titu tiv e id e a s,
j although th e elements of patronage and le a d e r
sh ip a re by no means absent (pp. 350-351).
I I
Heberle a lso p o in ts out th a t a p a rty i s , by n ec e ssity ,j
in some way r e la te d to a "la rg e r s o c ia l e n tity " in th a t i t !
can only e x is t w ith in a s t a t e whereas th e s o c ia l movement
I need not be so r e s t r i c t e d by geographical s tr u c tu re to a
i !
| p a r tic u la r s ta te or n a tio n a l s o c ie ty . Another requirem ent
j
fo r th e p o l i t i c a l p arty is c le a rly th a t of d is t in c t organic
z a tio n , and I have alre ad y discussed thoroughly th e concept
of preparedness to organize (m o b iliz e a b ility ) and p a r t i a l
| o rg a n iz a tio n .
i Heberle (19*19* 1951) in d ic a te s th a t a p a rty may o ften
be p a rt of a s o c ia l movement, o r , have w ith in i t members
| of s e v e ra l s o c ia l movements. By th e same token, th e same
I s o c ia l movement may have membership or r e p re s e n ta tio n in
| s e v e ra l d if fe re n t p a r tie s . Heberle does p o in t o u t, however,
( ;
i th a t in th e case of a la rg e , or major s o c ia l movement,
th e re is th e tendency toward form ation of i t s own p o l i t i c a l
I p arty or an a f f i l i a t i o n w ith an e x is tin g p a rty .
The tendency to id e n tif y s o c ia l movements s o le ly w ith j
i
p r o le ta ria n or peasant movements is c le a r ly defied by j
I modern h is to ry and th e u p risin g of members acro ss s o c ia l |
I I
; !
!c la s s b a rr ie r s in such movements as th e N atio n al S o c ia lis - i
: ]
I t i c Movement in Germany and th e F a s c is t movement In I t a l y .
!S ev eral w rite rs make t h i s p o in t. An e a r l i e r tendency had j
|been, of course, to follow the M arxist hypothesis th a t
|s o c ia l movements were always u p risin g s of th e p ro le ta ria n
!
|masses a g a in st th e oppressive upper c la s s e s . Feuer (19&9) |
i i
|n o te s th e frequency w ith which vanguard groups have co n sis-l
;ted of members of th e upper-m iddle c la s s Id e n tify in g with
|th e oppressed lower c la s s e s . Should we b eliev e th e campus
j ;
|p r o te s t movement to be (in and of i t s e l f ) a s o c ia l move
ment, we would remark t h a t , in i t s e a r l i e r sta g e s, I t was
|comprised of an almost homogeneous group of upper-m iddle
|c la s s s tu d e n ts, and In I t s l a t e r phases, was supported
i by a w idely-heterogeneous c o lle c tio n of a l l c la s s e s .
In any c a se , d e s p ite id e n tif ic a tio n w ith th e concept
of oppression or v ic tim iz a tio n of th e im poverished, down
trodden, or shackled, the s o c ia l movement, as we have come
jto experience i t in modern tim es, e x is ts acro ss c la s s
d iv is io n s .
I am seeking to develop in th is segment of th e chapter
i ;
| both a d e f in itio n which d escrib es th e n atu re of th e mass
! 229
!
I
j movement and something about th e contingencies fo r member-
| sh ip . T husly, fo r th e se purposes, th e best d e f in itio n is
i a combination of s e v e ra l considered p rev io u sly ,
i For th e purposes of t h i s d is s e r ta ti o n , I s h a ll con
s id e r a s o c ia l movement as a d if f u s e ly , but p a r t i a l l y ,
organized c o lle c tiv e , sh arin g a f e e lin g of group id e n tity
and s o l i d a r i t y , committed to some s p e c ific d o c trin e or
; ideology, and m obilizable fo r a c tio n d ire c te d toward th e
I change(s) th a t ideology s p e c if ie s . In a d d itio n , a s o c ia l
! movement e x is ts beyond a s in g le , conscribed community and
| endures beyond th e s o l i t a r y , or episodic e v e n t.
| I remind th e read er again th a t I wish to c le a r ly
i
j d is tin g u is h between c o lle c tiv e a c tio n and mass movements.
| Although th e se phenomena may tak e p lace as s o rt of a
| la rg e r movement, as I have mentioned, th is is not n eces-
| s a r i l y th e case. C o lle c tiv e a c tio n may be somewhat random,
; n o n -g o a l-o rie n te d , and n o n -s o c ia lly -re le v a n t, and th ese
ia c tio n s do not q u a lify under my c r i t e r i a fo r a genuine
s o c ia l movement.
Types of Mass Movements
A highly u s e fu l c a te g o riz a tio n is o ffered by G usfield
I (1970). He c l a s s i f i e s d if fe re n t forms of c o lle c tiv e
response or d if fe re n t modes of r e je c tin g th e e sta b lish e d
| s o c ia l o rd er. These in c lu d e; (1) w ithdraw al movements;
i
j (2) p ro te s t movements; (3) reform movements; and (*l)
I 230
!
re v o lu tio n a ry movements.
The w ithdraw al movement i s one p a r tic u la r ly p e rtin e n t
to t h i s d is s e r ta ti o n in th a t G usfield him self uses th e
| example of th e Hippies as an example of t h i s categ o ry .
; This type of group is "only in d ir e c tly preoccupied w ith
: producing change in i n s t itu ti o n s or c u l tu r a l values (p.
! 8 6 )." The membership of th e se movements do not d ir e c tly
j
I seek to solve f o c a l problems through s o c ia l change or
j !
| p o l i t i c a l a c tio n but r a th e r co n c en trate on in te r n a l and j
j
i s p i r i t u a l change w ithin th e person through some manner of !
I
se p a ra tio n or "dropping out" from th e la rg e r s o c ie ty . j
! The c u l t, as described by C a n tr il ( 1963) in h is example j
of F ather D iv in e ’s group would be another name fo r t h i s j
phenomenon. So a re various attem p ts to s e t up Utopias
which fo rsak e th e g re a te r so c ie ty such as the Oneida com-
j
i munity.
|
L ater I s h a ll re tu rn t o a d isc u ssio n of th e phenomenon'
i of th e "withdrawal movement," s ti p u la t in g under which
| circum stances one might co n sid er i t a genuine s o c ia l move-
| ment and in which in stan ce s i t would best be tr e a te d as
an ev o lu tio n ary phenomenon in th e c u ltu r e , a m utation of
| th e la rg e r macrocosm, but not n e c e s s a rily a d ir e c t c h a l-
j :
! lenge to th e so c ie ty .
! G u sfie ld ’s category of th e p ro te s t movement resembles ;
i
! ;
! th a t grouping we have prev io u sly mentioned as characterizing
231
th e mob, s t r i k e , In s u rre c tio n , r i o t , or spontaneous demon
s tr a t io n or c o lle c tiv e a c tio n . G usfield d escrib es t h i s
1 type of "movement" as being an "ep iso d ic r a th e r than p e r-
| manent form of c o lle c tiv e a c tio n " (p . 8 6 ). He mentions
| th a t th e fre q u e n tly r e b e llio u s , or h o s ti le n atu re of such
| spontaneous ac tio n s a re p o ssib ly more predominant than
I any d e f in ite movement toward change. Many may, however,
! lead in d ir e c tly to change, or may c o n trib u te to a la rg e r,
I in c o rp o ra tin g movement and achieve change th ereb y . But, j
in every way, th e in te n tio n a lity to move toward change on
i
some s p e c if ic d o c trin e is more d iffu s e and vague th an in
th e more organizing movements. j
A th ir d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is th e ( p a r tic u la r ly American) j
reform movement. This type of movement is one which has
le g itim a te s ta tu s and which aims toward change in a more
! .
| gradual and n a tu ra l fa sh io n , by "operating w ithin th e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l s tru c tu re fo r c o n f lic t re g u la tio n " (p . 86).
Another im portant te n e t of th e reform movement is t h a t ,
u n lik e th e re v o lu tio n a ry movement, i t "u su ally seeks change
in s p e c ific i n s t itu ti o n s r a th e r than in major s o c ia l values
lo r forms of a u th o rity " (p . 87). G usfield th e re fo re con-
I t r a s t s t h i s type of movement w ith both th e ep iso d ic demon-
|s t r a t i o n s mentioned above, in th a t th e l a t t e r o ften
!u t i l i z e s i l l e g a l forms of p r o te s t, and w ith re v o lu tio n .
which may involve both i l l e g a l p r o te s t and demands
Immediate and t o t a l change in asp ects of th e s o c ia l s tr u c -
i tu r e .
j
The re v o lu tio n a ry movement is th e re fo re d istin g u ish e d
i from th e reform movement by i t s t o t a l i t y of aim and by i t s
1111
; a tta c k on th e leg itim acy of th e c u rre n tly e s ta b lis h e d j
i :
ti !
i a u th o rity . G usfield mentions th a t th e very term rev o - j
i lu tio n " has fo r c e n tu rie s been c o n tro v e rs ia l and, in th e
| follow ing s e c tio n , I s h a ll t r y to develop some of th e j
| sc h o la rly thought on t h i s issu e in a b r ie f review of th e j
j i
| h is to ry of th e concept. N onetheless, both of th e f a c to rs
mentioned above are custom arily s tre s s e d by au th o rs
w ritin g on t h i s s u b je c t, as is a th ir d asp ect mentioned
I by G u sfield , th a t of sudden or immediate change, r a th e r
than gradual change and development. This f a c to r is th e
key one in understanding th e d is tin c tio n I hope is becoming
lu c id , th a t between re v o lu tio n a ry and ev o lu tio n ary change.
! In concluding or summarizing th e d isc u ssio n around
i
I h is typology, G usfield m entions th a t i t is convenient to
; d iscuss s o c ia l movements as ta k in g place along f iv e dimen-
I s io n s :
1. Communal se p a ra tio n - s o c ia l change
2. Episodic - e s ta b lish e d (or organized)
3. Narrow change - broad change
*J. Gradual r e a l iz a tio n - immediate r e a l iz a tio n
t
! 5. Legal - i l l e g a l
[ I am Including t h i s typology mainly to d isp u te I t . In
I
p a r tic u la r , (1 ), (2 ), and (*l) o f fe r us problems.
I f e e l , in essence, th a t th e lower extremes of his
I continua a re so I n f i n i t e l y placed as to enable us to in
clude almost any "deviant" or "unusual" s o c ia l a c tio n as
| a s o c ia l movement. M y basic argument h erein Is th a t not
j a l l group ac tio n s which can e v e n tu ally be shown to lead !
! I
I to change in d ir e c tly or g rad u ally are not n e c e s s a rily (by
I in te n t or purpose) p a rt of a s o c ia l movement. I f such j
j j
change occurs, In tim e, because of random and s e re n d ip i-
j tous happenings, or because of happenstance connection j
i !
| w ith o th er phenomena of a c tio n cum ulating to some ev e n tu al j
i |
| ra m ific a tio n , we have e v o lu tio n a l change, not th e same
| kind of change caused by movements of people, banded t o -
j ;
| g eth er toward th e dedicated purpose of change out of
| lo y a lty to some s p e c if ic d o c trin e .
The w ithdraw al movement of G usfield is an ap t example
I fo r our d isc u ssio n . Let us look a t two examples which f i t
! th e d e f in itio n of w ithdraw al movement as executed by Gus
f i e l d . The f i r s t is th e infamous fam ily of Charles Manson,
i which moved from country hideaway to country hideaway in
! th e la te s i x t i e s , u n t i l th e fa te d T ate murders. This was
I indeed an example of a sm all " c u lt," w ith lo y a lty toward
I
| a sin g le le a d e r, and having a s e t of values they wished
j to keep, while scorning and spurning th e values of the
234
larg er so ciety . The second i s the c u lt of Father Divine,
as described by Hadley C a n tril (19&3) c la ssic
| attempt to analyze the psychology of s o c ia l movements.
I According to the d e fin itio n of C a n tril, the c u lt is an
; example of "organized action generally ra th e r r e s tr ic te d
| and temporary, in which the individual zealously devotes
j himself to some leader or id eal” (p. 123). Other
!
| c h a ra c te ris tic s of c u lts are the incom patibility of the j
| microcosm (which is_ the c u lt) with the ex tern al world,
I or g re a te r so ciety , causing the individual members, in
| |
| most in stan ces, to have to s a c rific e th e ir lo y a ltie s to j
[ j
| the macrocosm, and to , given th is d e fin itio n , thereby be |
| able to "escape the world of r e a l i t y . "
j '
| The concept of the cu lt is a tric k y one in regards to
I
; th a t of the s o c io -p o litic a l movement. I t s a tis f ie s part
j of our d e fin itio n in th a t there are c le a rly actions being
i
j
j performed by members which are contrary to th e current
: so c ia l norms and values. In the case of the Manson family,
; for instance, gross sexual and moral freedoms, ultim ately
! including the "right t o murder" were allowed by the leader,
I the symbol around which the family organized and acted.
! Iro n ic a lly , a l l these actions were performed in th e name
I of "love,," a new d e fin itio n of love (implying a new body
I of values) as developed by Manson him self.
1 1
235
Another new p attern of liv in g was c h a ra c te ris tic of
the c u lt of Father Divine, which required of i t s members
s a c r ific e of a l l m aterial goods to the leader in retu rn
for the promise th e i r m aterial needs would be met by the
community of Father Divine. In addition, the stru c tu re of
the nuclear family in te g ra l to Western C iv iliz a tio n was
challenged in the requirement th a t a l l parents entering
the Kingdom of Father Divine relin q u ish the bonding with !
his spouse and his children. Frequently, the children
j
were le f t behind in the ex tern al community. To underscore |
the requirement of separation from the substance and values
i
of the greater society, Father Divine s t r i c t l y forbade his i
"children" to have contact with any "possible sources of
’negative a t t i t u d e s ’—those which would s h ift concentration
from him to something e lse "(p . 128). The members could
have no reading m aterial, nor access to radio broadcasts,
save those publications or programs broadcast by Father
him self. "Their senses, as well as th e ir services and
thoughts"(p. 128) supposedly belonged to the Father.
Presented in both instances with a dramatic co n trast
to the macrocosmic so c ial s tru c tu re , these c u lts both seem
to f u l f i l l th a t c r ite rio n involving change in so c ia l
j
v alues. Yet, In both instances, the members were heavily
r e s tr ic te d in th e ir movement to the larger society. In the
l a t t e r instance, they were ac tu ally forbidden contact with
i 236
t
th a t world. Because of t h i s , the Manson family as i t
i
existed at the time of the Tate murders, was largely
r e s tr ic te d to i t s l i f e hidden away in the Santa Susanna
Mountains. Father D ivine’s children were secluded together
| I
| in Harlem. Although each of these cu lts attempted to j
r e c ru it whomever they should happen to touch, through
t s p i r i t u a l communication, through drugs, through sexual
encounter, th e ir impact on the larg er society was c le a rly
| lim ited , th e ir a c t i v i t i e s were largely lo calized . Thusly,
i
| they had l i t t l e impact on or r e la tio n to the g reater |
| so ciety (save in the case of the Manson group, a f te r th e ir
1 |
i ;
! a r r e s ts for the Tate murders). I t is my contention th a t
! j
| unless th e re be a purposeful and d e lib e ra te attempt to
i '
I i
j change the values of the so ciety , not simply the values of
j 1
! iso lated in d iv id u als, we do not have a genuine so c ia l
movement. Therefore, whereas a sin g le subcommunity,
! such as a c u lt, or any one commune, or the d i s t r i c t of
| Haight-Ashbury at i t s inception may sig n a l what may be
a chain reac tio n of other individuals in other communities,
! and may th u sly be prelim inary to a s o c ia l or p o l i t i c a l
phenomenon, these lo c a l a c t i v i t i e s , in and of themselves,
! do not n ecessarily f u l f i l l our c r i t e r i a for a genuine
i s o c ia l movement.
Another example provided by C a n tril does, however,
| f u l f i l l these conditions. He presents as an example of a
|
! re lig io u s sect one which began in the twenties as th e I
! 237
I Oxford Group, having been sta rte d by Dr. Prank N. Buchman,
a former Lutheran m inister from Pennsylvania. Tremendously
] successful in shaming the young "college sinner" and la te r
! crea tin g a group of people who, from every rank, profession
; and tra d e , and from many c o u n trie s, surrendered t h e i r lives
| to God and endeavored to lead a highly re lig io u s l i f e under
j the guidance of the Holy S p i r i t , Buchman's sect was tru ly
! i
I a movement. This was so because he followed his expulsion j
! !
| i
I from the Oxford campus with the s e ttin g up of a body of 60 |
| |
| converts in a world headquarters In the Waldorf A storia in ^
New York. Members joined from England, Canada, the U.S.A.,;
i Denmark, and Holland in vast numbers, and from other
j i
! countries In smaller numbers, C a n tril s ta te s th a t at
; ‘
! le a s t 50*000 people throughout the world acknowledged
; suchman as the figure who showed them a new way of l i f e .
The d e ta ils of Buchmanism as a creed are not so
j
j Important to th is discussion as is the scope of th e move-
I ment, the fa c t i t created a microcosm from which in d iv i
duals s t i l l moved back into the g reater society to prose
l y ti s e and share th e ir new values, making I t possible for
; membership to spread, and the movement to su stain I t s e l f .
Eventually, meetings were held in Madison Square Garden,
; and prominent celebrity-Buchmanists ran the show. This
I
j is an obvious example of group s o lid a r ity which spread
I beyond the sin g le event or the lo c al community and was
238
not tru e of the c u lts mentioned e a r l i e r .
Therefore, I conceive of the c u lt or sect as being a
so c ia l movement only in so fa r as i t aims for d ire c t change
In the la rg e r s o c ia l system, not the in d ire c t change j
through changing the " in d iv id u a l’s head” as was indicated
by Gusfield in h is c l a s s if ic a tio n . This point is very
important to our discussion as i t removes the p o s s ib ility
of E llis Islan d , a commune on the USC campus, liv in g by a j
i
separate se t of s o c ia l values, being considered in i t s e l f j
i
a s o c ia l movement, l e s t i t lin k to other communes with |
sim ilar id eo lo g ies, directed toward in te g ra tin g them in
the larg er so c ia l system.
The extent to which the broadbased re lig io u s , s o c ia l, ;
or p o l i t i c a l movement seeks to change the system, and the
ta c ti c s and timing chosen defines whether or not i t Is
to be considered a reform ist or revolutionary movement.
In a d e fin ite sense then, I am re je c tin g th e notion
of automatic c la s s if ic a tio n of "withdrawal" and "protest"
movements, as defined by G usfield, as s o c ia l movements,
unless they are incorporated as p art of movements which
extend beyond the episodic or lo c a lly -r e s tr ic te d phenomenon.
And again, I s tre s s th a t, although some of these may
i
eventually lead to change, in d ire c tly or seren d ip ito u sly ,
I am concerned with th e ir o rig in a l in te n t. The gradual
and/or a c c id e n ta l change which comes about in the socio-
239
p o l i t i c a l stance of a nation may be evolutionary, and the
change agents c u ltu r a l, ra th e r than in te n tio n a lly socio
p o l i t i c a l . This discussion w ill be s ig n ific a n t to la te r
chapters of th is d is s e r ta tio n .
Of course, a l l four categories mentioned by Gusfield
might e x is t as sub-movements or "wings" of a larger
movement, with d iffe re n t members holding to the same basic
set of values, but maintaining schisms, or c o n flic ts as to j
I
which t a c t i c a l means should be u tiliz e d In order to fa c ili-j
t a t e the desired s o c ia l change. j
I t should fu rth e r be noted th a t many movements which !
i
might seem by nature re lig io u s or s p i r i t u a l may be su b tly , j
but d e fin itiv e ly , s o c io - p o litic a l by v irtu e of the species !
of economics they preach. In tu rn , the s o c io -p o litic a l
movement, as pointed out by many th e o r is ts , of whom Hof-
fe r is perhaps the most emphatic, may take on the tone of
a "religious fervor" or " s p iritu a lly -d ire c te d s e t of
a c t i v i t i e s . "
Before we leave th is attempt to ch aracterize d iffe re n t
types of so c ia l movements, i t would be wise to attend
more closely to the d is tin c tio n between reform ist and
revolutionary movements, since these categories are impor
ta n t to a consideration of the in ten t of youth In p ro test
in the s ix tie s .
24 0
Johnson ( 1966) has stressed the tendency of many
I individuals to equate s o c ia l change with revolution. As
| -
■ pointed out previously, i t is only one form of so c ia l
; change. Many changes are accomplished without re so rt to
revolution and, in cases lik e th a t of the New Deal, these
i
j changes may be vast and sweeping. To c a l l them revolu-
| tio n ary , however, would not be accurate.
Gusfield has remarked, as was noted previously, th a t
reform ist movements, in c o n tra st with those which are
revolutionary, remain leg itim ate , adjust to more gradual
forms of change, and customarily desire metamorphosis in
sp e cific in s titu tio n s , rath er than challenge the crux of
i ;
| s o c ie ty 's au th o rity , or i t s major values. Heberle mentions;
j ;
I the more gradual change In the reform movements, whereas Ini
| the other instances, there is customarily abrupt and
| violent action around the revolutionary objectives toward
i
| a new s o c ia l order and change in power r e la tio n s . Clear
; examples of revolution are the French Revolution in 1789*
j the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Nazi takeover in Germany.
I have already mentioned the New Deal as c h a ra c te ris tic
of a reform movement which made manifold changes. These
I were made, however, within the current power s tru c tu re ,
: were thusly le g itim ate, and occurred over a period of ten !
| years.
2*11
Complications in th is consideration occur when, under
the aegis of one supposed "cause" or "purpose," various
purposes or c o n flic tin g ta c ti c s may be masked. Such has
been the case, I believe, in the anti-Vietnam movement.
L egislators in Washington have acted in a c le a rly reform ist
manner by presenting countless b ill s to Congress which
would strap the P re s id e n t’s power to fund the War. In
the vast m ajority of p ro testin g Americans, most have made
use of the non-violent ta c tic s inherited from the C iv il
i
Rights movement. In both these instances, the c lear focus |
i
has customarily been the war I t s e l f and the goal of J
causing the government to take n otice and change i t s policyj
regarding our ro le in Southeast Asia.
In several instances, however, more ra d ic a l groups
made use of the symbol of Vietnam in order to mount a more
violent and all-encompassing a tta c k on the American power
stru c tu re and value system as a whole. Such was the case
with Weathermen, who s p l i t with SDS b asically over the
question of ta c t i c s . They frequently u tiliz e d the issue
of the war (aiming at agencies known to "support" the War)
as the focus of th e ir m i l i t a r i s t i c and explosive attacks
on the American Establishm ent. Such was the case in the
bombing of the Mathematical Research Center a t the Uni
v ersity of Wisconsin campus in Madison. The Weathermen
appeared on various fro n ts , linking themselves to various
2*12
|
I "movements, " such as the labor disputes in F lin t and
| Pontiac, Michigan, but in a l l these instances they them-
I selves had purposes which were te le o lo g ic a lly beyond those
1
! of movements with which they tem porarily associated them- j
selves. |
i i
j This i l l u s t r a t e s the problem of describing c e rta in i
! i
movements ( e .g ., the anti-Vietnam phenomenon) as e ith e r
reform ist or revolutionary, when they may, in f a c t, |
include factions th a t are themselves rep rese n tativ e of bothl
I I
| approaches and both purposes.
| In closing th is sectio n , I wish to remind the reader
th a t we must look fu rth e r than the observable ram ifications
of so c ia l ac tio n , or, beyond the sp e c ific goal of a
! sp ecific event in a movement’s h isto ry , to ask; "What is
i :
I the o v erall in ten t of these people? What is i t they are
i
! re a lly try in g to do? What is the f in a l purpose in th e ir
j action?" Only by asking such questions do we begin to
I
■ probe the nature of a so c ia l movement at a given point
in time.
The Concept of Revolution
As I mentioned e a r l i e r , the concept of "revolution"
i is one of the most co n tro v e rsial in p o l i t i c a l theory.
| ;
I Debates over the d e fin itio n of th is term enter the l i t e r a - !
j ;
! tu re on many le v els, but are perhaps best represented
j I
! q u in te sse n tia lly in the c la s s ic exchange between King
243
! Louis XVT and one of his Dues on July 14, 1739* The king
j
is said to have announced explosively, f u l l of apprehen
sion: "Mais. e 'e s t une r e v o lte ." And the Due is recorded
! as having responded: "Ce n 'e s t pas une re v o lte , c fest
une re v o lu tio n ." In th is short moment of h is t o r ic a l
: I
c r i s i s , the notion of the d is tin c tio n between re b e llio n j
• j
(r e v o lte ) and revolution (rev o lu tio n ) was demonstrated by j
I the response of the Due, who understood the f u l l itiplica-
i !
i
| tions of what was taking place on the Place de la Concorde,!
j !
| and th a t th e ir in te n t and possible ram ifications were far
| beyond those indicated by the notion of re b e llio n .
i
j This basic d is tin c tio n is one of those commonly !
! addressed by w riters engaged in describing the nature of
| revolution.
The term has gone through various metamorphoses in
| meaning and scope throughout h isto ry . For instance, the
| simple d e fin itio n of the term as " p o litic a l violence" is
! p a rtic u la rly inadequate.
In attacking such sim p listic d e fin itio n s , Chalmers
Johnson ( 1966) devotes an e n tire work to the analysis of
th is term. He finds the Chinese word fo r revolution,
; ke-ming, highly useful when compared with i t s Chinese
complement, t !ien-ming, l i t e r a l l y tra n sla te d as 'the mandate;
! of heaven." Although we must frequently tr a n s la te the
former term as "revolution," the l it e r a r y tra n s la tio n is
2 1 » 1 »
"to withdraw the mandate." As the author comments, "the
idea of revolution is thus u n in te llig ib le without a p rio r
j knowledge of the mandate of heaven"(p. 3). This is the
! point most continuously stressed by Johnson, th a t revo-
i
lutions must be studied, analyzed, and tre a te d in the
I context of the so c ia l system, or s tru c tu re s , within which
i they occur.
! ]
Another d e fin itio n which, for Johnson, contains a l l j
i i
' i
i I
I the facto rs necessary to c le a rly understand th is term is j
| th a t of the Frenchman, Arthur Bauer (1908), who w rite s: J
"Les revolutions sont les changements te n tes ou r e a lis e s
par la force dans la c o n stitu tio n des s o c ie te s " (p. 11). j
! Johnson claims th a t th is d e fin itio n is one which re fe rs to
!
| revolution as so c ia l changes, to the a b i l i t y of a revolu-
| tio n to succeed or to f a i l , and to the fa c t th a t th is
I p a rtic u la r form of s o c ia l change involves the intervention
or u til iz a tio n of violence in c i v i l re la tio n s .
Very s ig n ific a n tly , also , i t incorporates the notion
: th a t "revolution, both as a form of behavior and as a
concept, concerns the most basic le v el of man’s communal
; existence—i t s c o n s titu tio n ” (p. 1).
The idea of so c ia liz a tio n or so c ia l organization is
; one which implies the desire to fo rc ib ly co n tro l, minimize,
| and r e s t r i c t a l l violence and to thereby maintain the
I s ta tu s quo, or "uphold the mandate," as given by the
2*15
I Chinese tra n s la tio n u tiliz e d previously. Johnson w rites
I
th a t when we focus on a p a rtic u la r revolutionary phenomenon
I we are asking how and why these s o c ia l b a rrie rs against
| violence have been threatened or breached. Why, in other
I words, has there been a retu rn to ille g itim a te violence,
| violence not rep resen tativ e of the m ilita ry establishment
|
| of th a t p a rtic u la r system?
i
This notion of the revolution as contextually sp ecific
| was f i r s t offered by A r is to tle , in P o litic s (See: 1951*
i Jowett tr a n s la tio n ) . He f e l t th a t the key to understanding
a p a rtic u la r instance of th is phenomenon was to know how
the re v o lu tio n ists wanted the society to be organized. j
He f e l t th a t the p rin c ip a l cause of revolutionary feelin g
| i
i s :
j . . . t h e desire of eq u a lity , when men think th a t
they are equal to others who have more than
themselves; or, again, the d esire of inequality
and su p e rio rity , when conceiving themselves to
be superior they think th a t they have not more
but the same or less than th e i r in f e r io r s ;
pretensions which may and may not be ju st.
(p. 1 06)
Although A ris to tle u tiliz e d a broader sense of revo-
! lu tio n than th a t proposed by Johnson and th is author (he
I included a l l manner of p o l i t i c a l i n s t a b i l i t y and so c ial
I change, of which violence was only one form), his emphasis
on the affirm ation or re je c tio n of the current so c ia l order;
is one c e n tra l to th is discussion.
i
. ]
Johnson in d icates th at qualifying the term violence
to the meaning of "bloodshed" is too narrow a conception
to incorporate a l l the a lte rn a tiv e s for "denying the Man
date of a u th o rity ." Johnson brings us back to the Weberian
i i
j conception of mutual expectations and o rien tatio n s of
i members of a so c ia l system. Violence is "action th a t
; d e lib e ra te ly or un in ten tio n ally d iso rie n ts the behavior
i i
| of others"(p. S ). j
Therefore, i t seems we must consider violence to be
; y j
| a n tis o c ia l or aberrant action in respect to the specific
| nature of some so c ia l system. The term "violence" is only i
i ,
| useful contextually and comparatively, ju s t as was the !
! i
| term "revolutionary." In th is lin e of thinking, Johnson |
j ;
| in s i s ts th a t the term "nonviolent revolution" would th e re
fore be a misnomer, a con trad ictio n in terms: " it is
a c tu a lly the name of a revolutionary stra te g y containing
a b u ilt-in propaganda appeal to persons holding c e rta in
; definable values"(p. 7). I must emphasize, however, th a t
th is does not mean th a t some revolutions cannot be accom
plished without re s o rt to k illin g .
Hobbes was the f i r s t great th e o ris t to propose
! c le a rly , in Leviathan (1651) th a t the purpose of society
was the elim ination of violence through s o c ia liz a tio n .
| Once the society is so c ia lly oriented, according to Hobbes,
j the "plan" of the so c ia l system is to co n tro l violence in
i
; the more a n tis o c ia l members. I f one were able to obtain j
2^7
perfect order within the system, one would have a utopia;
t o t a l or perfect violence would sig n a l the term ination of
I the system.
i
Hobbes’ negative view of man pictures the " s ta te of I
j
| n atu re ," man without so c ia liz a tio n , as being t o ta lly
j
| d e stru c tiv e and aggressive. This s ta te is th erefo re pro
h ib itiv e of a l l cooperation, or of a constructive d ivision
I of labor and productivity. In order to gain the f r u i t s
; i
! i
I of the non-natural sta te s of cooperation and peace, man ;
must s a c r ific e or abstain from th a t action most indigenous !
! to the "sta te of n a tu re ," violence. Therefore, i t is in |
I i
| the in te re s ts of the so c ia l group to so c ia lly organize and j
I r e s t r i c t so c ia l actio n . During the period when men are
i ■
| without these r e s t r a i n t s , they "live without a common
| power to keep them a l l in awe, they are in th a t condition
| which is called war; and such a war is of every man against
I every man"(Hobbes, 1651, Part I , Chap. x i i i ) .
i
Hobbes’ influence is f e l t in many of the basic theorems
in the sociology and psychology of revolution.
P arsons’ and S h i l s ' work ( 1962) on the s t a b i l i t y of
i so c ia l systems as rela te d to so c ia l in te g ra tio n or d is -
! in te g ra tio n is , c le a rly , an elaboration upon the Hobbesian
| discussion.
They indicate th a t, a t the extremes of s t a b i l i t y and
i n s t a b il ity are utopia and anarchy, th a t these configure-
; tions are highly r e la te d , and th a t the discussion of why
e ith e r prevails at a given time is simultaneously a d is -
| cussion of why the other does n o t. They s ta te :
The maintenance of any ex istin g sta tu s (of the
s o c ia l system), in so far as i t is maintained at
a l l , is c le a rly a r e la tiv e ly contingent m atter.
The obverse of the analysis of the mechanisms
by which i t is maintained is the analysis of
the forces which tend to a l t e r i t . I t is
impossible to study one without the o^her.
T p T S t )-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This completes the development of th a t concept of
i
| revolution I wish to adopt for purposes of th is d is s e r ta -
I
| tio n . How then does i t e s s e n tia lly d if f e r from the
essence of re b e llio n ? And what d istin c tio n s can be made
between simple reb e llio n and id eo lo g ical (or t o t a l ) re b e l
lio n ? Or between simple and t o t a l rev o lu tio n ?
| At the time of Copernicus, the term "revolution" had
prim arily an astronom ical meaning, th a t of a re c u rre n t, or
|
! c y c lic a l movement. Arendt ( 1963) emphasizes th a t his
notion was not th a t of "newness," but ra th e r one of some
manner of re v e rs a l, which re v e rsa l was a c tu a lly beyond the
1 control of man.
Furthermore, the term was f i r s t used p o lit ic a lly
as a metaphor to th is astronom ical concept, to convey the
notion of a "resto ra tio n of an old o rder." This followed
| the overthrow of the Rump Parliament and the re s to ra tio n
I of the monarchy in 1660. I t was again used in 1688, at
| the time of the S tu art expulsion and the transference of
2^9
sovereignty to William and Mary. In both of these early
! instances, "revolution" meant exactly the opposite of "the
|
generation of a new order" which we attempt to convey in
i using the term in contemporary times.
I t is th is meaning, th at of " re sto ra tio n ," which would
; la te r be designated by the term " re b e llio n ."
j John Locke, w riting in the 17th century (See: Cook,
| 19^7)f conceived of reb ellio n (which he used synonymously
: I
! with revolution) as being caused only by one condition,
I I
the tyranny of a ru le r or of a le g is la tu r e . He believed |
th a t the changes brought about by re b e llio n were r e s to r a
tiv e or preservative rath e r than being innovative. Similar!
i
in some facets to the thought of Hobbes, he conceived th at
the purpose of the "good" or fu n ctio n al society was to
| avoid war. Men had to give up th e ir p r e - p o litic a l rig h t
| to engage in fo rc e fu l action toward t h e i r own s e l f - i n t e r e s t
| for the p riv ile g e of liv in g in c i v i l society. He a c tu a lly
!
I saw the act of re b e llio n , or a retu rn to the previous s ta te
! of unlawful force, as being generated by le g is la to rs
i operating out of th e ir p o litic a lly -g iv e n scope. This was
the c a ta ly tic act of re b ellio n , causing the people them
selves to also use force (or war) in order to defend them-
j selves.
i :
Whenever the le g is la to rs endeavour to take away
and destroy the property of the people, or to
reduce them to slavery under a r b itr a ry power,
they put themselves into a s ta te of war with the j
250
people who are thereupon absolved from any
fu rth e r obedience and are l e f t to the common
refuge which God hath provided for a l l men
against force and v io le n ce ,(In : Cook, 19^7*
P. 233)
I
In te rp re to rs of Locke in d icate th a t th is did not
sig n ify , by any means, th a t Locke believed the people had
the rig h t to reb e l or re v o lt against the government. He
was only attem pting to describe the stepwise progression
of p o l i t i c a l re b e llio n and co u n ter-reb ellio n . The o rig in a l
v io la to r of authority is the r u le r , for authority is a |
| mutual and complementary re la tio n sh ip , having p riv ileg es :
j i
| and obligations both to the subjects and to the r u le r s ,
i i
i I
! The ru lers or le g is la to rs who betray th a t leg al authority
! thereby s a c rific e th e ir rig h t to ru le :
Rebellion being an opposition, not to persons,
but to au th o rity which is founded only in the
c o n s titu tio n and laws of the government, those
whoever they be, who by force break through,
| and by force ju s t if y th e i r violations of them,
I are tru ly and properly reb els; for when men,
! by entering into society and c i v i l government,
have excluded force and introduced laws for the
preservation of property, peace, and unity
amongst themselves, those who set up force again
in opposition to the laws do re b e H a re —th a t is ,
bring back again the s ta te of war—and are
properly rebels. (In: Cook, 19^7* p. 2 3 6)
Arendt (19&3) agrees for the most part with th is
i aspect of Locke's theory, fe e lin g th a t simple re b e llio n is •
; not an attempt to defy au th o rity , but ra th e r to r e in s ta te
| i t a f te r i t had been abortively misused. She w rites:
| Medieval and post-medieval theory knew of
j leg itim ate re b e llio n , of r is e against established
251
a u th o rity , of open defiance and disobedience.
But the aim of such reb ellio n s was not a chal
lenge of authority or the established order of
things as such; i t was always a matter of ex
changing the person who happened to be in
au th o rity , be i t the exchange of a usurper for
the leg itim ate king or the exchange of a tyrant
who had abused the power for a lawful ruler.
(P. 330)
Johnson explains th a t:
(Although) p o l i t i c a l p rin cip les inform the
actions of the r e b e l s ,. . .the re b e llio n is not
caused by a dispute over prin cp les. The rebels |
know how the society ought to be governed—
namely, in the way they remember i t s being
governed before the usurper or ty ran t betrayed j
the tr u s t th a t the society had placed in him.
Rebellion in th is sense is an act of so c ial
surgery; i t is intended to cut out one or more ;
members who are offending against the Joint j
commitments to maintain a p a rtic u la r so c ial
s tru c tu re , (p. 136)
Herein we then have a cle a r explanation of the notion l
simple r e b e llio n , which is not an attempt to replace
an ideology, but ra th e r to uphold, to preserve, or to
re s to re the ideology already e x isten t a f t e r i t has been
violated by those agents in whom the people have entrusted
au th o rity .
Johnson explains th a t the motivation is not p rin c ip le ,
or ideology, but th a t "the goal cu ltu re of such a movement
is ac tu ally a f u lly elaborated stru c tu re of values th a t
the rebels believe is s t i l l capable of organizing th e ir
communal lif e " (p . 137). If* on the other hand, the
reb ellin g populace desires a return to or re v iv a l of some
society th a t existed in the past and which they believe j
s t i l l has legitim acy, then we have what we re fe r to as
ideo lo g ical r e b e llio n . Such was the case in the American
C iv il War in the actions of the Confederates. Although
th is type of re b e llio n involves a g reater scope than th a t
of simple re b e llio n , i t is s t i l l d is tin c t from what I am
c a llin g revolution herein.
I f one accepts th is d e fin itio n a l s tru c tu re , i t becomes
c le a r th a t many of the movements which Gusfield terms j
withdrawal movements can a c tu a lly be considered a form of j
re b e llio n , in th a t they frequently seek a retu rn to some
former s ta te . This i s , in f a c t, p recisely the thinking
of T alco tt Parsons (1951)* who considers various so-called I
deviants in our society as being "passively-oriented" in I
th e ir attempt to avoid th e ir obligations to follow the
rules of the so c iety . We might term th is manner of
behavior passive r e b e llio n . Parsons mentions the hobo
and some types of Bohemians as exhibiting th is type of
o rie n ta tio n . We are immediately struck with the appropri
ate f i t of the early Hippies, some of the "back to the
land" s o c ie ta l drop-outs, and c e rta in ly many of the current
Jesus People c u lts .
I f we accept the d e fin itio n of "rebellion" as 'Irestora-
tiv e * " we see th a t Robert Merton (1957)* an important social
th in k e r, confuses what we have ju st termed re b e llio n with
revolution. Merton attempts to characterize re b e llio n as
253
involving the establishment of a new se t of goals which
are a t tr a c tiv e to those who f e e l themselves not p ro fitin g ,
| or as outcasts of the prevalent system. He claims th a t
re b e llio n is lim ited to r e la tiv e ly powerless groups,
| making aberrant or deviant responses. This attempt is one
j
| which I would indeed c la s s ify as r e b e llio n , and usually
i th a t of the passive type, save in instances lik e th a t of
| the crim inal, who is ac tiv e ly flau n tin g so c ia l ru le . I
! disagree th a t these so c ia l pariahs are, in fa c t, s e ttin g up
! |
| a new set of goals, or values, but th at th e ir re b e llio n j
| I
i s , as described previously, an attempt to defy power j
stru c tu re which they fe e l is oppressive by return to an j
t
I e a r l ie r , less r e s tr ic te d s ta te .
i i
| In essence, I am then favoring the d e f in itio n a l :
| stru c tu re developed herein, th a t which presents re b e llio n
as re s to ra tiv e and not innovative, or th a t which makes the i
attem pt, be i t unconscious and undeliberated, be i t activ e
or passive, to e ith e r replace an au th o rity believed to
| be i t s e l f ille g itim a te , or to retu rn to an e a rlie r s ta te ,
believed to be more id e alized , in order to s a tis f y the
needs of the fru s tra te d group.
; Wallace (1956) defines three v a rie tie s of revolution.
i !
; I
: The types he suggests are as follows:
| (1) Movements which profess to revive a t r a d i
tio n a l cu ltu re now fa lle n in to desuetude; (2)
movements which profess to import a foreign
254
c u ltu ra l system; and (3) movements which profess
n e ith e r re v iv a l nor im portation, but conceive
th a t the desired c u ltu ra l en d -sta te , which has
never been enjoyed by ancestors or fo re ig n ers,
w ill be realize d for the f i r s t time in a future
| Utopia (p. 275).
i
; The f i r s t movement of rev iv a l is c le a rly what I have
i
described as re b e llio n . The second type might be e ith e r
I an instance of reform or simple rev o lu tio n , but the
i
i
I descrip tio n is too open and vague to permit clea r d is tin c - j
| I
| tio n from e ith e r (1) or (3). The th ir d , in view of i t s j
j I
I scope and novelty, is what I would term t o t a l , or j
complete, re b e llio n . j
How iro n ic , however, th a t in a l l th is attempt to
r a r ify and c l a r if y , such semantic "performances1 1 run the
risk; of abstraction, for how i l l - f a t e d w ill be our chances
| at finding the " w e ll-f ittin g case" in r e a l l i f e , one which
does not overlap with another category, or which does not
i
! contain various loopholes so as to defy c la s s if ic a tio n .
!
| Yet th is does not mean th a t these attem pts, be they ru d i-
i
| mentary, do not or w ill not aid our analyses of sp e cific
| phenomena, i f we keep in mind the notion of expanding our
system so th a t i t can accommodate the exceptional case.
Having then generated a working d e fin itio n of re b e l-
! lio n , I tu rn back again to the consideration of or elabora-;
tio n upon the concept of revolution.
I Arendt points out, in te re s tin g ly enough, th a t the
I j
I contemporary d e fin itio n of the term came about as a d ire c t j
255
r e s u lt of the French and American revolutions which, in
both instances, began in in te n t as r e b e llio n s , la te r
| broadening th e ir scope and goals. The p o l i t i c a l metaphor
| of the e a r l ie r astronom ical term was f i r s t used in the
i
I 17th century to mean "a revolving back to some pre-
| established point, or preordained o rd e r . ’1 The meaning of
| the term changed ju st as the process of the aforementioned
| revolutions was changed.
i Arendt describes the firm desires of members of both j
j
the French and the American revolutions to hold fa s t to
the b elief th a t they were "re trie v in g th e ir ancient
lib e r tie s " ( p . 3 7) a feelin g th a t these became revolutions i
I inadvertently. One is th ere fo re hardput in the instance
| ;
! of the American Revolution to decide whether or not i t s
i ^
j leaders were indeed reactionary or revolutionary in intent.:
Arendt w rites fu rth e r th a t:
Even when in the course of both revolutions the
i actors became aware of the im p o ssib ility of
re s to ra tio n and of the need to embark upon an
e n tire ly new e n te rp ris e , and when th e re fo re the
very word "revolution" had already acquired i t s
I new meaning, Thomas Paine could s t i l l , tru e to
the s p i r i t of a bygone age, propose in a l l e a rn e st
ness to c a l l the American and the French Revolu
tio n s by the name of "counter-revolution."
This proposition, odd indeed from the mouth of
' one of the most ’revolutionary" men of the time,
shows in a n u tsh e ll how dear the idea of rev o l- ;
! ving back, of re s to ra tio n , was to the hearts and
I minds of the re v o lu tio n a rie s .(p . 3 8 )
The D eclaration of Independence was indeed an e n tire ly
! new idea. Arendt w rites th a t: I
256
In alien ab le p o l i t i c a l rig h ts of a l l men by v irtu e
of b irth would have appeared to a l l ages but our
own...a con trad ictio n in terms. And i t is
in te re s tin g to note th a t the Latin word homo,
! the equivalent of "man," sig n ifie d o rig in a lly
| somebody who was nothing but a man, a rig h tle s s
j person, th e re fo re , and a slave, (p. 39)
| The idea of a p o l i t i c a l "revolutionary s p i r i t " as
| we know i t today was apparently absent in these e a r l ie r
| revolutions. As Arendt s ta te s , "The strange pathos of
i
| novelty, so c h a ra c te ris tic of the modern age, needed almost
]
; two hundred years to leave the r e la tiv e seclusion of
I !
I s c ie n tif ic and philosophical thought and to reach the realmi
j
of p o litic s " ( p . 39).
i
I t was only In contemporary times th a t men tru ly
began to ask what Arendt c a lls the so c ia l question.
Men began to doubt th a t poverty is Inherent
in the human condition, to doubt th a t the d is
tin c tio n between the few, who through circum
stances or strength or fraud had succeeded in
lib e ra tin g themselves from the shackles of
poverty, and the labouring poverty-stricken
m ultitude was in e v ita b le and e te rn a l. This
doubt, or rath e r the conviction th a t l i f e on
ea rth might be blessed with abundance instead
of being crused by s c a rc ity , was prerevolu
tio n ary and American In o rig in ; i t grew d ire c tly
out of the American co lo n ial experience.(p. 15)
In A rendt’s conception of revolution, I t becomes
i cle a r "that the idea of freedom and the experience of a
| new beginning should coincide"(p. 21). But novelty, a
| new way of solving the s o c io -p o litic a l economic questions,
j was required. Therefore, Arendt agrees with my feelings
i :
| th a t the idea of c a llin g each successful in su rrectio n or
257
coup d *etat "revolution” is misconstrued.
A ll these phenomena have in common with revo
lu tio n is th a t they are brought about by violence
and th is is the reason why they are so frequently
I id e n tifie d with i t . But violence is no more
| adequate to describe the phenomenon of revolution
than change; only where change occurs in the
| sense of a new beginning, where violence is
| used to c o n s titu te an alto g eth er d iffe re n t form
! of government, to bring about the formation of
| a new body p o l i t i c , where the lib e ra tio n from
oppression aims a t le a st at the c o n s titu tio n of
freedom can we speak of revolution, (p. 28)
W riters lik e Johnson have claimed th a t A rendt’s
| theories are, to some extent, lim ited in th a t "lib e ra tio n
| from oppression" or "freedom" need n ec essarily be the end
! re s u lt of revolution. But i t is not th a t fa ce t which is
I of concern to me herein. Rather, I point up again her
I
emphasis on novel change, or the new beginning.
She also hypothesizes th a t , in the c la s s ic exchange
quoted at the inception of th is sectio n , the Due de Lian-
co u rt, in using the term revolution instead of r e v o lte ,
I was making an analogy between the idea of the lawful move-
; ment of heavenly bodies in a ro ta tin g , c y c lic a l motion,
| to the feeling of i r r e s i s t i b i l i t y involved in a movement
j of peoples so strong "that i t is beyond human power to
| a r re s t i t , and hence is a law unto i t s e l f " ( p . *11). The
| author gives us a vivid p o r tra it of the downtrodden and
i deprived so overrunning the s tr e e ts of P aris th a t "the
| upheaval of the populace of the great c i t i e s in ex tricab ly
i
I mixed with the uprising of the people for freedom, (were)_
258
both together i r r e s i s t i b l e in the sheer force of number "
(p. 4 l).
Johnson claims th a t tru e revolution involves turning
| to the goal of change when a l l else has fa ile d . The term
i should be reserved for conditions wherein "the goal cu ltu re
i
| of an in surrectionary ideology envisions the recastin g of
! the so c ia l division of labor according to a p attern which
! is self-consciously unprecedented in the context of a
p a rtic u la r so c ia l system"(p. 138). The emphasis herein !
is beyond th a t of replacement of a sin g le person, a t the
|
le v el of government alone, but is an a tta c k on the "regime"!
or the s o c io -p o litic a l ru les of the game. Simple revo- j
i
lu tio n s , by th is d e fin itio n , are those which supplant and
| replace some of the values. T otal revolutions, on the
|other hand, re stru c tu re the e n tire value system.
| Mannheim re fers to th is concept in his c la ssic work,
i
I Ideology and Utopia (1936), when he w rites th a t : "Revo
l u t i o n means th a t somewhere th ere is an a n tic ip a tio n of
I and an in te n t to provoke a breach in the ratio n a liz ed
!stru c tu re of society"(p. 132). Revel (1970) s ta te s th a t
ifor there to be t o t a l revolution in contemporary tim es,
■ ' ~
i
fiv e revolutions must take place and must occur simultane-
jously. They a re : "(a) p o l i t i c a l revolution; (b) so c ia l
i
irevolution; (c) technological and s c ie n ti f i c revolution;
| j
j(d) revolution in cu ltu re , values, and standards; (e)
259
revolution is in te rn a tio n a l and i n te r r a c ia l re la tio n s "
(P. 15).
I have attempted to trac e the h i s t o r i c a l development
! of the term rev o lu tio n , comparing i t to th e notion of
I re b e llio n , which came to be associated with the idea of
! re sto ra tio n or re v ita liz a tio n of former values, th at
i
meaning given to revolution in e a r l ie r d e fin itio n s . A
i
| functional d e fin itio n of contemporary revolution would j
| be the following: A revolution is a movement which
involves ille g itim a te means toward novel and unprecedented
revision of the present so c ia l system, within a r e la tiv e ly
short period of tim e. j
| Conditions Conducive to the Growth of Mass Movements
j |
I I have im p lic itly indicated th a t, in order for there
I j
: to ex ist large movements of any group in any so c iety , there
I must n a tu ra lly be some degree of d is s a tis fa c tio n and
| f ru s tra tio n . This, however, is a ra th e r vague and general^
j statem ent. In p a rtic u la r, what manner of d is s a tis fa c tio n
I are we considering? And what are the basic c r i t e r i a a
: so c ia l movement requires for i t s survival?
In the f i r s t place, I agree with Heberle (1951)* who
maintains th a t: "the immediate and sig n ific a n t causes w ill
! |
! be found in the conditions of the society rath e r than the j
I conditions of the le a d e r's words, or in the neuroses of
| j
| th e ir follow ers"(p. 111). This point w ill be emphasized !
260
in la te r chapters dealing with psychological motivations
for p a rtic ip a tin g in mass movements, and the nature of
individuals who join such movements. I t should be
I j
| remarked, however, th a t while I jo in Heberle in stre s sin g
I th a t the "immediate and sig n ific a n t causes" are so c ia l,
1
| I cannot agree th a t a l l who id e n tify or p a rtic ip a te in
the movement w ill do so because of the causes involved.
| King (195*0 w rites th a t so c ia l movements may be
! traced to so c ia l unrest. The movement !
! I
becomes d isc ern ib le when enough individuals :
give overt expression to th e ir d is s a tis fa c tio n j
...(w hen) large numbers of people are seeking
answers they do not have, reassurances th a t the
answers they do have are r ig h t, or ways of
implementing the answers of whose rightness they
are convinced, (p. 17)
| i
| King l i s t s four conditions as precedents for the
I i
I growth of a mass movement. They are: (1) C u ltu ral
confusion, by which King is in d icatin g inconsistencies or ;
i n s t a b i l i t i e s within a cu ltu re , a condition wherein people
! receive several co n flic tin g messages about appropriate
behavior; (2) S ocial heretogeneity and organization- - th is
! means the presence of c o n flic ts of power and a need fo r
i
| organization; (3) Individual discontent- - t h i s is the
! ram ification of the f i r s t two conditions on the individual;
i I
| (*}) Mass c ommunic at ion- -K ing feels th a t when these other
| conditions p rev ail, individuals are p a rtic u la rly open to
suggestion and, i f bombarded with new ideas and values,
261
may be quick to adopt them. I w ill discuss C a n tr il's
and H offer's elaborations upon th is aspect in Chapter 6.
Hoffer (1971) w rites th a t the best opportunity
i
| for the growth of a mass movement is found in a so ciety in
a stage of d isin te g ra tio n . He points out th a t i t is
I
| highly d i f f i c u l t for a mass movement to get a foothold
I
1
| within a strong corporate stru c tu re .
| Lipset (1970) believes th a t the s ta te referred to j
by Durkheim as anomie is one which p a rtic u la r ly ripens I
!
the individual to the appeal of a movement. He describes
anomie as: "That so c ia l s ta te in which individuals f e e l
diso rien ted , unrelated to strong norms--and hence are
more available to be recru ited to new movements" (p. 13). i
Parsons (1951) l i s t s four major broad sets of con
ditions which must be present for the successful growth of
a widespread so c ia l movement. They a re : (1) "The presence
of s u f fic ie n tly intense, widely spread and properly d is -
1
| trib u te d a lie n a tiv e m otivational elements"(p. 521). This
j is rela te d to s tr a in in the population r e la tiv e to p a rtic u -
! la r in s titu tio n a liz e d p a tte rn s, and to symbols re la ted
\ ;
| to these p attern s. This, according to Parsons, i s , how
ever, only a p o te n tia lity for change whose force may be
i :
| dissipated in a v arie ty of ways. I f coping mechanisms
i
I f a i l , the following condition may develop: (2) "The
organization of a deviant su b -c u ltu ra l group or movement"
262
(p. 522). Individuals w ill rein fo rce each o th e r's
deviance and provide a s o lid a r ity which binds them together.
However, i t is important to point up Parson's own r e a l i -
! zation th a t such a group may remain only a "counter-
| cu ltu re" and not bridge the gap to wider influence. A
| fu rth e r element is required fo r th is influence to spread.
I (3) "The development of an ideology--or se t of relig io u s
; b e lie f s —which can successfully put forward a claim to j
| i
I legitim acy in terms of at le a st some of the symbols of |
1 I
I the main in s titu tio n a liz e d ideology"(p. 522). With th is :
I point, Parsons is try in g to t e l l us th a t in order to
grow, a movement must make use of some symbols which are j
_ j
already known and popular. In other words, the deviance
I of the group cannot be too pronounced in early stages
| before the "new message" had been sold. (^1) The la s t
j set of conditions concerns the s t a b i l i t y of the aspects
|
I of the so c ia l system on which the movement impinges, and
I th e ir re la tio n to the equilibrium of the society"(p. 5 2 3).
I The focal point herein is H o ffer's previously mentioned
notion th a t the prevalent power system must be capable
| of being overthrown. I f not, anti-establishm ent moves
i can e a sily be crushed.
i
Johnson ( 1 9 6 6 ) se ts fo rth a set of conditions
j necessary to the development of the revolutionary move
ment in p a r tic u la r. The c lu ste rs of m utually-influencing
causes are lis te d as n ec essary .
F i r s t , th e re are th e pressures created by th e
d is e q u ilib ra te d s o c ia l sy ste m .. .th e one th a t
c o n trib u te s most d ir e c tly to a re v o lu tio n is
power d e f la tio n —th e fa c t th a t during a period |
of change th e in te g ra tio n of a system depends j
in c re a sin g ly upon the maintenance and develop- j
ment of fo rce by th e occupants of th e form al
a u th o rity s ta tu s e s .( p . 9 1)
Johnson’s second c lu s te r concerns th e q u a lity of purpose-
! f u l change which must be undertaken w hile a system is
| d is e q u ilib ra te d . I f th e le g itim a te lead ers a re unable to
i
! m aintain th e confidence of t h e i r nondeviant follow ers in
j ' - T "
I :
| th e c a p a c ity of the system to r e s to re i t s e l f , a lo ss of
a u th o rity w ill ensue and th e rig h t of th e e l i t i s t r u le r s j
; to use fo rce w ill no longer be considered le g itim a te .
| ;
| Johnson names a f i n a l , or s u f f i c i e n t , cause, which
| a c ts as an a c c e le ra to r of th e re v o lu tio n a ry a c tio n . This ;
! is some f a c to r , p o ssib ly occurring by chance, "which
| deprives th e e l i t e of i t s c h ie f weapon fo r enforcing s o c ia l
| behavior ( e .g ., an army m utiny), or which leads a group
i of re v o lu tio n a rie s to believe th a t they have the means to
: deprive th e e l i t e of i t s weapons of co ercio n "(p . 9 1).
; United w ith power d e fla tio n and lo ss o f a u th o rity , th is
: th ir d f a c to r can d ir e c tly p ro je c t a so c ie ty in to a s t a t e
| of re v o lu tio n . Johnson in d ic a te s , as do th e various
; i
authors I have mentioned p rev io u sly , th a t a fu n c tio n a l
so c ie ty can survive any of th e se sin g le events described
I as s u f f ic ie n t causes (events lying w ithin h is th ir d ]
26k
category) but th a t, in a d is in te g r a tin g s o c ie ty , i t is
! fre q u e n tly a d if f e re n t m atter. This is an im portant
! statem en t which can p o ssib ly help us to ex p lain th e a b i l i t y
I of th e United S ta te s government to su sta in i t s e l f ag ain st
! th e m anifold a c ts of p ro te s t ag a in st i t during the decade
i of the s i x t i e s .
; The th e o r is ts we have mentioned have p ic tu re d a
| d is in te g ra te d so c ie ty , one experiencing u n rest as i l l u s -
j tr a te d by confusion, d iso rg a n iz a tio n , and p o ssib le ch ao tic I
i |
attem pts a t re c o n s tru c tio n or r e in te g ra tio n . This s ta te
I i
! is fu rth e r perpetuated by th e r is in g up of new groups j
| bonding to g e th e r through th e ir mutual d isc o n te n t. This j
| f r u s t r a t i o n , however, is not enough to s u s ta in th e group. ■
I t must have an ideology and symbols stro n g enough to
u n ite i t s members in t h e i r e f f o r t to e s ta b lis h th e ir own
| leg itim acy ag ain st th a t of th e former a u th o rity s tr u c tu r e .
i Hoffer (1951) and King (195*0 emphasize th a t minimal
! requirem ents fo r s u rv iv a l are e a rly o rg an iz atio n and th e
| c a p ac ity to absorb and in te g r a te new members.
King fu rth e r d iscu sses th e circum stances th a t enable
^ such a movement to th r iv e and to f lo u ris h as being growth
(in terms of s iz e and e x te n t of a c t i v i t i e s ) and the m otiva-
! tio n of th e membership, the stre n g th and co n v ictio n w ith j
which they jo in the movement and support i t w ith a c tio n .
265
I heve already mentioned in th e f i r s t se c tio n of
th is chapter th a t group cohesion and s o li d a r ity are
e s s e n tia l so th a t any movement can endure beyond th e
tr a n s ie n t c h a ra c te r of any given members. This cohesion
i s the d u r a b ility of a movement. Without i t , we do not
have a genuine s o c ia l movement, but a s e t of im ita tiv e
behaviors performed by in d iv id u als is o la te d from one
another.
The Developmental Phases of a Mass Movement
Although I have touched upon t h i s to p ic in th e
process of our previous d isc u ssio n , some e la b o ra tio n may
be c a lle d fo r in order to c le a r ly understand th e n atu re
of th e ste p s by which a mass movement grows and develops.
Heberle (19*19) has explained, fo r in sta n c e , th a t in
th e e a rly stag es of a movement, those c r i t e r i a which we
have p rev io u sly named as e s s e n tia l fo r a genuine s o c ia l
movement's e x iste n c e may only be p a r t i a l l y f u l f i l l e d .
King (195*0 !sy s "the in te r n a l development of a s o c ia l
movement ag ain st a background of s o c ia l u n re s t, which he
claim s is an e s s e n tia l co n d itio n fo r the in c ep tio n of the
movement and is n o t, in i t s e l f , an opening sta g e . He
o u tlin e s th e follow ing se t of phases: (1) In c ip ie n t
Phase; (2) O rg an izatio n al Phase; (3) S ta b le Phase.
King d escrib es th e in c ip ie n t phase as somewhat form
le s s and confused as to in te n t and purpose. At th is
266
stage, there is basically a potential for growth with no
way of predicting the development to follow. Just as
Parsons (1951) o u tlin ed in h is s e t of co n d itio n s conducive
to movements, King writes that it may be necessary at this
point to choose goals which have wide appeal and which
are immediate, rather than long-term. He writes that this
stage is usually only recognized, or traced, in retrospect,
During this first phase, goals are likely to
be general, and regarded by at least some mem
bers as immediately attainable; other ideologi
cal elements remain nebulous and tactics crude
or unformulated. Loyalty is usually intense
and group cohesion strong, re-enforced by I
personal contacts between founder and disciples !
and by the emotional momentum generated through
participation in a new undertaking.(p. ^3)
In the organizational phase, activity is more
I
systematized, and an outline of an hierarchy with a more
clearly delineated division of labor can be detected.
The ideology has gone through some period of change and j
reappraisal and newer, broader goals are present, with
specific values and aims defined. The group has also
established some system of behavioral norms and sanctions.
The movement is not as vulnerable to outside factors as
in the first stage, wherein it could easily be crushed,
but it does remain vulnerable. It is important to sense j
that the stock-taking and reevaluation of this period j
makes it one of re-organization, as well as organization. ;
King also points out the problem of overly-rapid growth
267
which " c a rrie s inherent dangers as new members bring in to
th e movement new p o in ts of v ie w ...a n d com petition fo r
i s ta tu s achievement is in te n s if ie d " ( p . kS ) . This problem
i c e r ta in ly seems to have been m anifest in th e period of
i rap id in te n s if ic a tio n of campus p r o te s t when both people
! and causes fought fo r "top-gun" p o s itio n .
! In movements of a lo n g -liv e d n a tu re , th is o rg an iza-
I I
i tio n a l phase does not long endure. Some degree of homeo- j
! {
I s ta s is or s ta b ili z a t io n is req u ired in order fo r th e J
j |
j movement not to play i t s e l f out w ith co n stan t metamorphose^.
|
A lso, as King e x p la in s, l e s t the group e s ta b lis h i t s e l f j
i i
| firm ly and give o ff the essence of s o l i d a r i t y , those j
! in d iv id u a ls in th e so c ie ty seeking s e c u rity w ill not tu rn ;
| i
i to th e movement as t h e i r source. Some degree of s t a b i l i t y
i !
| is th e re fo re req u ired to appeal to those who are seeking
j answers, meaning, and d ir e c tio n . This phase is ch arac-
| te riz e d by e sta b lish e d goals and t a c t i c s . "P e rsp ira tio n
| ■ '
' rep la ces in s p ira tio n as th e basis of accomplishment"
(p. ^7). The movement must, of co u rse, remain la b ile
!
I enough so th a t i t does not p e tr if y and th a t i t can a d ju st
i to the need fo r m o b ilizatio n and a c tio n . T h erefo re, i t
! is not in ab so lu te s t a s i s . O rg a n iz a tio n a lly , i t tends to i
j |
j have an e s ta b lish e d b u reau c ra tic h ierarch y and to have a
le g a l, ra th e r than a c h a ris m a tic ,le a d e r . In th a t I t has
become fixed in so many of i t s a s p e c ts, the movement takes
i
268
! an th e look of a microcosmic, fu n c tio n a l s o c ie ty , opera
tin g toward maximal e ffic ie n c y a t th is p o in t, and able to
I m aintain s te a d ily on a day-to-day b a sis,
j This l a s t phase is approxim ately correspondent to
I
I
I what E ric H offer discussed as the a c tiv e phase of a mass
I movement. King has described i t as a phase which i s ,
| because of i t s sy stem a tiz atio n of r u le s , norms, and
sa n c tio n s , o ften highly demanding of nonconformity in j
i !
j i t s membership. Hoffer agrees and s ta te s t h a t , no m atter
i
| how noble th e goals of th e o r ig in a l movement were and a r e , ;
| th e re may be many " e v il" asp ects to th is phase, among which
is the f a c to r th a t much of the in d iv id u a l's autonomy may !
|
need to be s a c r ific e d fo r th e s u rv iv a l of th e movement.
He sees the tru e c r e a t i v i t y in a movement as preceding or
follow ing th is phase, and experiences th e a c tiv e phase
| i t s e l f as being s t e r i l e .
i
i !
j Many w r ite r s , in clu d in g H offer, have stre s s e d th e
need fo r th e adept le a d e rsh ip o f a movement to end th e
a c tiv e phase as quickly as p o ssib le , p a r tic u la r ly when
; th e movement has been s u c c e s sfu l. The lead er must be
; w illin g to c a l l an end to th e a c t i v i t i e s of a movement
; e s p e c ia lly i f h is o b je c tiv e s have been reached,
W allace ( 1961) says th a t the f i n a l ta sk of a revo
lu tio n a ry movement is " r o u tin iz a ti o n ." In e la b o ra tin g
upon h is id e a s, Johnson w rites th a t :
269
j The focus of the movement s h i f t s from innovation
| to m aintenance, w ith the a tte n d a n t development
I of norms to meet a l l th e system ’s fu n c tio n a l
j r e q u is i te s . The s u re s t sign th a t r o u tin iz a tio n
I is occurring is th e elim in a tio n of those d is
c ip le s and h y s te r ic a l converts who are not able
i to rev erse th e ir re v o lu tio n a ry commitments.
| (pp. 110- 111)
Arendt i l l u s t r a t e s the irony of th is la s t phase
| of p o st-re v o lu tio n as fo llo w s:
i
! I f foundation was th e aim and end of re v o lu tio n ,
| then th e rev o lu tio n ary s p i r i t was not merely
th e s p i r i t of beginning something new but of
s ta r t in g something permanent and e n d u r in g :...
a la s tin g i n s t i t u t i o n , embodying t h i s s p i r i t
( i . e . , the s p i r i t of innovation and beginning) j
and encouraging i t to new achievem ents, would j
be s e lf - d e f e a tin g . From which i t u n fo rtu n a te ly |
seems to follow th a t nothing th re a te n s th e very j
achievements of re v o lu tio n more dangerously and j
more a c u tely than the s p i r i t which has brought j
them about, (p. 2 3 5)
i !
; T herefore, as a l l th e se w rite rs have d escrib ed , a movement],
I in order to c a p ita liz e upon i t s success and m aintain the
| '
j requirem ents of i t s ideology, must move from an a c tiv e
| in to a steady s t a t e .
Parsons t r e a t s th is stage as one of "adaptive tr a n s -
| form ation"(p. 525). He f e e ls th a t th e f i n a l success of
! a movement depends on a tra n s fe re n c e from a form erly
; o p p o sitio n a l stag e to one of c o n tro l and re o rg a n iz a tio n .
I The fa c t th a t i t must now i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e in order to
| su rv iv e means th a t " i t has ceased to be a rev o lu tio n ary
| movement"(p. 5 2 9).
270
Summary
This chapter has been an attem pt to c le a r ly define
th e commonly misunderstood concept of s o c io - p o l itic a l or
j
mass movement. S o c ia l movements were c o n tra sted w ith
withdraw al movements (which may remain c o u n te rc u ltu ra l)
and p ro te s t movements th a t are lim ite d by t h e i r episodic
or re g io n a l n a tu re . Culled from th e w ritin g s of prominent
j
authors in th is area is th is f i n a l d e f in itio n : a _ s o c ia l
movement is a d if f u s e ly , but p a r t i a l l y , organized c o lle c -
I
t l v e , sh arin g a fe e lin g of group id e n tity and s o l i d a r i t y , !
committed to some s p e c if ic d o c trin e or ideology, and
I MQbilizable fo r a c tio n d ire c te d toward th e change(s) th a t
| ideology s p e c i f i e s . A s o c ia l movement e x is ts beyond a
i '
I s in g le , conscribed community and endures beyond th e s o l i - |
t a r y , or e p is o d ic , ev e n t.
Types of s o c ia l movements were d e lin e a te d . A distin cj-
I tio n was made between movements of a refo rm ist and a
re v o lu tio n a ry n a tu re . Though both involve s o c ia l change, i
th e former uses le g itim a te means, aims toward change in
a more gradual fash io n , operates w ith in the p resen t social:
s tr u c tu r e , and u su a lly aims fo r change w ithin s p e c ific
in s t itu ti o n s of government ra th e r than change in major
s o c ia l values or the power s tru c tu re as a whole.
Attempts were made to tra c e th e development of the
term "rev o lu tio n " h i s t o r i c a l l y . The o r ig in a l meaning of |
271
th is term as r e s to r a tiv e or r e v ita liz in g was l a t e r tr a n s
fe rre d to th e term " r e b e llio n ." X defined re v o lu tio n as
a movement which involves ill e g it im a t e means toward novel
and unprecedented re v is io n of th e p resent s o c ia l system
j
| w ithin a r e l a t i v e l y sh o rt period of tim e.
I discussed th e con d itio n s conducive to th e growth of
I s o c ia l movements. Although s o c ia l u n rest i s a background
i !
; ag ain st which movements are bred, th is co n d itio n alone
j |
! does not s u f fic e fo r th e growth of such a movement. |
| The developmental phases of a mass movement were
considered. S ev eral authors concur w ith th e concept t h a t,;
a f t e r th e a c tiv e phase of a movement, i f th a t movement is |
I !
to be tr u ly su c c e s sfu l, i t must, ir o n ic a lly , transform i t s ;
o p p o sitio n a l a c tiv i ty to one of maintenance and c o n tro l,
| sin c e i t now forms a new p o w er-stru ctu re and most th e re -
| fo re i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e in order to p ro te c t i t s own survival^
i ,
! Without t h i s attem pt to c le a r ly d efin e our term s, i
' and to d is tin g u is h between d if f e r e n t forms of s o c ia l
I change and s o c ia l movements, i t is f e l t th a t we a re unable
I to f u lly d iscu ss the h i s t o r i c a l events of the s ix t ie s on
a meaningful le v e l. Furtherm ore, i t is too easy to la b e l
| such a d isco u rse as purely s o c io - p o l itic a l and to fo rg e t
| th a t c o lle c tiv e a c tio n cannot be divorced from the
i
; p sy ch o lo g ical makeup and m otivations of th e involved
p a r tic ip a n ts .
CHAPTER 5
THE GENERATION GAP A N D Y O U TH AS A "N EW STAGE OF LIFE":
THE INADEQUACY OF ONE-CONSTRUCT SYSTEM S
AS EXPLANATIONS FOR COLLECTIVE PH EN O M EN A
What happens when a th e o r is t attem pts to tr a c e the
antecedents of "youth p ro te s t" to a sin g le fa c to r? This
form of hypothesis is always "risky.," but seems to me
p a r tic u la r ly i l l - f i t t i n g in attem pts to explain c o lle c tiv e
behavior.
I intend to dem onstrate th a t any form ulation of th e
sp e c ie s: A ll aggression is m otivated by f r u s t r a tio n , o r:
a l l youth p ro te s t is m otivated by a lie n a tio n , e t c . ,
rep rese n ts an id e a liz e d end-goal fo r th e o r is ts in i t s
seeming parsimony and rin g of "ex p ertise," but i t is sim ul
tan eo u sly portentous of constant c o n fro n ta tio n w ith the
" i l l - f i t t i n g c a se ."
Such explanations o ften lead th e o r is ts in to an in
f i n i t e reg ress wherein th e touted breadth of th e i n i t i a l
co n stru c t ir o n ic a lly re q u ire s con stan t q u a lific a tio n ,
u su a lly achieved through th e attachm ent of supportive
"su b -co n stru cts" u til iz e d to j u s t i f y th e i n i t i a l
272
273
h y p o th esis. Many th e o r is ts may be so obsessed with main
ta in in g f i d e l i t y to th e i r "pet co n stru ct.," they may r e s o r t
i
| to m anipulative ju g g lin g , bending, and s tre tc h in g .
| The use of a sin g le co n stru c t as exp lan atio n fo r a
j
| s e t of actio n s or behaviors c re a te s a s p e c ia l case w herein,
: cu sto m arily , numerous in d iv id u a l or s p e c ia l c h a r a c te r is tic s
| ( i . e . , t r a i t s , a t t r i b u t e s , b eh av io ral d is p o s itio n s ,
i i
I in te ra c tio n s ) are presumed to e x is t as contingents or
j
; components of th a t c o n s tru c t. j
i :
j j
| K erlin g er (1964) d efin es a co n stru c t as a man-made |
I I
s tr u c tu re , e x is tin g as c le a r ly d is t in c t from th a t se t of
—■ • -------- - — — i
I I
j re la tio n s h ip s i t attem pts to re p re s e n t. The th e o r e tic a l
| parsimony obtained by v irtu e of u t i l i z a t i o n of a one-
| 1
I c o n stru c t system issu es out of i t s making p o ssib le the
I ;
| c o n sid e ra tio n of behaviors having g re a t v a r ia tio n s ,
i acro ss many groups of people, fre q u e n tly across c u l tu r a l
! d iv is io n , and, in th e lim itin g ca se , explaining a l l
behavior in a l l people.
K elly ( 1969) makes even more e x p lic it th e d is tin c tio n
i between co n stru c t and concept than did K erlin g e r. He
| desig n ates a concept as something to be discovered by
man, although i t is already e x is te n t in n a tu re , wherein a I
co n stru c t is "devised by man fo r h is own liv e ly purposes
. . . a s tr u c tu r a l member of a system erected by man"(p. 10).
27*1
The process of c e n te rin g (P ia g e t, i 9 6 0) is any
in sta n c e of s e le c tiv e a tte n d in g . I t i s necessary both
in our everyday observ atio n (which may not seem to
re q u ire s y ste m a tiz a tio n ), as w ell as in s c i e n t i f i c o b ser
v atio n . Simply, we focus or c e n te r so th a t we may order
and organize. Mehrabian ( 1968) in d ic a te s th a t th e
experienced s c i e n t i s t is ab le to a p p ro p ria te ly r e s t r i c t
h is focus by s e le c tiv e ly p ro sc rib in g the area of in q u iry ,
th e events to be observed, and th e v a ria b le s he intends
to m anipulate. He claim s th a t "observer s e l e c t i v i t y . . .
( is ) an in h eren t aspect of i n i t i a l attem pts a t th e d es
c r ip tio n of a novel, or as yet u n in v e stig a te d , or un
system atized se t of phenomena"(p. 2 ). This issu e has
been thoroughly discussed and emphasized by B u rtt (1932),
K elly ( 1955)5 and Kohler (1959)5 along with numerous
o th e r p e rso n o le g ists .
Mehrabian and K elly a lso emphasize th e n o tio n of
p erso n al goal and purpose in th e act of s c i e n t i f i c
s e l e c t i v i t y . In o th er words, I t is not as though we
c e n te r at random. I would r e f e r to th is conscious and
d e lib e ra te d behavior as exem plifying i n t e n t i o n a l i t y .
Madsen (1971) noted th a t the very choice of what we decide
to study is in d ic a tiv e of underlying b ia s , most lik e ly of ,
a p erv asiv e, in te g r a l, and m etaphilosophical n a tu re . As
K elly ( 1969) n o te s, th e mere d ev isin g of a c o n s tru c t means;
th a t th e c o n stru c t I t s e l f "becomes a su b je ct of psycho-
! lo g ic a l in q u iry (p. 9 ) . ” I am convinced t h i s is th e case,
|
| p a r tic u la r ly when th e s c i e n t i s t has erected h is c o n s tru c ts
| previous to h is o b s e r v a tio n ^ ). I t seems somehow impos-
i s ib le to conceive th a t he w ill be t o t a l l y fre e from
| f i d e l i t y to h is c re a tio n ,
K elly ( 1969) s ta te s t h a t , a t le a s t f o r i t s c r e a to r ,
j th e c o n stru c t fu n ctio n s "whether i t i s v erb al or p re v e rb a lJ (
! symbolized or p o rtra y ed , to d i f f e r e n t i a t e o b je cts as w ell |
1 i
! as to a s s o c ia te them (p. 9)*'"
j K elly , however, does emphasize, as do most p e rs o n a lity
; |
t h e o r i s t s , t h a t , in our attem pts to ex plain human behaviorj
! w hile we custom arily operate w ith various c o n stru c ts in
I mind, we are u su a lly involved in a continuous process of
1 m m r
\ re v isin g or innovating th e se c o n s tru c ts , d isc ard in g those
i found inadequate or in e f f i c i e n t . K elly , fo r in sta n c e ,
! sees in d iv id u a l behaviors as re f e re n ts to s e v e ra l d i f -
; fe re n t c o n stru c ts sim ultaneously.
The s itu a tio n in focus in t h i s ch a p ter, however, is
i th a t which occurs when th e yearning toward s im p lic ity and
: order sometimes "overcomes" th e in d iv id u a l s c i e n t i s t so
th a t he can no longer change h is mind. I r o n ic a lly , in
h is d e s ire to see th e t r u th simply and c le a r ly , he may be !
I blinded by fa u lty v isio n .
276
Of co u rse, we a l l understand th a t th e number of con
s tr u c t s we u t i l i z e need not be q u a n tita tiv e ly equal t o th e
| number of events observed, and th a t , in f a c t , th e reduc-
! tio n of ex p lo ra to ry c o n s tru c ts w ill aid our "c u ttin g the
I c l u t t e r " of p o ssib le a lte r n a tiv e procedures, in te r p r e -
| t a tio n s , and an aly ses.
K elly d escrib es "th e minimax problem" ( 1969, p. 119)
| l
as th a t attem pt to m eaningfully d isc rim in a te th e g re a te s t j
| j
i v a rie ty of events w ith th e le a s t number of c o n s tru c ts .
I !
j This is d e f in ite ly a prime s tra te g y in s c i e n t i f i c endeavon;
What is th e r e s u lt of th i s "gleaning process?" Most j
! id e a lly , i t s ra m ific a tio n s are th a t th e c o n fro n ta tio n withj
| many events of d if f e r e n t com plexity (in clu d in g p a r t i c i -
| pants of d iv e rse types and a t t r i b u t e s ) , can be tr e a te d
j :
! more g e n e ra lly , t h i s varying d ir e c tly w ith th e breadth
| of th e c o n s tru c t.
1 j
| G en e ra lity , however, is never s u f f ic ie n t in and of
i t s e l f to give a th eo ry valu e, fo r i t does not in su re th e
I power of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . Mehrabian s tr e s s e s th a t of two
g en e ra l th e o r e tic a l system s, th e more p re c ise would be th e
more v alu ab le . His concept of "p rec ise" includes p re
d ic tiv e u t i l i t y .
The use of one explanatory c o n stru c t which "closes
I the focus of in q u iry " i s , however, le s s v ulnerable to
! c r itic is m than i t s d ia m e tric a l o p p o site, wherein no
277
c o n s tru c t(s ) are c o n s is te n tly employed. I t i s d i f f i c u l t
| to conceive of the p o s s i b ilit y of any manner of explana-
| tio n u n less one v a ria b le can be re la te d to another and
! unless th is r e la tio n s h ip , i f dem onstrated, can be somehow
I communicated. A com pletely f le x ib le and im p re s sio n istic
| d e s c rip tio n of an event may be a "cop-out,"
! Middle-Ground Theories and Youth P ro te s t
| In order to tig h te n our d isc u ssio n , we propose to
| discu ss th e u t i l i z a t i o n of two c o n stru c ts which are
i
j c le a r ly re p re s e n ta tiv e of th e more popular attem pts to
i
; ex p lain th e youth phenomena of th e s ix t ie s w ith one-
i
j
| c o n s tru c t system s.
i
| The f i r s t c o n s tru c t i s th a t of th e g e n e ra tio n a l
! s tru g g le or g en e ra tio n gap. This i s a u s e fu l c o n stru c t
i
I fo r our focus in th a t i t i s a c l a s s i c a l c o n stru c t (Mann-
i heim, 1952; P euer, 1969) in th e s o c io h is to r ic a l a n a ly sis
| of s o c ia l movements. F u rth e r, i t is u til iz e d as a u n i-
! v e rs a l c o n s tru c t. The second c o n s tru c t is th a t of a youth
I stag e as described by K eniston (1971) in h is attem pt to
am plify h is e a r l i e r conception of an " a lie n a te d type"
; (1965). K e n isto n 's "youth sta g e " c o n stru c t re p re se n ts
I an attem pt to d escrib e a c e rta in sta g e of behavior which
! is not n e c e s s a rily u n iv e rsa l but occurs w ithin a c e r ta in
! group of people (in t h i s ca se , th e American "student
|
! c la s s " and id e n tify in g "hangers-on").
278
The choice of th e se p a r tic u la r c o n stru c ts is a lso
u s e fu l to us in th a t most of th e re se arch ers on th e youth
phenomena u t i l i z e th e se c o n stru c ts as some p a r t of t h e i r
d isc o u rse , i f not p lacin g upon them th e same amount of
emphasis as to t h e i r more avid proponents. Making use of
th e se p a r tic u la r c o n s tru c ts a ls o allow s us t o c o n c re te ly
dem onstrate a s s e ts and l i a b i l i t i e s in u t i l i z a t i o n of one-
c o n stru c t systems in g en e ra l,
Merton (1957) s ta te s th a t In contemporary th eo ry i t
i s not so common to attem pt to embrace a l l of human
behavior w ithin a given th e o r e tic a l system, but th a t
fre q u e n tly middle-ground th e o rie s a re co n stru cted around
one n u clear c o n s tru c t, o p eratin g In a c e rta in area of
s p e c ia liz a tio n . This i s probably th e manner in which
such c o n stru c ts as th e g en eratio n gap and th e youth stag e
have been conceived, to serve as ex p lan atio n fo r th e
p a r tic u la r phenomena of th e c u rre n t "youth c u ltu r e ,"
or "youth movement," or "youth p ro te s t.'" Such n u clear
c o n stru c ts a re taken from some more g en eral th e o ry , a c
cording to Merton. This is th e case w ith both of th e
c o n stru c ts under c o n sid e ra tio n . The paradigm fo r propo
s itio n s Is th a t given e a r l i e r : A ll youth p r o te s t is
m otivated by th e g e n e ra tio n a l s tru g g le , o r: a l l youth
p ro te s t Is m otivated by th e stag e of youth.
279
What is a u n iv e rsa l c o n s tru c t as I am p rese n tin g i t ? j
Let us d efin e as u n iv e rsa l any theory or c o n stru c t which
presumes (a) core c h a r a c t e r i a t i c ( s ) , a t t r i b u t e d ) , t r a i t (a),
i
p r e d is p o s itio n ( s ) to (a) c e r ta in re sp o n se (s) underlying
human behavior and e x is te n t in a l l in d iv id u a ls . I t is
c le a r th a t th e emphasis herein is on basic s im ila r it ie s
among p eoples. j
|
I f we a re looking a t any behavior or group of behavicrs
which is shared by la rg e numbers of people (o r, in th e
lim itin g ca se , a l l p eo p le), i t is to our b e n e fit as f a r |
as communication goes i f we can speak of th e group as a '
whole, or of any group member, as re p re a e n ta t ive of th a t j
whole. With one f a c to r presumed to u n d e rlie th e fu n ctio n a l
p a tte rn of a l l Involved In th e phenomenon, our scheme is
one of a b so lu te homogeneity, t h i s allow ing fo r any s in g le
case to be re p re s e n ta tiv e of a l l considered c a ses,
th e o r e tic a lly and s t a t i s t i c a l l y (Dukes, 19^5). W e gain
i
th e pro ced u ral frin g e b e n e fit of being rele ase d from th e
i arduous c o n sid e ra tio n of case a f t e r ca se, W e have a lso
: solved th e minimax problem described in th e previous se c
tio n . W e have a neat system tie d secu rely w ith a c a re -
fu lly -e x e c u te d knot.
i
F u rth e r, In th e case of middle-ground t h e o r is ts , i t
i s of a t le a s t su b lim in al a s s is ta n c e to our c r e d i b i l i t y
th a t t h i s n u clear c o n stru c t is d e riv a tiv e of a commonly-
280
known g en e ra l theory of human behavior. The concept of
g e n e ra tio n a l s tru g g le or g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t, both In
i t s t r a d i t i o n a l form in the l i t e r a t u r e and in th a t currentf-
ly popularized by Feuer ( 1 9 6 9)* i s c le a r ly derived from
Freudian th eo ry , and, in f a c t , i s th e Oedipal c o n f lic t in
very tra n sp a re n t d isg u ise . S im ila rly , K en isto n 's youth
stage i s , by h is own adm ission, a product of E rik so n ’s
( 1968) developm ental th e o rie s and is highly r e la te d to
h is c o n stru c t of th e id e n tity c r i s i s .
As I w ill emphasize l a t e r in t h i s d isc u ssio n , such
a s so c ia tio n s need not be o v e rtly mentioned, but u t i l i z a
tio n of such c o n stru c ts in c u ltu re s wherein th e "mother-
theory" has become p a rt of th e working vocabulary of th e
lay public makes them e a s ily communicated. In many
c a ses, t h i s f a m ilia r ity may make them almost seem tr u e
by d e f in itio n , as though they c a rrie d th e power of an
axiomat ic "given."
Such terms as g en eratio n gap, a lie n a tio n , id e n tity
c r i s i s , and r e la te d synonyms are so commonly u til iz e d in
th e media as to s e t off in s ta n t "reco g n itio n " in most
contem poraries, even though they lack knowledge of the
th e o rie s Involved. In my c o lle c tio n of se v e ra l hundred
popular a r t i c l e s on youth d atin g from 1967-1973* 1 fin d
th e se terms occurring c o n sta n tly in a c le a r m ajo rity of
th e a r t i c l e s , p a r tic u la r ly in such widespread sources as
s
281
The R eader’s D ig e st. The a u th o rs, In using them, seldom
attem pt to "define" or "q u a lify " th e term s. Bengston
(1970) fin d s th a t "age-lsm" (th e d is tin c tio n of age-
c la sse s) is as popular a theme in contemporary c u ltu re as
was racism a decade ago.
The second type of c o n stru c t (as exem plified herein
by K en isto n ’s "youth stag e") does not pretend to u n i
v e r s a l i t y but r a th e r attem pts to re p re se n t c e rta in t r a i t s ,
a t t r i b u t e s , or b eh av io ral p a tte rn s supposedly found in a
s p e c ific group, u su a lly portrayed as emerging out of a
c e r ta in s e t of s o c io - c u ltu r a l circum stances. The
"a lie n a te d type" o r ig in a lly defined by K eniston ( 1965) is
another example of t h i s type of c o n s tru c t.
1
This second type of c o n stru c t shares w ith th e u n i
v e rs a l c o n stru c t th e same kind of a s s e ts o u tlin ed above.
I t s n o n -u n iv e rs a lity , however, gives I t one d is a dvantage
th a t th e former c o n s tru c t does not have. I f , as in |
K en isto n 's c a se , th e c o n stru c t is presumed to be re p re - j
s e n ta tiv e of a new or deviant group (one d is s im ila r from j
_ _ _ ^
o th e r s ) , th e th e o r is t must e v e n tu ally confront th e neces- j
I
s i t y of ex p lain in g th e emergence of t h i s d i s t i n c t ty p e .
I
In o th er words, th e c o n stru c t i t s e l f can never s u ffic e
to rep rese n t th e primary cause fo r th e behaviors and j
in te ra c tio n s i t attem pts to re p re s e n t. j
282
Compensatory fo r t h i s " fla w ,” however, is th e fa c t
th a t th e u t i l i z a t i o n of a nonuniversal n u clear c o n stru c t j
removes th e burden of g ath erin g evidence of c r o s s - c u ltu r a l
| s i m i l a r i t i e s .
I
There are then s e v e ra l b e n e fits to be gained from th e
I development of c o n stru c ts as broad as to enhance a wide
; range of human behaviors. I d e a lly , t h i s parsimony should
r e s u lt in th e s c i e n t i s t s being rig o ro u s and p re c ise w ith-'
i i
; in a h ig h ly -d efin ed framework. I s t h i s lik e ly to happen
I !
in a c tu a lity ? What are th e p o ssib le disadvantages or
dangers in h eren t In dependence upon and lo y a lty to a
| s in g le c o n stru c t in ex p lain in g behavior? j
| Prem onitions of danger a re of course Immediately
obvious simply out of th e knowledge of th e r e s tr ic te d
| choice of man-made c o n s tru c ts . Many a re geared to th e
convenience of th e s c i e n t i s t - c r e a t o r , or r e la te d to h is
j
! previous work. Others a re p o ssib ly chosen fo r e ffic ie n c y j
|
! in d a ta -c o lle c tin g and d a ta -p ro c e ssin g .
Two commonly-cited p a tte rn s of e rro r are connected
w ith p ersonal s e l e c t i v i t y of th e s c i e n t i s t . The f i r s t Is
u su a lly mentioned in conjunction w ith "the p a r tic ip a n t-
observer method" and described as analogous to Heisen
b erg ’s p rin c ip le of u n c e rta in ty (1959) in p h y sics. The
! n o tio n h erein i s th a t th e s c le n t1 s t-observer in d ir e c t
i :
! co n tact w ith h is su b je c ts or p a r tic ip a tin g in th e fo c a l
| event p o ssib ly (and probably) becomes him self a s ig n ific a n t
283
f a c to r or in flu en ce in th e development of th a t ev en t, or
in th e behavior of h is s u b je c ts . Because of t h i s , he
w ill, in some way, be "re p re se n te d ” in th e d ata. Many
| argue th a t t h i s manner of e r r o r is im possible to elim in a te
I in any such s itu a tio n . London (19^5) claim ed, however,
| th a t refinem ent in design methodology is always p o s s ib le ,
a t le a s t in p r in c ip le , and th a t th is is e s s e n tia lly a
I
I m ethodological (not a th e o r e tic a l) problem. He fu rth e r
I
s ta te d th a t th e analogue to p h y sic a l science may in f a c t
|
be a highly s u p e r f ic ia l and in a c c u ra te one, serv in g only
I to camouflage design problems.
i
i
In th e s o c ia l sc ie n c e s, perhaps more emphasis has
been given to th e idea of experim enter bias as described
in th e l i t e r a t u r e by R osenthal (196*1), who in d ic a te s th e
in flu en c e of th e ex p e rim en ter's lo y a ltie s and investm ents
on h is fin d in g s and in te r p r e ta tio n s . Again, however,
t h i s problem could, w ith m ethodological care and r e f in e -
j
! ment in design c o n s id e ra tio n s, be elim in a ted .
i |
| Mehrabian (1968) p o in ts out a th ir d problem which
j i s not s t r i c t l y m ethodological. This I have described
! p rev io u sly . Given the choice of d if f e r e n t s e ts of
j
ca te g o rie s of d e s c rip tio n , no m atter how re fin e d th e
methods involved, one would expect th a t th e re is a high
p ro b a b ility th a t phenomena w ill be "seen d if f e r e n tly " by j
i
d if fe r e n t o b serv ers. K elly (1955) and Mischel ( 1968)
284
I also r e f e r to th is f a c to r . I f e e l t h i s r e la te s to th e
| co n ten tio n of Madsen (1971) which we mentioned e a r l i e r in
i
: th is a r t i c l e , th a t th e s c i e n t i s t ’s focus i s rooted in h is
| own m etap h ilo so p h ical b ia s , and th a t t h i s lean in g may be j
; i
| su b lim in al to h is aw areness.
Another th e o r e tic a l bind i s p a r tic u la r ly li a b l e to
! occur in th e u t i l i z a t i o n of broad c o n s tru c ts . T h is, as
!
| described by Mehrabian, is th e f a ilu r e to d e lin e a te c a re -
j
! f u lly th e d iffe re n c e between c a te g o rie s r e f e r r in g to
i
j p erso n s, c a te g o rie s r e f e r r in g to e v e n ts , or behavior, and
c a te g o rie s r e f e r r in g to c o n te x ts . According to Mehrabian,
t h i s tendency fre q u e n tly leads th e re se a rc h e r in to a very
f lu id , h ig h ly confused p a tte rn of a n a ly s is . W e f e e l th is
! i s h ig h ly re le v a n t to our focus on th e one-system construct
| p a r tic u la r ly as i t is u til iz e d in ex post fa c to explana-
| tio n .
|
| M ischel dem onstrates th a t c o n s tru c ts invoked as
! [
| explanatory e n t i t i e s a re o ften confused w ith (or o ffered
i
i v
| as) th e a c tu a l causes of behavior:
i
These d e s c rip tio n s are not problem atic as long
as t h e i r bases a re re c a lle d —namely he is j
| construed ( I t a l i c s : th is a u th o r's ) as behaving j
anxio u sly , and no more. Nothing i s ex plained, j
however, i f th e s t a t e th a t we have a ttr ib u te d j
to th e person from h is behavior ("he has a i
t r a i t or s ta te of a n x ie ty ") is now invoked as
th e cause of the behavior from which i t was |
in f e rre d . W e quickly emerge w ith th e ta u to lo g y ,|
"He behaves anxiously because he has a t r a i t of
a n x ie ty ." (p. 42)
285
Broad c o n stru c ts a re p a r tic u la r ly prone to th is
problem.
Most psy ch o lo g ical c o n s tru c ts have such broad
and ambiguous semantic meanings, and such
d iv e rse b eh av io ral r e f e r r e n ts , th a t they a re
v i r t u a l l y im possible to disconfirm d e f in itiv e ly .
For example, th e c o n stru c ts th a t a p a r tic u la r
woman Is "very fem inine," or " b a s ic a lly h o s tile "
may be p o te n tia lly supported by almost any kind
of evidence about her behavior. Since th e con
s tr u c t s about what c o n s titu te s "rea l" fem in in ity
or "re a l" h o s t i l i t y , may be modified and p ro
g re s s iv e ly elab o rated as new evidence becomes
a v a ila b le , i t can be stre tc h e d so th a t d iv e rse
behaviors a re taken as confirm ation fo r behavior
a l co n sisten cy . (M ischel, 1968, p. 56)
As I s h a ll soon dem onstrate, in post hoc explanations
almost any o b se rv a tio n a l data can be made to f i t th e use
of th e c o n stru c t.
I t i s n ’t d i f f i c u l t to p ro je c t t h i s n o tio n in to th e
arena of explanation via one c o n s tru c t. In th e lim itin g
ca se, wherein one attem p ts to ex p lain a l l behavior with
one c o n s tru c t, such a dialogue as th e follow ing one might
tak e p la c e . I have s e t up some mock dialogues wherein a
p sychological e g o ist Is attem pting to convince a p o te n tia l
convert ("X" In th e dialogue) th a t th e m otivation fo r a l l
behavior is e g o is tic . The s tru g g lin g and r e s i s t a n t X
pleads h a p le ssly th a t the a c ts in focus a re a c tu a lly
m otivated by some o th e r f a c to r .
X: I don’t know how you can say th a t a case
(and th e re are many such cases) wherein a
man opts to save h is w ife, endangering h is
own l i f e In th e p ro cess, is ju s t another
in sta n c e of eg o ism ...
286
! E g o ist: I t ’s a c le a r -c u t case of egoism, th e man i s
a c tin g out of h is own i n t e r e s t . He loves
| h is w ife, g ran ted , and perhaps w ithout h e r,
h is l i f e would be m eaningless. She is p a rt
of what he needs fo r s u rv iv a l. So, i f he
| leaps to T h e d e c isio n to r i s k h is own l i f e
| in th e process of an attem pt to save h er,
| h e 's r e a lly p ro te c tin g him self a g a in st th e
chance of a d e so la te and empty e x iste n c e ,
a l i f e he would not want to liv e .
i
! A second dialogue might go something lik e t h i s :
!
j X: The poor in t h i s country a re dying. I
I d o n 't even know any of th ese people p e r-
i so n a lly , but I'm involved in t h e i r poverty.
| T heir s itu a tio n torm ents me and I want to
help them somehow. I lobby because of t h a t ,
| because t h e i r s itu a tio n is unbearable to me.
E: And t h a t 's th e reason fo r your lobbying
| and your d e d ic a tio n , th a t you f e e l they are
t s u ffe rin g ? I th in k you do i t because of
| what you get out of i t .
X: What do you mean?
j
I E: Oh, p r a is e , p o s itiv e reinforcem ent from your
I fam ily and your a s s o c ia te s , th e kind of
i adm iration one g ets In th is so c ie ty fo r
being th e good guy. Indulgence in a l i t t l e
b i t of c h a rity is a l l to your own b e n e fit.
I
I X: Indulgence? I th in k t h a t 's an in c re d ib le
; twTsf T' —
| i
| E: No, I th in k y o u 're th e one who's tw is tin g j
| th in g s ; you c a n 't admit to your own basic j
m o tiv atio n . D on't f e e l badly; you share i t i
w ith everyone e ls e . W e a l l do th in g s fo r
o th ers b a s ic a lly because of what we get out j
of i t o u rse lv e s, and you've picked out a I
highly commendable arena of a c t i v i t y , j
designed to g et you lo ts of a tte n tio n and j
p ra is e and you can pat yours e l f on th e back,!
to o . I
i
j
What is going on in th e se dialogues? Is i t tr u e th a t
everything we do, in clu d in g th a t which we f e e l we do out
of a ltru is m , or duty, or p rin c ip le is in f a c t simply
" s e lf is h ? " Or a re we in th e presence of a c la s s ic case of
sy n ta x -s tre tc h in g ? Hospers (1970) speaks to th is q uestion
|
| in s ta tin g :
j Human motives a re extrem ely v a r i o u s ...I f they
are a l l put under one g en e ra l h e a d in g ., .th e
j w ord...w ould have to be stre tc h e d so as to be
beyond a l l re c o g n itio n ; i t would lo se a l l i t s
d is t in c t iv e meaning and would no longer s u f f ic e
to d is tin g u is h any one motive from any o th e r,
j which was th e whole purpose of having such a
word in th e f i r s t p l a c e . . . I t seems p e rf e c tly
I c le a r , once we a re no longer deluded by words
th a t have been d is to rte d from t h e i r o r ig in a l
| meaning, th a t people o ften do a c t from sense of
duty, even ag a in st t h e i r own p riv a te in te r e s t.
(P. 7M)
This stan ce is p r e c is e ly the one I wish to ta k e , not
only in regards to th e cases wherein one c o n s tru c t is
| claimed as th e b e - a ll and e n d -a ll in ex p lan atio n ( as in
| th e above p r e s e n ta tio n ), but a ls o in th e case of such
middle-ground c o n stru c ts as th e " g e n e ra tio n a l stru g g le "
or a "youth s ta g e ."
The G enerational S tru g g le
The impact of th e extremes to which am biguity of
d e f in itio n may ta k e us can be experienced i f we simply
t r y to tr a p th e locus of the g e n e ra tio n a l s tru g g le , or j
I
c o n f lic t. This r e la te s back to th e idea of confusing !
t r a i t s , ev en ts, and co n tex ts which was mentioned p rev io u s
ly . Where in fa c t i£ th e stru g g le ? Who or what con tain s
th e c o n f lic t? Is i t in th e ad o lescen t? I s I t In th e !
288
ad u lt? I s i t somewhere between them? I s i t a t r a i t , or a
j se t of t r a i t s ? What are th e s p e c ific a c ts which demon-
!
| s t r a t e i t s presence? I f , as Feuer d escrib es i t ( 1969)*
I i t is an underlying subconscious f a c to r , can i t e x is t
[
I w ithin th e organism w ithout in te r a c tio n w ith another?
| Or, is t h i s , in f a c t , purely a metaphor, and not a r e a l
| s e t of mechanisms a f t e r a l l ? How can i t s proponents
; show i t to be a r e a l i t y un less i t is c le a r ly attach ed to
some ca re fu lly -d e ta c h e d s e t of p r o c liv i tie s in th e people !
j i
| involved, or in th e s it u a ti o n a l c o n te x t, as In d ica ted by |
I
a c le a rly -d e fin e d p a tte rn of behaviors?
Douglas (1970) gives t h i s summary of F e u e r's p resen - |
1
ta tio n of the g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t as fo llo w s: j
(1) G enerational c o n f lic t is u n iv e rs a l because j
of th e n a tu re of Oedipal c o n f lic ts and th e j
i n a tu re of adolescence (th e young must give up a j
! p a rt of them selves, which i s n e c e s s a rily p a in - j
f u l ) ; (2) g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t only breaks out j
in to youth re v o lt when th e o ld e r g en eratio n |
has been d e-authorized by some c r u c ia l symbolic I
e v e n t . . . ( 3 ) the stu d en ts a re th e ones who re v o lt
in more complex, c iv iliz e d s o c ie tie s because |
they form an i n t e l l e c t u a l e l i t e of th e young;
(*J) youth re v o lts a re always a m ixture of youth-|
f u l love and h a t e . . . (p. 118)
I might mention th a t, e a rly in h is p re s e n ta tio n ,
Feuer claim s th a t th e re i s another source behind th e youth
j
r e v o lts , th a t being "youthful love?1 (p . 3)* He s tr e s s e s |
a t th e beginning of his long document th a t youth "has th e
i
h ig h e st degree of s e lf le s s n e s s , g e n e ro s ity , compassion, j
and read in ess fo r s e l f - s a c r i f i c e " ( p . 3)# and th a t "to 1
289
t h e i r own consciousness, stu d en ts bear a higher e th ic than
th e r e s t of the s o c ie ty " (p . 3 ) . This em phasis, however,
somehow gets swallowed up in th e d isc u ssio n to fo llo w .
Once th e co n stru c t of "g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t" i s presented
"youthful love" is somehow incorporated w ith in th a t
c o n s tru c t, along w ith i t s o p p o site (which we might c a l l
"youthful h a te " ) .
Feuer becomes fix ed on dem onstrating th a t th e psycho-
e t h ic a l motives of adolescence
which th e so c ie ty su p p resses, become th e
searching agents of s o c ia l ch an g e.. . (These
m otives) are not only independent of th e so c io
economic base but (are) a c tu a lly co n tra ry to
th e economic e th ic s th a t th e s o c ia l system
r e q u i r e s .. . (and th ey ) become prim ary h i s t o r i c a l
fo rc es, (p. A )
Feuer sees th a t p sy c h o -e th ic a l motives a re suppressed
in many groups, but fe e ls th a t they are p a r tic u la r ly
]
| snuffed out in th e ad o lesc en t.
| The g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t is presented as a u n iv e rsa l
| theme in h is to ry . As Feuer d e lin e a te s i t , i t is c le a r ly
I d e riv a tiv e of F reudian th e o ry , and i t is presented almost
i
!
as though i t were a g iv en ." J u s t as was o u tlin e d e a r l i e r
i
in t h i s ch a p ter, th e au th o r stack s th e cards fo r him self
before th e evidence i s in , seemingly banking on our
acceptance of h is "u n iv e rsa l theme" in order th a t f lu id
and f a c i le ex post fa c to v a lid a tio n or ex p lan atio n on h is
p a rt w ill not "make us jump."
I Join Douglas in asking Feuer th e in e v ita b le questicn.
! I
| I f , as he claim s, th e g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t i s a u n iv e rsa 1
p re d is p o s itio n , why i s i t th a t th e b a ttle a g a in st a u th o ri
ty , in th e manner of p r o te s t and r e v o lt, i s not c o n s ta n t,
ongoing, and n ev er-ceasin g ? Why does th is c o n f lic t only
break out a t c e r ta in tim es?
! Feuer makes, a t t h i s p o in t, h is most im portant
i
j s tr a t e g ic move. He p re se n ts us w ith th e idea th a t fo r
"g e n e ra tio n a l eq u ilib riu m " to be upset and c o n f lic t to
j
| ensue, th e younger g en e ra tio n must f e e l t h a t , in some way,
I
! they have been f a ile d by th e e ld e r s . There must be a
| " fe e lin g of d e -a u th o riz a tio n " (p . 12). He has done here
p re c is e ly th a t which we p re d ic te d would be n e c e s s ita te d in
! most in sta n c e s of o n e-co n stru c t hypo th esizin g . He has
i
| q u a lifie d th e i n i t i a l c o n stru c t w ith a c o ro lla ry re q u ire -
i
! ment. There must be a d e -a u th o riz a tio n of th e o ld e r
j
; g e n e ra tio n , t h i s u su a lly heralded by some s ig n a l event as j
I c a ta l y s t, or th e "u n iv e rs a l phenomenon" remains dormant.
I I
Furtherm ore, Feuer m anipulates t h i s c o r o lla ry ,
! f a i l i n g to lim it i t and continuously a d ju s tin g and re -
! i
a d ju stin g i t . He wants us to b eliev e th a t th i s c r u c ia l
! I
| independent v a ria b le is evidenced whenever th e younger j
i
j g en e ra tio n experiences or senses some s o r t of f r a i l t y ,
i
f a i l u r e , d e fe a t, or unmanliness in t h e i r e ld e rs .
291
Now we are back in th e p o s itio n of th e f r u s tr a te d X,
confronting th e stubborn and u n flin ch in g proponent of
j egoism. I s d e -a u th o riz a tio n th e only f a c to r th a t causes
j
| youth to wave i t s f i s t a t th e System? Is i t th e basic
| reason youth is sickened a t s lid e s of M y Lai? Is th e
|
| tower of technology a cause fo r d e -a u th o riz a tio n ? I f th e
answer to a l l th e se in q u irie s i s a ffirm a tiv e in F e u e r’s
judgment i t would then seem th a t th e experience of power
and of weakness, of dominance and of subm ission, of
I j
stre n g th and of f r a i l t y are much th e same, and, i f we do
agree th a t t h i s term i s broad enough to encompass a l l these
s itu a tio n s , do we have a t r u ly u s e fu l co n stru c t?
C e rta in ly i t i s not u t i l i t a r i a n in th e sense i t
| allow s us to p re d ic t fu tu re behavior. Douglas quotes
| Michael M ille r, who was an a c t i v i s t a t B erkeley, as
I
| s t a tin g : "G enerational c o n f l i c t . . . i s bo an c ie n t and
i i
a rc h e ty p a l a s o c ia l mechanism.. .c e r ta in ly i t fu n ctio n s
| j
! in almost every re v o lu tio n , p o l i t i c a l or a r t i s t i c —th a t i t
! „ |
; a ffo rd s l i t t l e in s ig h t in to th e campus tu rm o il (p. 118).
j
! Douglas goes on to s ta te th a t w ith a c o n stru c t of th is
i i
i j
j breadth, we can, as I have s ta te d p rev io u sly , c e r ta in ly
fin d something th a t "looks lik e d e -a u th o riz a tio n " ex post
f a c to .' But where does th is leave us? What do we r e a lly
have?
292
s
! I t i s our co n ten tio n th a t we are* by u t i l i z i n g such
i
a c o n s tru c t, in th e sin g u la r s itu a tio n wherein i t seems
i
! we can ex plain ev e ry th in g , but we can* in fa c t (in th e
| sense of p re d ic tin g behavior) ex p lain n o th in g . When
Feuer evokes h is explanatory c o n stru c t again and again
| and ag ain , we have no c le a r idea (nor does he* e v id e n tly )
I as to th e s p e c ific behavioral r e f e r r e n ts he has in mind.
| As a m atter of fact* in order to fo rce h is theory in to a
more open and th e re fo re a more "winning" p o s itio n via th e
; a d d itio n of th e d e -a u th o riz a tio n and q u a lific a tio n * he
!
| has only seemed to leave us w ith one vague subconstruct
dangling on th e t a i l of an i n i t i a l l y vague c o n s tru c t.
Simultaneously* however* he has made th e e r r o r of gravely
| c lo s in g h is system o ff in th e sense he re fu se s to confront
th e f a c t th a t s i t u a ti o n a l or c o n te x tu a l fa c to rs may be so
s ig n ific a n t as to defy a o n e-co n stru ct system.
In d isc u ssin g the types of stu d e n ts who p a r tic ip a te j
in contemporary c o n flic t* he sta te s* fo r example, th a t j
i
j ;
they are no d if fe re n t than those d e lin e a te d by V icto r
Hugo in th e 19th century. This is th en a claim th a t th e
j . |
e n t ir e s itu a tio n of g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t follow s a p re
c is e p a tte rn as to th e p a r tic ip a n t in d iv id u als* th e
" p lo t," and th e m otivations.
The c o n stru c tio n of th is type of theory* one based on
th e b e lie f th a t c e rta in s e ts of t r a i t s * sta te s * or p re-
293
d is p o s itio n s (embodied in th e notion of a sin g le c o n s tru c t)
r e s u lt in th e same manner of behavior in any s e ttin g faces
yet another c r u c ia l ch a lle n g e, th a t of th e contemporary
re se arch on " s itu a tio n a l s p e c i f i c i t y , " which in d ic a te s
t h a t , a l b e it th e re i s an in d ic a tio n showing some c o n s is
tency in s tr u c t u r a l or developm ental c h a r a c te r is tic s in
people, t h i s con sisten cy Is highly lim ite d in r e s u lta n t
behavior which Is highly dependent upon th e s p e c ific
s itu a tio n and th e reinforcem ent contingencies experienced
by th e in d iv id u a l in various s itu a tio n s . M ischel’s
e n t ir e treatm en t of p e rs o n a lity assessment (1968) revolves
around t h i s emphasis; he is su c c e ssfu l in dem onstrating
th e widespread a p p lic a tio n of th is th e s is .
His review In d ic a te s t h a t , o th e r than In In te llig e n c e
and co g n itiv e f a c to r s , th e re is l i t t l e co n sisten cy over
s itu a tio n s In human behavior. He p o in ts out th a t in j
in sta n c e a f t e r In stan c e th e dangers in broad extrapolation*
i
from s itu a tio n to s itu a tio n . His own search Is fo r th e !
i
s p e fic ic in te ra c tio n s o p e ra tiv e In a given circum stance,
|
|
ra th e r than fo r more g en e ra l conclusions and th e kind of
qu estio n ab le p re d ic tio n s afforded by t r a i t - s t a t e th e o r is ts
fo r example. Many of th e behaviors re le v a n t to th e kind
j
of broad mass movements we a re studying a r e , in f a c t , j
i
i
v a ria b le s which a re considered by MLschel. Among th e se j
are moral behavior, and behavior toward a u th o rity and
294
p e e rs, both of which M ischel dem onstrates to be dependent
on s i t u a ti o n a l c o n te x t, d e s p ite c e r ta in p re d isp o s itio n s
in th e involved in d iv id u a ls .
He quotes H artshorne and May (1928) who, in th e
| concluding remarks to t h e i r own broad study on moral
i
' behavior, s ta te d :
We would not wish to q u a rre l over th e use of
a term and a re q u ite ready to recognize th e
e x iste n c e of some common fa c to rs which tend to
make in d iv id u a ls d i f f e r from one another on
any one t e s t or on any group of t e s t s . Our
co n te n tio n , however, i s th a t th i s common f a c to r
i s not an in n er e n t ity o p eratin g independently
i of th e s itu a tio n s in which th e in d iv id u a ls a re
i placed but i s a fu n ctio n of th e s it u a ti o n in
| th e sense th a t an in d iv id u a l behaves s im ila rly
in d if f e r e n t s itu a tio n s in p ro p o rtio n as th e se
| s itu a tio n s a re a lik e , (p. 3 8 5)
i
M ischel emphasizes th a t s o c ia l behaviorism always
I ta k es note of u n p re d ic ta b le determ inants which are o fte n
u n an ticip ate d and a re u ltim a te ly u n c o n tro lla b le by th e
s c i e n t i s t . These s it u a ti o n a l f a c to rs must be co n sid ered .
1
M ischel quotes a f i t t i n g analogy of A r r a y ’s : '
I
! I t i s easy to p re d ic t p re c is e ly th e outcome j
| of th e m eeting of one known chem ical w ith j
I another known chem ical in an immaculate t e s t I
tu b e . But where is th e chemist who can p re - |
I d ie t what w ill happen to a known chem ical i f j
i t meets an unknown chem ical in an unknown
v essel? And even i f a l l the p ro p e rtie s of
a l l th e chem icals re s id e n t in a given la b o ra to ry
a re e x a c tly d efin e d , i s th e re a chemist who
can p re d ic t every chem ical engagement th a t w ill
tak e p lace i f Chance, th e blind te c h n ic ia n ,
is in charge of th e proceedings? (1948, p. 8)
I
A ll of th e fa c to rs pointed out by M ischel are p a r tic u la r ly
295
! p e rtin e n t as they apply to th e c o n s tru c tio n of broad-base
I th e o rie s and t h e i r middle-ground "c h ild re n .’"
i
I A herm etic approach to dynamic c o n d itio n s which
i
involve complex circum stances and in te ra c tio n s involving
i
numbers of in d iv id u a ls ends in what Douglas (1970) c a lls
evading th e is s u e s . By t h i s he means to in d ic a te a
d is t r a c ti o n from in q u iry in to th e m otivations of " liv in g
I and b reath in g s tu d e n ts ."
I would go f u r th e r and term th i s n e g le c tin g th e
|
I phenomena, claim ing th a t th e com plicated process of c o l
le c tiv e behavior in g en e ra l and those p a r tic u la r events
I which are not homogeneous in form or substance is b lith e ly
|
| ignored by th e c re a to rs of o n e -fa c to r system s. The end
| !
r e s u lt i s the h y p o s ta tic iz in g of both student and environ-j
! j
j ment as " s u b je c ts ," giving us a p ic tu re of mono-faced,
never-changing stu d e n ts ready to p re d ic ta b ly jump f o rth
th e moment th e d e -a u th o riz a tio n sw itch is a c tiv a te d .
i
i
Feuer also f a i l s to ex p lain why g e n e ra tio n a l con-
| sciousness (h is term fo r id e n tif ic a tio n w ith one’s peers
and th e concurrent m otivation to a c t ag a in st on e’s fa th e r)
is not f e l t by a l l stu d en ts who have experienced th e same
c r u c ia l dram atic event.
i
For in sta n c e , in th e in sta n c e of the Kent S ta te j
i
i
k i l l i n g s , which I s h a ll l a t e r t r e a t le n g th ily , a l l j
stu d e n ts acro ss th e S ta te s were w ell aware of th ese deaths,.
296
I f th e Kent S ta te k illin g s a re to be in te rp re te d as a
reason fo r " d e a u th o riz a tio n ," why did one student f e e l i t
as such and p ro te s t a c tiv e ly , wherein a second experienced
t h i s but n eglected to p r o te s t, and a th ir d upheld th e
a u th o rity , w hile a fo u rth ju s t d id n 't seem to care?
Feuer leads us to b elieve th a t stu d en ts and workers of
th e same age may not share t h i s same le v e l of conscious
n e ss, but he does not ad equately cover th e q u estio n of
in d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s in th e stu d en t population i t s e l f .
I am a ls o concerned as to th e dynamic n atu re of c o l le c
t i v e events. In P art I I I of t h i s book, I w ill t r e a t in
d e t a i l th e decision-m aking p ro c e ss, the balancing of
v alues, th e tim ing involved in e n te rin g in to a c tiv e
p a r tic ip a tio n , or in rem aining in a c tiv e .
The n o tio n of Feuer leaves us w ith th e f e e lin g th a t
a l l m otivation comes from th e subconscious need to "exert
o n e's own adolescence" and t o t a l l y ignores th e nuances of
e x te rn a l peer-group in te ra c tio n s a t a campus p o l i t i c a l
g ath erin g or an evening of dope smoking.
Youth as a Stage of L ife
The work of Kenneth K eniston, who i s w idely-accepted
as an expert on y o u th 's problems and y o u th 's d is s e n t, i s ,
although le ss sc h o la rly than th a t of Feuer, c e r ta in ly more
so p h is tic a te d in th a t i t looks as though he i s avoiding
th e p i t f a l l s of a o n e-v aria b le system. L e t's ta k e a
297
c lo s e r look.
K eniston began h is re se a rc h w ith th e idea of an
" a lie n a te d ” type of youth ( 1965)* His e a rly study
| involved an attem pt to r e l a t e t h i s syndrome to a s e rie s
1
1
| of a n t i- a u th o r ita r ia n , n eg a tiv e , and p e s s im is tic behavior
! p a tte r n s . He claim ed, a t th a t tim e, th a t a l l stu d en ts
who were not a lie n a te d (and th e a lie n a te d were a sm all
m inority) were conform ists or committed.
! The conform ists were sketched as E stablishm ent youth,
" le f t o v e r," one fe e ls from the q u a lity of h is d e s c rip
tio n , from the f i f t i e s . The committed were p o l i t i c a l
ra d ic a ls and were a lso made in to a type (K eniston, 1968b).
I might note h erein th a t K eniston does not speak of
conform ity e ith e r among h is a lie n a te d or among h is
j j
j committed groups. This I s h a ll e la b o ra te upon fu rth e r
i
in Chapter 6.
At th a t e a rly stag e of K e n isto n 's re s e a rc h , he was j
i
alre ad y g u ilty of having stereo ty p ed h is s u b je c ts . I t
seemed he could not r e s i s t a play fo r th a t power which
s t i r s th e s c i e n t i s t 's vein a t th e moment he is "explaining
e v e ry th in g ."
In h is f i r s t study, he claimed th a t a lie n a tio n i t s e l f
was not a new syndrome, hut th a t th ere e x iste d a new
kind of a lie n a tio n in America. This new a lie n a tio n was
due to : "(1) a new kind of s o c ie ty ; (2) re b e llio n w ithout
298
a cause, negation w ithout a purpose"(p. 6 ).
He adm itted a t th a t tim e th a t th e re were "enormous
d iffe re n c e s among the a lie n a te d (p. 1 6)" and th a t th e
term i t s e l f has i t s problems in th a t " i t s meanings are
leg io n , and, as th e term has become more fa sh io n a b le , i t
has become synonymous with whatever th e w rite r b elieves
to be th e c e n tr a l e v ils of modern s o c ie ty " (p . 13). B ut,
d e sp ite h is i n i t i a l statem ent th a t he considered th e
a lie n a te d type to be a m in o rity , and h is adm ission of
th e vagaries in the meaning of the term , he then made
th e grandiose statem ent t h a t :
. . . t h e d r i f t of our time is away from connection
r e la tio n , communion, and dialo g u e, and our
i n t e l l e c t u a l concerns r e f l e c t th is co n v ictio n .
A lie n a tio n , once seen as imposed on men by an
u n ju st economic system , is in c re a sin g ly chosen
by men as th e ir basic stance toward so ciety .
TP. 3)
In th e years immediately follow ing t h i s f i r s t book,
K eniston must have faced th e fa c t th a t , along w ith the
inadequacy of th e term " a lie n a tio n " in ex p lain in g th e
wide range of behaviors he intended i t should embrace
o r ig in a lly , th e re was a ls o stro n g evidence fo r th e f a c t
t h a t , p a r a lle lin g th a t mode of withdraw al he had e a r l i e r
described as c h a r a c te r is tic of contemporary so c ie ty and
youth, another tendency had emerged w ith equal impact
during th e s i x t i e s . This tren d was d ia m e tric a lly opposite
to th a t which he had e a r l i e r described and was a tendency
299
to connect, to communicate, to r e l a t e , to engage in
meaningful dialogue, and l a s t l y , to a c t on o n e's p r in c ip le s .
I
j I t was perhaps due to t h i s development th a t K eniston
I
conceived of a new frame of re feren ce which would embrace
i both a lie n a te d and a c t i v i s t fo rc e s. He came up w ith th e
j
j idea of a "youth stag e" (1971* p. 3) which became, d e sp ite
! h is not d e sc rib in g i t as such, th e ex p lan atio n fo r an
| even broader range of behaviors than he had p rev io u sly
attem pted w ith e ith e r his a lie n a te d or committed ty p e s.
j
| He d efin es youth as a "new sta g e of l i f e " ( p . 3)
j which i s , however, an "o p tio n a l sta g e " (p . 18) th a t "barely
j e x iste d a century ago "(p. 5) and which "in terv en es
I between adolescence and adulthood"(p. 7)* I t i s im portant
| to in d ic a te th a t he remarks th a t " th is emergence on a
I mass sc a le of a p rev io u sly unrecognized sta g e of l i f e j
|
(p. 7) does not include w ithin i t only th a t age group i t
re p re se n ts but a lso anyone who m aintains " it s c e n tr a l
c h a r a c te r is tic s .1" These c h a r a c te r is tic s are "the te n sio n j
i
i between selfhood and th e e x is tin g s o c ia l order (p. 3 ).
I
K eniston tra c e s h is hypothesis to th e work of E rik -
| son. I t I s h ig h ly d e riv a tiv e of E rik so n 's i d e n t i t y - j
| c r i s i s (1968) and is not even a tr u e embroidery upon th a t j
e a r l i e r concept, fo r what he p resen ts to us is a search
fo r id e n tity , c a rry in g w ith i t a c o r r e la tiv e antagonism
ag a in st th e so c ie ty -p ro p e r, th is supposedly re sp o n sib le
| 300
|
i
fo r th e re v o lu tio n in our tim e. R eally , his new term is
|
| not very d if fe r e n t from his a lie n a tio n type or h is com-
I m itted type,and i t is c re a te d to serve th e very same
purpose. Each of h is former terms has been cleaned and
I p o lish ed up a b it and th u s ly given th e p o s s i b ilit y of
1
g re a te r breadth of a p p lic a tio n , e s p e c ia lly when fused
i
: to g e th e r as p a rt of a "youth s ta g e ." In th e p ro cess,
however, I f e e l th a t K eniston has sketched a sta g e as
broad and given us b eh av io ral re fe re n ts so d iv e rse
th a t he becomes g u ilty of th e very same s in as was Feuer. !
i Again, i f he has succeeded in ex p lain in g ev ery th in g , he
j has r e a lly explained nothing.
I I r o n ic a lly , th e author modestly admits near th e end
| of his p re se n ta tio n th a t "th ere i s an enormous d iv e rs ity ..!.
not adequately captured by terms such as c o u n te rc u ltu re ,
| new c u ltu re , or Consciousness I I I , o r, fo r th a t m a tte r,
by my own concept of ’postmodern y o uth,!(pp. 318- 3 1 9)*
|
Y et, d e s p ite h is a p p ro p ria te h u m ility , he has b u ilt an j
i |
e n tir e th e s is on u t i l i z i n g t h i s form of ex p lan atio n . i
He tra c e s fo r us th re e new types of deviant
stu d e n ts, a l l of whom he b eliev es to be in t h i s new youth
J s ta g e . They a re " a c t i v i s t s , " " d i s a f f i l i a t e d ," and
"underachievers"(pp. 119- 121).
He a lso se p arate s members of th e a f f e c tiv e youth |
l
c u ltu re and p a r tic ip a n ts In s o c io - p o l itic a l p r o t e s t .
301
d is tin g u is h in g two p o le s: "Woodstock and Weathermen* drugs
j vs. dem onstrations, new consciousness vs. new p o litic s "
j (P. 1*3).
However, in o u tlin in g c h a r a c te r is tic s of th is youth
sta g e , he t r i e s to embrace a l l of th e se modes of behavior.
I He summarizes th e postmodern g en eratio n a s: (1) being
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y f lu id ; (2) having i t s deepest c o lle c
tiv e id e n tif ic a tio n w ith i t s own group or movement;
(3) having a high degree of personalism ; (4) searching fo r
p erso n a l and o rg a n iz a tio n a l in c lu siv e n e ss and openness;
| (5) being n o n a sc e tic ; (6) being a n tite c h n o lo g ic a l; (7)
b e lie v in g in p a r tic ip a to ry forms of c o lle c tiv e government;
|
| (8) being antiacadem ic; and (9) s tr e s s in g nonviolence.
The reader w ill su re ly see what a range of behaviors
| 1
j and a t titu d e s K eniston places w ith in t h i s youth sta g e .
Anyone who was fa m ilia r w ith th e campus of t h i s period j
! should be immediately c r i t i c a l of h is " l i s t . " For
! in s ta n c e , on our own campus, many of th e most su c c e ssfu l
| le a d e rs in th e so -c a lle d "movement" were th e academ ically
su p e rio r who looked forward to graduate school or were
i
alread y "in th e p ro c e s s." They were not anti-academ ic.
i
Looking a t th e fa c to r of "n o n -asceticism ," one asks
I K eniston to ex plain th e s t r a i n of s p ir itu a lis m and
m ysticism embraced by many members of th e youth c u ltu r e , j
th e re tu rn to various types of E astern and Western p ie ty j
302
and s e l f - s a c r i f i c e , o r, o u tsid e of a r e lig io u s c o n te x t,
| what of th e heavy d e n ia l many of the young p o l i t i c a l
le ad ers have demanded of them selves so as to share th e
j nonhedonistic and deprived l i f e - s t y l e s of th o se m in o ritie s
| they were supporting.
I am th e re fo re claim ing th a t K e n isto n 's im pression-
j
| i s t i c p ic tu re of contemporary American and of modern
!
j youth fla sh e s on us many f a m ilia r f a c to r s , bu t, sim ul-
I ta n e o u sly , he does not account fo r many d isc re p an c ies
I
between h is r a th e r pat schem atization and what we observe
|
| in endless in d iv id u a l c a ses. Because of t h i s , I again
| claim th a t h is in s ig h ts re le v a n t to th e c o u n te rc u ltu re , to
! th e s o c ia l movements involved, and to fu tu re events
I I
! |
I r e la tin g to th e se phenomena are not highly u s e fu l to u s. [
| — — ^
He d escrib es to us l i t t l e th a t we have not seen, but he
d i s t o r t s what we have seen by attem pting to pigeon-hole
i
i t in to one c a tc h - a l l categ o ry . |
N onetheless, I admit i t i s hard to tu rn away from |
th e words of a K eniston or Feuer. So much does, a f t e r
! a l l , seem fa m ilia r and again th e language u til iz e d is so
; much a p a rt of our everyday vocabulary. As I mentioned
| p rev io u sly and as Mlschel ( 1968) puts i t : "Often i t is j
i
d i f f i c u l t to d isc rim in a te s c i e n t i f i c p e rs o n a lity th e o rie s
from th e p e rs o n a lity th e o rie s of th e layman because both
I
are rooted in th e language and ste re o ty p e s about behavioral
303
meanings p rev alen t in th e common c u l tu r e "(1968, p. 6 5).
W e long ago in te g ra te d th e Oedipal p e rsp e c tiv e ,
making i t seem alm ost as though th e g e n e ra tio n a l theory
had long been proven. S im ila rly , i t is my co n ten tio n th a t
c u rre n tly th e e x is te n tia l-h u m a n is tic p e rsp e c tiv e is so
predominant an outlook th a t i t too seems game fo r an
alm ost autom atic acceptance of such ex planations engen
dered by term s lik e a lie n a tio n and i d e n t i t y - c r i s i s . How
o fte n do we to s s about th e se terms and t h e i r synonyms
w ith l i t t l e thought as to t h e i r p re c ise a p p lic a b ility in
th e in d iv id u a l case before us?
I am not attem pting to com pletely n u lli f y th e possible
relev an ce of meaning underlying th e se c o n s tru c ts , but I
am o b je c tin g to t h e i r f a c i l e u t i l i z a t i o n in in stan ce s
wherein th ey are so d iffu se d in meaning th ey end in
re v e a lin g l i t t l e about s p e c if ic events and behaviors.
One-Construct Systems and th e I l l - F i t t i n g Case
In both in sta n c e s tr e a te d in th is c h a p te r, th e |
au th o rs i n i t i a l l y introduced a c o n s tru c t, began to
su b tly t r e a t i t as though i t were g iv en , m anipulating i t
throughout th e whole of th e flowing d isc o u rse. Any events
they r e f e r to a re , of course, analyzed post hoc, and j
each is in te rp r e te d in a manner wherein ex p lan atio n via j
I
t h e i r fo c a l c o n stru c t (which they have taken g re a t care j
to " e s ta b lis h ” s o lid ly ) seems highly p la u s ib le .
j 304
j
i
| I must point o u t, however, th a t they are c a re fu l to
i
| avoid in stan ce s in which they cannot make t h e i r c o n stru c t
! work, Douglas a ls o mentions t h i s in h is re feren ce to
such c o n s tru c ts .
For in s ta n c e , i f th e g e n e ra tio n a l th e o ry i s tr u l y
I
v ia b le , we should be ab le to p re d ic t some form of genera-
j
| t i o n a l re v o lt in c le a r in stan ce s wherein youth and sone
| form of " d e -a u th o riz a tio n " is involved. Yet, we know
I t h i s is not always th e ca se. And what can we say of a
I
| stu d en t who ie experiencing an i d e n t i t y - c r i s i s , i s a ls o
|
| anxious about a u th o rity in g e n e ra l, but s t i l l makes th e
| d ec isio n to opt fo r th e E stablishm ent and i t s values tim e
and tim e again? I s he or she s t i l l in th e youth stage?
! He has some of th e c h a r a c te r is tic s mentioned by K eniston,
P l"
l
I yet he is n e ith e r choosing c u l tu r a l or p o l i t i c a l a lie n a -
i
tio n or r e v o lt. Ijs then a lie n a tio n or re v o lt a c r ite r i o n
I
fo r being in th e youth stage? I f so , our ex p lan atio n is
c ir c u la r and does us no good a t a l l .
| i
I t Is p re c is e ly t h i s type of tw istin g and tu rn in g of
argument th a t such th e o r is ts c o n s is te n tly p r a c tic e , in
an attem pt to make them selves in v u ln e ra b le to any c r i t i
cism , but unable u ltim a te ly to save t h e i r t h e o r e tic a l
p o s itio n from e x h ib itin g i t s basic and b la ta n t loopholes.
i
Douglas r e f e r s to th is kind of stan ce as one which j
dem onstrates th e assum ption of e x p e rtis e before th e f a c t .
305
He s t a t e s :
|
...T h ey know the g en eral n atu re of th e phenomena
and t h e i r causes before they come to th e co n crete
phenomena. In th e g re a t m ajo rity of th e se works
! th e re is an academic presumption th a t th e a n a ly st
knows the g en e ra l tr u th before he begins. I n
deed, in a l l too many in stan ce s th e re i s not
merely the assumption th a t one knows th e g en eral
n a tu re of the t r u t h . . . b u t th e re is a ls o the
: assumption th a t a g re a t d eal is known about th e
! s p e c ific n a tu re of th e phenomena to be stu d ie d .
| (pp. 109- 1 10)
j t
I Such i s the n atu re of a com bination of im p re s sio n istic I
: I
w ritin g with a o n e -v a ria b le h y p o th esis. D espite i t s !
! 1
|freedom from c o n tro lle d re se a rc h or c o n s tru c t v a lid a tio n , I
the c re a to r n o netheless c lin g s to an a u th o r ita tiv e p o s itio n
u n flin c h in g ly . This kind of stubborn approach makes any
d ata tr e a te d su b je c t to those species of e rro r alluded to |
| i
|e a r l i e r in th is paper.
! Vernon observed in a d e ta ile d review of t r a i t and
| s ta te re se arch c e n te rin g on t r a i t - r a t i n g s and hypothesized j
j !
! s ta te s th a t th e locus of such t r a i t s and s ta te s may be '
i
: in the c o n stru c ts of th e p ercelv er r a th e r than in th e
i c h a r a c te r i s tic s of th e p e rce iv ed . . . " r a tio n a liz a tio n s
! a b s tra c te d from th e r a t e r ’s o v e ra ll p ic tu re (h is homoncu-
| lous) of th e su b je c t" ( 196* 1, P. 59). His re se arch demon-
; s tr a te d em phatically the p e rsis te n c e with which researchers!
| tend to fin d c o n siste n c y , to in te r p r e t and assess congru- |
e n tly over s u b je c ts . C e rta in ly the r e je c tio n of many r e
search ers of m u ltiv a ria te designs or m u ltifo ld i n t e r -
306
j
p re ta tio n s or a c le a r ly - p u t ”l d o n 't k n o w ...I'm not sure
i „
I what is happening here is in d ic a tiv e of th e degree of
comfort they f e e l in th e more parsim onious adoption and
f i d e l i t y to a sm all number (in th e lim it, one) of
i c o n s tru c ts .
I
C onstruct V a lid ity and P re d ic tiv e U t i l i t y
i
| So f a r as th e accepted procedures w ith which such
I
I c o n s tru c ts might be v a lid a te d , tw o-step processes a re
I
| common. The primary ta s k is a v a lid a tio n of th e co n stru c t
! i t s e l f . The best d e s c rip tio n of t h i s process is probably
th a t of Cronbach and Meehl (1955). A second ste p is an
I
| attem pt to t e s t th e c o n s tru c t fo r i t s p re d ic tiv e u t i l i t y .
| I f , fo r in sta n c e , we were attem pting to show evidence
!
| fo r a "youth stag e of l i f e " we would begin by making up
|
i a t e s t which measured th e various b ehavioral re fe re n ts
| we f e l t were involved In t h i s sta g e . The c o r r e la tio n , or
|
! la ck of c o r r e la tio n , of such samples would be evidence
|
! e ith e r fo r or ag a in st th e v a lid ity of th e c o n stru c t and/or
| th e success of th e t e s t as a measurement device. Mischel
(1970) d escrib es t h i s as a kind of h y p o th e s is -te s tin g
procedure. j
He a lso reminds us of th a t f a c to r which we have j
1 |
s tre s s e d again and again in th is c h a p te r, th a t of |
s i t u a t i o n a l s p e c i f i c i t y . He l i s t s two requirem ents as !
1
e s s e n ti a l fo r th e design of such t e s t s In order th a t they
I be co n stru c ted c o r r e c tly . F i r s t , th e c r i t e r i a of response
(or b eh av io ral re f e re n ts ) must be se le c te d c le a r ly . They
must be s p e c ific and observable. Secondly, th e c o n stru c t
; i t s e l f must be conceived of as th e cause, sin ce i t is
i t s e l f a c o n s tru c t. This is perhaps th e loudest warning
one can u t t e r in th is c o n tex t. I t is a c le a r explanation
fo r th e f r a i l q u a lity of such a c o n stru c t as g e n e ra tio n a l
s tru g g le , f o r , as we have dem onstrated e a r l i e r , in whom
I li e s th e behavior of i n t e r e s t , and even i f we c le a r up
t h i s is s u e , and show a c le a r c o r r e la tio n of re p re s e n ta
t i v e behaviors, we s t i l l cannot use t h i s as a cause fo r
th e subsequent behaviors, or ev en ts. At b e s t, i t is a
c o r r e la te .
i
' Suppose th a t we were ab le to somehow s u b s ta n tia te
j
th e e x iste n c e of a sta g e of development such as K eniston
I has d escrib ed , th a t we had f u l f i l l e d the ta s k of r e la tin g
j i t to v ario u s c r i t e r i a of response, or behavioral
|
! r e f e r e n ts . W e s t i l l would not have e s ta b lish e d i t s p re -
j d ic tiv e u t i l i t y , fo r th e v a lid a tio n of such a stag e does
not mean th a t we would c o n s is te n tly be able to p re d ic t
th e d if f e r e n t kinds of behavior a youth in th is stage
would e x h ib it in th e fu tu re .
I f e e l th a t our chances to p re d ic t behavior in th e
kind of complex s itu a tio n we are d isc u ssin g h e re in i s j
highly im probable. A tr u e t e s t fo r u t i l i t y would re q u ire
308
th a t a "youth" would be a n tic ip a te d to behave in a
s p e c ific way, a t l e a s t , in a s p e c ific s itu a tio n . I f
j’ knowing he were in th e "youth sta g e " would c le a r ly allow
{
| us to p re d ic t h is fu tu re frequency or form of r e b e llio n
| or w ithdraw al, we would then r e a l ly "know som ething."
In summary, I have attem pted to p resen t th e read er
| w ith my conception of the n atu re of f a c i l e systems such
| as those popularized by Feuer and K eniston. I n i t i a l l y ,
l
| I reviewed th e problem of th e o r e tic a l c o n s tru c ts in
| g en e ra l, then turned to s p e c if ic "encounters" w ith the
| n o tions of "the g e n e ra tio n a l stru g g le " and "the youth
I
| s ta g e ." The need to continuously embroider upon and
| m anipulate such c o n stru c ts in order th a t they serve as
I
!
g en eral ex planations fo r a wide spectrum of behavior and
a t titu d e s was d escrib ed . I t has become c l e a r , I am su re ,
th a t I f e e l th e a c tu a l v a lid a tio n of such c o n s tru c ts wouldj
I
be a highly im possible happening. I am not o b je c tin g t o j
th e u t i l i z a t i o n of such im p re s sio n istic c o n s tru c ts in
t j
| g en e ra l but am issu in g a warning a g a in st t h e i r u sefu ln ess
| as th e so le exp lan atio n fo r w idely-varying behaviors and
i i
responses across many in d iv id u a ls and many s itu a tio n s . j
i
I have im p lic itly dem onstrated t h a t , i f only sub- !
consciously, th e c re a to r of such c o n s tru c ts renders |
p o ssib le te s tin g of them u n lik e ly or im possible due to
t h e i r spongy f l e x i b i l i t y and e lu siv e meaning. I have
309
attem pted to in v a lid a te them, a t le a s t in so f a r as they
are u se fu l in term s of p r e d ic ta b ility , by p resen tin g
in sta n c e s of th e i l l - f i t t i n g case. This i s one among
th e many rese arch problems which have emerged from the
study of youth p ro te s t by s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t s . I have
s e le c te d i t fo r co n sid e ra tio n because I f e e l i t is an
im portant one. The au th o rs focused upon h e re in a re not
th e only ones who have "sinned” in t h i s manner. X have
challenged them r a th e r than o th e rs because of t h e i r
p o p u la rity and because t h e i r c o n s tru c ts are f a m ilia r ones.
CHAPTER 6
Y O U TH AS HERO O R ANTI-HERO: MESSIAH O R DEVIANT?
Although th e primary focus of t h i s book i s th e
campus a c t i v i s t and h is or her involvement in campus
p r o te s t, i t is im possible to consider th e phenomenon of
d iss e n t on our campuses w ithout some a tte n tio n to the
!
development of what has u su a lly been c a lle d th e "youth
c u ltu re " o r " c o u n te rc u ltu re ." There has continuously
been an u n su ccessfu l attem pt to u n ite or to se p a ra te th e
two among some a u th o rs. Even th e most c a re fu l and lu c id
of th in k e rs , Hampden-Turner, has o fte n f a lle n in to th e
tr a p of tr e a tin g them as one under such a la b e l as th e
" ra d ic a l c o u n te rc u ltu re "(Hampden-Turner & W hitten,
Psychology Today, A p ril, 1971). Many w rite rs have ended
in se p a ra tin g th e two groups in to "h ip p ies" and "a ctiv ists,1
yet th is has a lso re s u lte d in some amount of d i f f i c u l t y j
i
j
sin ce "hippie types" lik e Rubin and Hoffman have i n f i l - i
i !
1 i t j i t -
| tr a te d a c t i v i s t ranks to become Y ippies.
I
I
I t is my fe e lin g th a t th e re was not Ju st one campus
c o u n tercu ltu re in th e s i x t i e s , but two, each sharing
c e rta in r h e to r ic , symbol, elem ents of outward appearance,
310
311
| and v alu es. D espite th e se com m onalities, however, and
J although members of each did fre q u e n tly support th e other
! v e rb a lly , they d iffe re d c le a r ly in s ty le of p ro te s t and
; in th e p r io r i ty placed on th e need to a c tiv e ly p r o t e s t .
Kluckhohn and K elly (19^5) viewed c u ltu re as a
"system of e x p lic it and im p lic it designs fo r liv in g ,
which tends to be shared by a l l or s p e c if ic a lly designated
members of a group (p. 9 0) ." I t was intended by th e se
authors th a t both a r t and a r t i f a c t be included in t h i s
a b s tra c tio n , as w ell as h i s t o r i c a l l y developed, shared,
and acquired behaviors. A h e lp fu l c r ite r i o n fo r judging
| whether or not a d is t in c t iv e c u ltu re e x is ts i s garnered
|
| from asking whether or not th e groups in focus have
I |
I systems o f communication and behavior which d is tin g u is h |
them from one another. J
|
Grinder ( 1969) re in fo rc e s my suggestion in his |
approach. U tiliz in g i t , he found th a t he agreed w ith
| most s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t s who noted (G o ttlie b & Ramsey,
! 196* 1) th a t (on a continuous b asis) th e re were p a tte rn s !
| I
| of behavior so d is t in c t in youth as to se p a ra te them from j
I
those of the dominant ad u lt c u ltu re . Y inger’s d e f in itio n j
j
of "co u n tercu ltu re " ( i 960, 1970) i s a lso h e lp fu l h e re in .
i
He u t i l i z e s th is term when th e re is c le a r ly a c o n f lic t |
of values w ith th e g re a te r so c ie ty and when th e normative |
system of th e fo c a l subgroup has th is value c o n f lic t as I
312
i
a c e n tr a l and primary element in i t s credo. Given th i s
d e f in itio n , i t is obvious th a t th e re e x iste d a youth
c o n tra c u ltu re in th e s i x t i e s .
\ M y in c lin a tio n to se p a ra te t h i s c o n tra c u ltu re in to
two d is t in c t u n its p e rta in s to th e high degree of s i g n i f i -
I
cance I give to th e concept of a c tiv e p ro te s t as a v a lu e .
| D espite p o ssib le sharing of o th e r values and commonalities
I
such as sp o n ta n e ity , lib e r a tio n , brotherhood, peace, e t c . ,
th e in c lu sio n or ex clu sio n of a c tiv e p ro te s t in a value
system must, by d e f in itio n , have se rio u s im p lica tio n s as
to th e p a tte rn in g of behavior and th e goa1-hierarchy of
th e p a r tic u la r in d iv id u a ls . So must th e d e c isio n not to
p ro te s t a c tiv e ly , t h i s implying a d if f e r e n t a t t i t u d e
I !
toward persona1 r e s p o n s ib ility fo r e x te rn a l change. A
simple example of my point is th e follow ing anecdote. One
day Tom Hayden came over to USC to show a sm all group of
| us h is most recen t s lid e s of Vietnam, p ic tu re s he had j
| taken or c o lle c te d on th e scene, Tom is q u ie t, but h is I
! i
i |
I q u ie t i s deceptive. He speaks slow ly, but c a re fu lly , and
j
h is rap is almost a continuous stream . His o v e ra ll e f f e c t
I
| i s one of a concentrated focus of high energy. During th e
afte rn o o n , he said something th a t was seemingly so under
played, i t might have passed n o tic e had i t not been fo r
h is focused in te n s ity . What he sa id was sim ply t h i s ,
"You c a n 't smoke dope and make a r e v o lu tio n .” !
313
A passing comment on h is p a r t, perhaps* but as
im portant a c a ta ly s t to my own progression of th in k in g as
any during my graduate ed u catio n . I am c e r ta in ly not ju s t
try in g to make a d is tin c tio n between pot-smokers and campus!
; i
|a c t i v i s t s , for* a t times* one can stop smoking pot to
| "tak e a drag on th e re v o lu tio n ." I am not sure th a t
|Hayden him self would not want to q u a lify h is own words.
M y i n te r e s t in th e statem ent is* however* keyed off by
what X th in k he was try in g to express* the d iffe re n c e |
!
| between ta k in g an a c tiv e stan ce p o l i t i c a l l y * or choosing
to l e t e x te rn a l p o l i t i c a l events unfold. Both p o sitio n s* |
|
you w ill notice* do involve a d e lib e ra te a c t of choice* ;
I
fo r the committed. E ith e r stance may lead to change in j
i I
|th e s o c ie ty . Pot-smokers and m editators* those who do so
|a s advocates of a new way of life * have confronted the
'E stablishm ent* but t h e i r confrontation* though fre q u en tly
| ’
! leading to change* came out of a d if fe re n t fe e lin g as to
' the ro le of an in d iv id u a l in a c tiv e ly working for
i
; p o l i t i c a l change. Therefore* I am making a d is tin c tio n
between s ty le s of p r o te s t and th e value of a c tiv e p ro te s t
| which seems to me im p lic itly re la te d a lso to the
fe e lin g of immediacy of th e goals of p r o te s t. I f one
| i s committed p o l i t i c a l l y to th e e f f o r t to end a war* fo r
I
i in s ta n c e , he cannot com fortably wait fo r such an end to
j ;
| evolve.
314
i
| In th e ch ap ter on mass movements, I mentioned th a t I
!
did not consider G u s fie ld ’s (1970) "withdrawal movement"
! category as a tr u e form of s o c ia l movement, in t h a t ,
! though i t r e je c ts th e values of th e g re a te r s o c ie ty , i t
i
only in d ir e c tly moves toward change via in te r n a l or
j
| s p i r i t u a l changes in i t s advocates. F u rth e r, i t s r e je c -
| tio n , as described by G u sfield , o ften leads i t to move
away from the so c ie ty proper, in what I would term a
brand of escapism . Because t h i s type of group does not
I attem pt to m obilize toward achievement of i t s g o a ls, i t
does not meet my e a r l i e r d e f in itio n of a s o c ia l movement.
Furtherm ore, whereas I described th e sense of immediacy
| — — _
i
! in th e s o c ia l re v o lu tio n a ry p rev io u sly , th e in d iv id u a l in
i
| t h i s category l i e s on th e f a r end of the spectrum, allowing'
I i
| th a t change comes about g ra d u a lly . He i s th e re fo re an
j
! ev o lu tio n a ry , and, whereas th e genuinely committed member
I — — _— ——
| of a s o c io - p o l itic a l movement i s , by my d e f in itio n , an
i |
! a c t i v i s t , he i s a p a s s iv is t. To use the c u rre n t vernacu-
i
| l a r of h is c o u n te rc u ltu re , he "goes w ith th e flow ."
i
! T herefore, he is a re a c to r, ra th e r than an a c to r, so f a r
! as p o l i t i c a l p r o te s t is concerned, and, in th is way, can
!
| c le a rly be d istin g u ish e d from h is a c t i v i s t p ee rs, although
I I
t
| he may share various o th er commonalities with them. I
I
should emphasize, however, th a t my d is tin c tio n is h e lp fu l
only so f a r as s o c io - p o l itic a l p ro te s t Is concerned.
315
I
| Furtherm ore, th e read er should understand th a t th e advo
c a te of p ro te s t ag a in st th e c u ltu ra l-v a lu e system through
| a d a p tatio n of a new s ty le of liv in g may be as committed
| in h is own choice as is th e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t . He may
j
| be consciously choosing another mode of p r o te s t b u t, by
j
i doing so, he has removed him self from th e arena of d ir e c t
i
| and immediate e x te rn a l c o n fro n ta tio n . O thers, however,
|
| as we s h a ll see l a t e r , may be almost a r b itr a r y p artic ip an ts
I in e ith e r brand of p r o te s t.
G usfield saw th e hippie group as meeting h is c rite rio n
I fo r th e withdraw al category. As I s ta te d p rev io u sly ,
r_
I
| however, t h i s i s not a c le a r enough d is tin c tio n fo r our
purposes. H ippies, f o r in sta n c e , have p a r tic ip a te d in
campus p ro te s t (Haan, Block, & Smith, 1 9 6 8; Hampden-Turne^'
! !
| 1970; Hampden-Turner & W hitten, 1971). They m ight, how-
1
ev e r, have p a rtic ip a te d out of d iffe re m t m otivations j
than did a c t i v i s t s . Y ippies, lik e Rubin and Hoffman, j
are s e lf-d e c la re d prototypes of both m ilita n ts and !
! :
j h ip p ie s.
N eith er th e Random House nor Webster D ictionary
I re v is io n s published in the s i x t i e s d efin es " h ip p ie ."
A d e f in itio n in th e Book of Knowledge (1969 supplement)
does come c lo se to th e p a s s lv is t categ o ry we a re tr y in g to
d escrib e now:
. . . a member of a lo o sely k n it nonconform ist
group c h a ra c te riz e d by withdraw al from
316
conventional so c ie ty and g en e ra l r e je c tio n of
th e mores of such s o c ie ty , in c lu d in g customs
a ff e c tin g d re ss, p erso n a l appearance, liv in g
h a b its , and fam ily r e la tio n s h ip s . Such groups
u s u a lly advocate no s p e c ific program except a
devotion to love as a way of l i f e . ( p . 135)
Of s p e c ia l use to us in t h i s d e f in itio n is th e term
"lo o sely k n i t ," fo r i t stands in c o n tra s t w ith our re q u ire
ment of " p a r ti a l o rg a n iz a tio n " of s o c ia l movements.
S im ila rly , th e in d ic a tio n th a t th e re is no " s p e c ific pro
gram except a devotion to love as a way of l i f e " p re
c is e ly h its on th e s p i r i t u a l i s t i c and passive essence I
am concerned w ith d e sc rib in g h e re in . The "main t r i p "
fo r th e p a s s iv is t group i s l e t t i n g th in g s happen ra th e r
than making th in g s happen, playing i t by e a r, valuing
experience fo r i t s own sake, seeking in te r n a l change and
expansion of consciousness over d ir e c t p a r tic ip a tio n
toward change in th e s o c io - p o l itic a l s tr u c tu re of the
so c ie ty they r e j e c t . j
Whereas he or she tends to withdraw from c o n fro n ta-
|
t io n , th e a c t i v i s t moves toward i t . The a c t i v i s t , to o , j
values experience, but a ls o a s s o c ia te s i t s m eaningfulness
w ith an end product. He does make th in g s happen. As a
m a tte r of co n scien ce, he is involved w ith the g re a te r
so c ie ty d ir e c tly . He i s in th e s o c io - p o l itic a l arena.
He t r i e s to convert or to r a d ic a liz e o th e rs . He does
not w ait fo r h is values to evolve. Although he may
choose to accomplish change le g itim a te ly , as a refo rm ist
! 317
I
working w ith in th e system , he Is s t i l l out th e re . A l
though he may ta k e tim e out to smoke some pot and merge
| w ith th e music on a Saturday n ig h t, he probably does not
| (and t h i s Is where I th in k Tom Hayden was coming from)
r is k tak in g a h i t w hile th e b a t tle i s on, nor is he
mellowed o u t, going w ith th e flow a t th a t tim e. (This
gives us some in s ig h t, perhaps, in to th e tru e n atu re of
j
th e involvement of some of our Vietnam troops.’ )
| I t is c le a r th a t although th e word "hippie" in such
a pure-form d e f in itio n as is provided us by th e Book of
Knowledge somewhat s a t i s f i e s our p a s s iv is t d is t in c t io n ,
| th e term i t s e l f has become too c a tc h - a l l to be u se fu l
u ltim a te ly . I s h a ll a llu d e to t h i s "overuse" during
th is c h a p te r. S im ila rly , as explained by Tannenbaum
I I
I ( 1969), and as hypothesized in the previous ch a p ter, th e !
i
word " a lie n a tio n " has been fre q u en tly applied to both j
! a c t i v i s t and p a s s iv is t a lik e . In t h i s c h a p te r, i t i s my j
1 ;
! purpose to d iscu ss th e manner in which advocates of both i
| |
s ty le s of p r o te s t have been tr e a te d by t h e o r i s t s , j
i
1
re s e a rc h e rs , and th e p re ss. W e w ill see how in d iv id u a ls
! of very d if f e r e n t p r o c liv i tie s have been fre q u e n tly
! judged under th e same ru b ric . I
! . !
The d isc u ssio n in t h i s chapter c e n te rs around th e se
b asic is s u e s : ( l) the n a tu re of th e p o te n tia l convert
to a s o c ia l movement or c o u n te rc u ltu re ; (2 ) th e tendency
of most sc h o la rs and r e s e a r c h e r s t o g l o r i f y o r d e p re c a te —
318
as a whole, th e a c t i v i s t group, the p a s s iv is t group, or
both, fre q u e n tly confusing th e two groups and thereby
| convoluting t h e i r arguments; (3) th e n atu re of p ress
i
I coverage, an iss u e which I cannot cover f u lly in t h i s
context but which I s h a ll t r y to summarize w ith some
| s ig n if ic a n t i l l u s t r a t i o n s ; (*l) th e alm ost b la ta n t avoid
ance of d is t in c t re c o g n itio n of a th ir d group w ithin th e se
|
| two groups. This is an im ita tiv e or com pliant group of
I in d iv id u a ls who, although th ey claim to r e je c t th e
values of s o c ie ty , are not tr u e members (or "tru e
b e lie v e rs" ) of th e c o n tr a c u ltu r e ( s ), but a re a lle g ia n t
I
through peer group p re ssu re , and s o c ia l rein fo rcem en t.
P o te n tia l fo r Conversion to
I
I S o c ia l Movements or C ounter-C ultures
I . . , .
| There i s an amazing d earth in th e l i t e r a t u r e of a
system atic com parative study of s o c ia l movements in
g en eral. Heberle (19^9) emphasizes t h i s . Among th e few j
! i
| works which do attem pt t h i s ta s k , fewer yet atten d to |
! th e p sy ch o -so cial n a tu re of th e convert. C a n tr il ( 1963)
j
did form ulate a c e r ta in p a tte rn of need and m otivation in
1
1
th e p o l i t i c a l convert. His work, however, i s based on
only a few s tu d ie s , each re p re s e n ta tiv e of a c e r ta in type
of movement (o r c o u n te rc u ltu re according to my previous
d e f in it io n ) . H offer (1951) devotes an e n tir e th e o r e tic a l
work to th e n a tu re of th e "tru e b e lie v e r," attem pting to j
319
search out commonalities among movement membership in a
more g e n e ra l, le s s documented manner than does C a n tr il.
These books a re is o la te d works, however, and, as
such, have become c l a s s i c s . Most o th e r authors have
operated on a purely th e o r e tic a l b a s is , emphasizing
s tr u c t u r a l components and e lim in a tin g p sy ch o lo g ical
f a c to r s . We w ill, in th e course of th is ch a p ter, mention
some who are re le v a n t.
M y basic reason fo r i n t e r e s t in th is area is both
because of the p au city of m eaningful l i t e r a t u r e and because
one of i t s main m o tifs, th a t of a lie n a tio n from th e main
so c ie ty as a basic m otivation fo r conversion to a mass
I
movement, leads us d ir e c tly in to th e mainstream of
research on youth p r o te s t.
i
Tannenbaum (19^9) mentions th a t th e term " a lie n a tio n "
is one under which such d iv e rse groups as n i h i l i s t s ,
h e d o n ists, e s c a p is ts , c r e a tiv e a r t i s t s , and m ilita ry
re v o lu tio n a rie s a re subsumed. He fu rth e r s ta te s th a t
th e re is no manner of r e s o lu tio n as to whether a lie n a tio n
i s a u n i or m u lti-d im en sio n al phenomenon. Neal and R e ttig
( 1967) have suggested th e e x iste n c e of both g en e ra l and
s p e c if ic f a c to rs . Seeman (1959) o ffered an in te r e s tin g |
essay on th e meaning of t h i s concept in which he produced
a fiv e - v a r ia n t system s t i l l u til iz e d today by many s o c ia l
1
s c i e n t i s t s . His v a ria n ts were: pow erlessness, meaning-
320
le s s n e s s , norm lessness, is o la tio n , and se lf-e stra n g e m e n t.
An a lie n a te d person could experience one or se v e ra l of
th ese f a c to r s ,
Seeman’s system i s of p a r tic u la r in t e r e s t to us in
|t h a t h is v a ria n ts a re highly s im ila r to the d e s c rip tio n s of
!C a n tr il and Hoffer in d e scrib in g m otivation of co n v e rts,
jo r "tru e b e lie v e rs ,"
C a n tr il claim s, fo r example, th a t though each move-
I
iment a r is e s in a c e r ta in s o c ia l co n tex t, and has i t s own j
i |
; c h a r a c te r is tic type of follow er and i t s own s p e c ia l appeal,!
! !
j th ere are c e r ta in psychological fa c to rs in common to a l l . j
: i
j B a s ic a lly , he sees t h i s p a tte rn as ensuing: j
j ...w hen (the b e lie fs and opinions of men, ra th e r
| than t h e i r ro u tin e h a b its of behavior) a re !
I v io le n tly ja rre d by w o rries, f e a r s , a n x ie tie s ,
and f r u s t r a t i o n s , when he begins to q u estio n the j
norms and values which have become a p a rt of him,!
when th e customary s o c ia l framework can ap p aren t-
i ly no longer s a tis f y h is needs, then a se rio u s
| discrepancy emerges between th e standards of
j so c ie ty and th e personal standards of th e in d i
v id u a l. . . (he) is su sc e p tib le to new le a d e rsh ip ,
| to conversion, to re v o lu tio n , (pp. 16-17)
j C a n tr il goes on to explain th a t th e re a c r i s i s must ta k e
p lace in which the in d iv id u a l i s confronted w ith an e x te r
n a l s itu a tio n or environment which he cannot understand and
which he seeks to in t e r p r e t , or have in te rp r e te d . When
: t h i s c r i s i s occurs in a c u ltu re or in a so c ie ty , i t is
; m anifested by many people crying out to b eliev e in
"som ething." P eelin g th a t th e i r government, and
| th a t t h e i r so c ie ty has become ch a o tic and "m eaningless" |
! 321
|
! (p. 6*1), they yearn fo r new b e lie fs and new meanings and
I
| become highly su g g e stib le . This s itu a tio n is b e a u tif u lly
! described in a book on th e m ille n a ria n movement (B urridge,
| 1969).
! Another thread provided by C a n tr il in his fa b ric
i
1
| (supporting my conclusion th a t h is p o r tr a it of a p o te n tia l
| convert resem bles th a t of Seeman's a lie n a te d human-being)
| is e g o -f ru s tra tio n . He sees th is emanating out of the
|
I need to be recognized and valued fo r o n e's s e l f . His
| d e s c rip tio n of th is type of f r u s t r a tio n encompasses the
j
| v a ria n ts of is o la tio n and self-estran g em en t as described
| by Seeman. To C a n tr il, the movement provides the in d i-
| v id u a l w ith cohorts who w ill give him th e re c o g n itio n
I
! he se e k s.
C a n t r i l 's d e s c rip tio n of th e f r u s tr a te d in d iv id u a l,
r e je c tin g th e norms of a so c ie ty which does not recognize
h is own, seeking in te r p r e ta tio n in order to r e - i n s t i l l a
i
|
! sense of meaning, and needing re c o g n itio n in order to
I reg ain id e n tity and in te g r i ty , is c le a r ly rem iniscent of
Seeman’s " a lie n a tio n system ."
I
| S u s c e p tib ility to Suggestion
C a n tr il fe e ls th a t s u s c e p tib ility to suggestion may
occur under two c o n d itio n s: (1) th a t which occurs when
th e person lacks an adequate mental context fo r i n t e r
p re tin g a c e r ta in stim ulus or event, in which case he may
! 322
consciously or unconsciously seek in te r p r e ta tio n , or (2)
th a t which occurs when th e p e rso n 's m ental context is so
r ig id ly fixed th a t s tim u li or events a re judged simply by
means of th e context w ithout s p e c ific exam ination of th e
given stim u li or events.
Obviously, in th e f i r s t c o n d itio n , th e in d iv id u a l is i
| a good can d id ate fo r th e r h e to r ic , in te r p r e ta tio n , and
i new norms of th e stro n g d ic ta to r or movement. In th e
i
i
second, th e person i s alread y what H offer (1951) terms a
i " tru e b e lie v e r." Wanting to b e lie v e , he holds f a s t to
i
h is frame of referen ce, giving up th e f a c i l i t y of c r i t i c a l
a b i l i t y , th e ca p ac ity to f le x ib ly judge or ev alu ate new
s tim u li. In th e second in s ta n c e , as w ell as in th e f i r s t ,
* i
i
th e in d iv id u a l i s e a s ily moved by symbol and slogan, as |
noted by C a n tr il, S h e rif (1937), and H offer (1951)* j
!
I should note a t t h i s tim e th a t C a n t r i l 's case
h is to r ie s p rese n t us w ith an extrem ely m alleab le, sug-
| g e s tib le , and p sy ch o lo g ically fragmented group of "move- j
| i
! ment members," no m atter what th e ’’ca u se." I a s s o c ia te
i
| them with N ie tz sc h e 's "herd," a n tic ip a tin g (with l i t t l e j
j |
| re lu c ta n c e ) a rounding-up which w ill e s ta b lis h fo r them
i
| a sense ° f d ire c tio n , o r, perhaps, " tip them" toward a
new movement and i t s g o als. |
i
A s im ila r p o r t r a i t is provided by H o ffe r's p re s e n ts - j
tio n of th e "tru e b e lie v e r" (1951). He includes in t h i s j
323
category th e whole spectrum of s o c ia lly or p erso n ally
oppressed, the fu g itiv e s of s o c ie ty , th e c u l tu r a l r e j e c t s .
A ll th e s e , he claim s, are candidates fo r "true b e lie v e r-
sh ip " which, as presented by H offer, is fa n a tic is m . He
c o n tra s ts h is "tru e b e lie v e r" w ith h is hero , who is s e l f -
co n fid en t and a t peace w ith h im self. In c o n tr a s t, the
convert "begins as a f r u s tra te d man driven by g u i l t ,
f a i l u r e , and s e lf- d is g u s t to bury h is own id e n tity in a
cause o rien te d to some fu tu re goal" ( E d ito r ’s forw ard, 1963*
x i i ) . H offer sees the a c t i v i s t phase of movements in
p a r tic u la r as peopled by f r u s tr a te d masses who are a lie n a te d
from both so c ie ty and them selves. In H o ffe r's d e s c rip tio n ,
th e n a tu re of the cause is in s ig n if ic a n t, and tr u e b eliev e rs
can and w ill fre q u e n tly plunge from one kind of movement
to an o th er. This is an im portant p o in t, somewhat lo s t
■
In th e r e s t of h is d isc u ssio n . Movements, says H offer,
are seldom pure-form . They a re u su a lly a compound of
various elements ( r e lig io u s , s o c ia l, p o l i t i c a l , e t c . ) . j
This s itu a tio n as i t r e la te s to th e m ille n a ria n movement,
wherein la rg e h i s t o r i c a l changes occur over sh o rt periods
of tim e, is described by Burridge ( 1969).
H offer a lso m aintains the somewhat s to lid p o sitio n
th a t th e tr u e b e lie v e r-fa n a tic searches fo r a b so lu te s a l
v atio n In th e movement and subordinates h is own id e n tity
to the cause in order to gain th a t s a lv a tio n . He believes
324
th a t th e end j u s t i f i e s th e use of any means and th e re fo re
w ill fre q u e n tly s a c r if ic e moral in te g r i ty in p a r tic ip a tio n .
H o ffe r's th e s is is a ls o linked c le a r ly to th e system
of th e "a lie n a te d " as presented by Seeman, fo r the g re a te r
component of h is a c t i v i s t mass movement is comprised of
th e u n d e sira b le , unwanted, or discarded which he s ta te s
a re most fre q u e n tly drawn from th e follow ing c a te g o rie s :
(a) th e poor, (b) m is f its , (c) o u tc a s ts , (d)
m in o ritie s , (e) ad o lescen t youth, ( f) th e
am bitious (whether facin g insurm ountable
o b sta cle s or unlim ited o p p o rtu n itie s , (g) those
in th e g rip of some vice or obsession, (h) th e
impotent (in body or mind), ( i) th e in o rd in a te ly
s e lf i s h , ( j) th e bored, (k) th e s in n e rs , (p. 26)
Burridge a ls o tra c e s m ille n a ria n a c t i v i t i e s to th e
u n re st of th e oppressed.
H offer recognizes th a t w hile the su p e rio r element of
a so c ie ty may in flu en ce i t g r e a tly , th e larg e middle mass
remains b a s ic a lly i n e r t , and the s o c ia l s tr u c tu re is
th u s ly shaped by i t s best and worst elem ents.
j
The reason th a t th e in f e r io r elements of a nationj
can ex e rt a marked in flu en ce on i t s course is i
th a t they are wholly w ithout reverence toward
th e p re se n t. They see t h e i r liv e s and the p re s
ent as sp o iled beyond remedy and they are ready
to waste and wreck both; hence t h e i r re c k le s s
ness and t h e i r w ill to chaos and anarchy. They
a lso crave to d isso lv e th e i r sp o ile d , meaningless
selves in some s o u l - s t i r r i n g sp e c ta c u la r communal
undertaking—hence t h e i r p r o c liv ity fo r un ited
a c tio n , (pp. 25-26)
U ltim ately , says H offer, although in te lle c tu a ls may be in
th e avant-garde of a movement, providing fo r i t a rh e to ric
325
and an ideology, the tru e b e lie v e r r e c r u it is necessary
to move the group in to a c tiv ism . He is of essence because
only a f a n a tic is w illin g to give up anything, in cluding
h is l i f e , fo r th e cause. The th in k in g “sk e p tic " is too
h e s ita n t t o be u s e fu l in t h i s a c t i v i s t s ta g e . The fa n a tic
purges h im self, as I in te r p r e t H offer, by lo sin g him self
in h is t o t a l plunge in to th e cause. His only s a lv a tio n is
through a f i n a l a b so lu tio n through c o lle c tiv e a c tio n ,
r i t u a l , and s e l f - s a c r i f i c e . The Movement f a c i l i t a t e s th is
fo r th e in d iv id u a l and stren g th en s i t s e l f , says H o ffer, by:
s tr ip p in g each human e n tity of i t s d is tin c tn e s s
and autonomy and tu rn in g i t in to an anonymous
p a r tic le w ith no w ill and no judgment of i t s own.
The r e s u l t is not only a compact and f e a r le s s
follow ing but a ls o a homogeneous p la s tic mass th a t
can be kneaded a t w ill...T h e im portant point is
th a t th e estrangem ent from th e s e l f , which is a
p reco n d itio n fo r both p l a s t i c i t y and conversion,
alm ost always proceeds in an atmosphere of
in te n se passion, (p. 8 7 ) j
His only rock is th e re fo re th e holy cause of th e movement,
b u t, says H offer, i t is im portant to understand th a t he
i s not grounded on p rin c ip le a t a l l , "he embraces a cause
not p rim a rily because of i t s ju stn e ss and h o lin e ss but
because of his d esp erate need fo r something to hold on to"
(P. 8 9).
Hoffer places an even g re a te r emphasis in th e impor
tance of r i t u a l and symbol than does C a n tr il, in d ic a tin g
th a t each a c t , no m atter how sm all, f u r th e r leads t o h is
a s so c ia tio n w ith th e c o lle c tiv e and f a c i l i t a t e s h is re tu rn
326
to a "p rim itiv e s t a t e of b eing"(p. 66).
The Expressive Function of S o c ia l Movements
! Both H offer and C a n tr il th e re fo re place g re a t emphasis
I
| on th e ex p ressiv e fu n ctio n of th e movement as enhanced by
r i t u a l , symbol, and charism a of the le a d e rsh ip .
K ie s le r and K ie s le r ( 1969) in d ic ated two basic motives
fo r group involvement as se rv in g : a norm ative fu n ctio n fo r
the in d iv id u a l, or an inform ative fu n c tio n . I t i s my
co n ten tio n th a t group le a d e rsh ip can provide th ese func
tio n s while s t i l l a tte n d in g to the ex p ressiv e needs of
t h e i r membership. While group lead ers can be e ith e r ta s k -
o rien ted or m aintenance-oriented (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)3
Weber (19^7) described th e ch arism atic lead er as a tte n d in g
to needs o th er than th o se we have mentioned. He wanted to
d is tin g u is h th e ch arism atic lead er as n o v el, in n o v a tiv e ,
or c r e a tiv e , and o p eratin g in other th an " tr a d itio n a l" or
" r a tio n a l- le g a l" r o le s . Weber f e l t , however, th a t charisma
b a s ic a lly led to s o c ia l d is in te g r a tio n and d e s tru c tio n .
I do not agree. S h ils ( 1965) agreed w ith W eber's new func
tio n of le a d e rsh ip but c l e a r ly saw ch arism atic p ro p e rtie s
as possibly a id in g the maintenance fu n ctio n in groups or
s o c ie tie s . Parsons (1951) c rea ted a t r i - p a r t i t e category
of group and le a d e rsh ip fu n c tio n s , c a te g o riz in g th e se as:
in stru m e n ta l, e x p re ssiv e , and moral. He saw th e ex p ressiv e
fu n ctio n as highly im portant in t h a t :
327
The ex isten c e of a w e ll-in te g ra te d system of
expressive symbolism is a highly im portant
mechanism of s o c ia l c o n tro l in th a t i t "channels"
th e d ir e c tly c a th e c tic elements r e la tiv e to
a c tio n in th e c o l l e c t i v i t y . . .Whether the ro le is
th a t of le a d e rsh ip in a deviant su b -c u ltu re in
conscious o pposition to th e in s titu tio n a liz e d
system, or in a c o l l e c t i v i t y w ithin th e i n s t i
tu tio n a liz e d system i s secondary. But th e p r i
macy of charisma means th a t th e immediate ex p res
s iv e s ig n ific a n c e of the ro le takes precedence
over th e in stru m e n ta l fu n ctio n s in the c o lle c tiv e
d iv is io n of la b o r, (p. H02)
The search fo r th e "m essianic" is the prime focus
behind th e m ille n a ria n movement as described by B urridge
( 1969). Such movements may combine r e lig io u s , c u l t u r a l ,
and p o l i t i c a l fa c to rs and a re th e re fo re d i f f i c u l t to
pigeonhole.
Both C a n tr il and H o ffe r's work would support th is
n o tio n of ch arism atic and symbolic le a d e rsh ip , s tr e s s in g
a ls o th a t th e follow er is o ften re lie v e d of h is re sp o n si
b i l i t y , is provided w ith inform ation and in te r p r e ta tio n
from w ithout. His norms are a ls o c l a r i f i e d by th e le a d e r
sh ip , thus providing him w ith an order fo r h is confused
wor Id.
Numerous au th o rs d iscu ss t h i s fu n ctio n as i t a p p lie s
to symbol, r i t u a l , and tim ing. They support th e p o in t I
wish to make h e re in , the importance of th e se elements in
r e c r u itin g new members. I t is obvious th a t Hoffer notes
th e se ex p ressiv e fu n ctio n s as more significant" than
in stru m e n ta l and moral fu n ctio n s in s o c ia l movements. W e
328
can th e re fo re understand h is co n clu sio n : th a t moral
in te g r i ty is by no means a monopoly of th e tru e b e lie v e r.
I f anything, H o ffe r’s p ic tu re of th e p sy ch o lo g ical world
| of the a c t i v i s t is th a t of a r a th e r fre n z ie d , empassioned
b lu r, one in which he plummets between th e extremes of
i
mania and d ep ressio n , searching fo r th e t o t a l pu rg atio n
of s e l f through th a t group experience described by Myer-
hoff (1971c) as communitas ( a f te r th e work of T urner, 1 9 6 9).
As u tiliz e d by T urner, th is term ap p lie s to th e
e s th e tic and a f f e c tiv e dimensions of group behavior so
opposed to th e in stru m e n ta l and o f f i c i a l . Myerhoff has
described th e experience of communitas as c a rry in g one
beyond him self and th e c o n d itio n s of mundane e x iste n c e .
Although i t may be o rd e rly , I t is not ro u tin iz e d , and
because of i t s cap acity to tem porarily fre e th e in d iv id u a l
from ro le s and s tr u c tu r e , yet u n ite him in shared e x p e ri-
i
ence w ith h is p e e rs, i t makes fo r a p assio n ate form of i
group e c sta sy .
Communitas, as Myerhoff t r e a t s i t , has about i t th a t |
same essence of th e lo ss of s e lf via transcendance of s e l f j
through th e group-experience mentioned by H o ffer.
I f , as Hoffer has presented i t , and as C a n tr il
im p lic itly in d ic a te s , th is is th e prim ary goal of the
movement advocate, one can understand why th e tr u e believerj
!
is not a hero ic fig u re to them. R egardless th e e s th e tic
329
value and th e temporary p a l l i a t i v e of group f l i g h t s in to
ecstasy* th e se authors are v i r t u a l l y p re se n tin g us with
dejected and rejected * amoral and immoral m is f its who may
pow erfully in flu en ce th e s o c ie ty .
The r a tio n a l visionary* th e p rin c ip le d man* th e
hum anistic m artyr a re m issing from th e panorama given us
in d escrib in g the ty p ic a l convert to s o c ia l movements.
In stea d we are presented w ith a p o r t r a i t of "a lie n a tio n * "
a lie n a tio n of th e most n eg ativ e s o r t in th a t i t leads to
blind a lle g ia n c e to whatever cause u t i l i z i n g whatever
means. The g is t of th is th in k in g is* I b e lie v e , p a in fu lly
narrow and em barrassingly g e n e ra l. The a c t i v i s t , according
to C a n tr il, is su g g estib le* not su g g e stin g , seeking i n t e r
p re ta tio n ra th e r than in te r p r e tin g . To Hoffer* he is simply
a re je c t* who tu rn s on to passion r a th e r than to id e a s.
To both* he is a lie n and d e v ia n t. Granted th e se men
confine themselves b a s ic a lly to d isc u ssin g what is c le a r ly
th e mass of follow ers (although they do not r e f e r to the
f a c t they leave out th e c a d re ), I f e e l th a t th e re is a
d e f in ite inadequacy in d e sc rib in g a l l mass movements as
simply peopled by deviant and su g g e stib le in d iv id u a ls who |
suddenly emerge as "tru e b e lie v e r s ." These authors devote
no time to the d isc u ssio n of those in d iv id u a ls who cc;te
to g en e ra lly embrace th e movement or a c o u n te rc u ltu re
because they f e e l th e in h eren t "rig h tn e ss" of th e p a r tic u la r
330
value-system Involved. Such in d iv id u a ls could jo in b a s ic
a l l y because of the moral fu n ctio n of the group, as
! described by Parsons (1951).
| Furtherm ore, C a n tr il and H offer have fa ile d to t r e a t
I a group of p o te n tia l converts who might a lso g ra v ita te
! towards a group fo r e ith e r or both of i t s norm ative and
!
| Inform ative fu n c tio n s . As described by K elley (1952),
| and K ie s le r and K ie s le r (1969)* such m otivation does not
!
n e c e s s a rily imply th a t t h i s new membership w ill p r iv a te ly
! accept the value-system or the goals of the group in focus,
i |
! R ather th e im portance of the group to th a t in d iv id u a l and
i
| i t s p o te n tia l rewards may lead him to f e e l r e a l or imagined
| group p ressu res and end in h is complying with ra th e r than
i i
i b elieving t r u l y In th e primary purpose of the group.
K ie s le r and K ie s le r define conform ity as a change in :
! b e lie f or behavior r e s u ltin g from r e a l or imagined group
j
| p re ssu re . T herefore, I f e e l th a t the tru e b e lie v e r and
I ’
| th e o v e rtly com pliant (but inw ardly unchanged) group member
I could be among those who have converted.
I t is s ig n ific a n t th a t th e c la s s ic w rite rs on th e
psychology of s o c ia l movements have f a ile d to make th is dis
tin c tio n . The tendency to ignore th i s " th ird fo rc e" is
| a lso found In the l i t e r a t u r e on the youth co u n tercu ltu re(s);
and s o c io - p o litic a l movements of th e s i x t i e s . I t w ill be
seen th a t th e tren d among both re se a rc h e rs and jo u r n a lis ts
331
is to a tte n d to the " s u p e rio r” and " in fe rio r," th e "god
lik e " and th e "deviant" while ignoring th a t very ty p ic a l
man or woman who f a l l s somewhere in between but who can
be swayed (a t le a s t tem p o rarily ) by th e e x tre m ist.
There e x is ts a body of l i t e r a t u r e which supports th e
views of C a n tr il and H offer in seeing th e in d iv id u a l
p o te n tia l convert ( p a r tic u la r ly to t o t a l i t a r i a n lead ersh ip )
as one a lie n a te d from h is p rese n t work of stu d y , lacking
a sense of group belongingness, fre q u e n tly g o a lle s s , and
d i s t r u s t f u l of h is own judgment or experience. The
authors I am th in k in g of mention th e importance of group
p ressu re to such in d iv id u als* in d ic a tin g many of them a re
lik e ly to conform to such f e l t p re ssu re . This theme of
a lie n a tio n as i t r e la te s to conform ity i s d isc u sse d , fo r
in sta n c e , by Marx (1932) in h is d e s c rip tio n of th e lumpen-
p r o l e t a r l a t . The read in ess w ith which lumpen may be
candidates fo r group p ressu re toward conform ity re in fo rc e s
th e p o in t I am tr y in g to make, fo r although a new member
may conform o v e r tly , h is very depth of d i s t r u s t and
estrangem ent may make him inwardly s k e p tic a l and not prone
to tr u ly b eliev in g .
Fromm (19*11) a lso sketches out a s itu a tio n wherein
th e c o lla p se of s ta b le human values in one s e ttin g may
produce in th e in d iv id u a l such in s e c u rity and u n c e rta in ty
as to lead him to seek or need new a u th o rity .
332
Merton (1957) emphasizes th e need in th e estranged
in d iv id u a l to be persuaded or to b e lie v e . His th e s is is
| s im ila r to th a t of H offer, fo r he d escrib es a rap id f l i g h t
in to f a i t h generated by th is need to b e lie v e . Again,
| however, I would r e a s s e r t my th e s is th a t th e alread y
s k e p tic a l in d iv id u a l, though genuinely needing to b e lie v e ,
may remain s k e p tic a l, u t i l i z i n g th e group fo r i t s rewards
and to sh ie ld him from th e reassum ption of p e rso n a l
a u th o rity . Inw ardly, however, he may be "uncommitted."
L ite ra tu re d ea lin g with a u th o rita ria n is m and r e la tin g
i t to a lie n a tio n and conform ity is a ls o found in th e works
of Adorno e t a l . (1950), C h r is tie and Cooke (1958),
Nahemow and Bennet (196^1), Roberts and Rokeach (1956),
and S ro le (1951). In a l l th ese s tu d ie s , the g en eral view
is th a t th e h ig h ly a lie n a te d in d iv id u a l is more p e rsu a sib le
or amenable to group p re ssu re s. Even in th e fin d in g s of
Nahemow and B ennet, th a t is o la te d re s id e n ts in a home fo r
th e aged were p e rsu a sib le on both issu e s of c u rre n t impor- !
tance and on " to p ic -fre e " m a te ria l, they do not in any j
way dem onstrate th a t they were persuaded inw ardly, only j
i
th a t they complied outw ardly.
I s h a ll ag ain r a is e th e iss u e of conform ity in th is
ch ap ter and in l a t e r se ctio n s of t h i s book sin c e i t seems
almost sham efully neglected in l i t e r a t u r e on such a c le a r ly
c o lle c tiv e phenomena as th e youth a c t i v i t i e s in the s i x t i e s .
333
Treatm ent of th e Youth by S o c ia l S c ie n tis t s :
Is Youth M essianic or Deviant?
J In the la rg e body of l i t e r a t u r e on th e youth co u n te r-
j
c u ltu re (or c o u n te rc u ltu re s ) and on campus p r o te s t, I
have noted an extrem ely stro n g tendency fo r th e su b je c tiv e
fe e lin g s of re se a rc h e rs to be b la ta n tly displayed as value
Judgments concerning th e s u p e rio rity or i n f e r i o r i t y of
y o u th fu l p ro te s to rs or members of th e c o u n te rc u ltu re . As
I in d icated in th e In tro d u c tio n to th is book, I do not
b eliev e such s u b je c tiv ity is in th e le a s t unusual in th e
s c i e n t i f i c aren a. R a th er, I presented th e argument of
Madsen (1970) who claim s th a t each s c ie n tis t- r e s e a r c h e r
brings w ith him h is p a r tic u la r m e ta th e o re tic a l or meta-
p h ilo so p h ic a l p o s itio n , what I have c a lle d h is image of
man. I elab o rated upon the th e s is of Madsen to s ta te
t h a t , not only in h is in te r p r e ta tio n of the r e s u lts of his
re se a rc h , but in th e very d ecisio n of what to study, the
s c i e n t i s t re v e a ls him self and h is i n t e r e s t s , v a lu e s, and
b ia se s. I suggested th a t re se a rc h e rs should d isc lo se
th e se a ttitu d e s e x p l i c i t l y , Ju st as though t h i s fa c to r
were p a rt of th e d a ta , in order th a t read ers could weigh
such m a te ria l along w ith th e r e s t of th e evidence.
In an in stan ce wherein one is studying a group as
com plicated as th e youth c o u n te rc u ltu re s became, i t seems
p a r tic u la r ly b e n e fic ia l to move in , get w ith th a t group,
334
and experience i t clo se-u p . Although se v e ra l of th e
re se a rc h e rs did make some attem pt a t p a rtic ip a n t-o b s e rv e r
stu d ie s or sta n c e s, Eouglas (1970) noted the d earth of
| tru e-fo rm rese arch of t h i s tim e in h is overview of th e
l i t e r a t u r e . I myself f e e l th a t th is is th e most b e n e fic ia l
and most a p p ro p ria te method fo r th i s area of re se a rc h ,
since i t a ffo rd s us p o te n tia lly th e r ic h e s t and e la b o ra te
d a ta , p a r tic u la r ly when one is on th e spot during an event,
or c r i s i s . Such d a ta , however, are s u b je c tiv e in t h e i r
o r ig in a l exchange between su b je c t and ob serv er, and w ill
su re ly be in te rp re te d s u b je c tiv e ly by th e observer. Ex
post fa c to a n a ly sis of th e data can sc a rc e ly be stu d ie d .
I r o n ic a lly , a ls o , th e re se a rc h e r who has made th e most
in tim ate of c o n ta c ts w ith h is s u b je c ts , who has come to
"share" th e ir very liv e s , w ill lik e ly be th e most su b je ct
to the c r i t i c a l read e r.
This d is s e r ta tio n is not th e proper arena fo r a f u l l j
argument of the j u s t i f i c a t i o n and lim ita tio n s of p a r t i c i
p an t-o b serv er methodology. I d£ te n d , however, to share
th e approach of Becker (19^3) who p re fe rs t h i s o r ie n ta tio n
to th e study of su b c u ltu re s, and who q u estio n s th e n o tio n
of th e term "deviance." Matson (1964) and P olanyi (1958)
are a lso noted fo r highly-convincing arguments in behalf j
s
of th is stance over th e more d i s t a l one of th e t r a d i t i o n a l j
s c i e n t i s t .
335
It is necessary, however, to warn the reader that the
closer one moves in and the more intimate he becomes
with his focal subjects, the more likely the researcher
is to be either smitten or turned off by a group, and to,
one could say, lose his "sense of balance." On the other
hand, a researcher may be so aware of this possibility as
to attempt to distance himself physically, but may not be
able to achieve "mental distance."
An example of the latter situation is to be found,
I believe, in the case of Richard Flacks, who seems to
distance himself more and more as his stream of thought
develops and changes. Flacks was himself an early officer
of SDS at the University of Michigan but failed to tell
us of his own political and social bias in his earlier
research (1967, 1970) when he clearly favored the "humanis
tic" stance of those students he studied. In the same way
he hid his political and philosophical bent from us in
the early articles, so did he fail to tell us in his later
work that, as SDS activists grew more revolutionary and
violent in action, they clearly departed from his own
attitudes and values. Therefore, his presenting them as a
much more human and less deified group of individuals than
in his earlier works is perhaps as much due to who he is
as to who they are, or who they became.
336
I f one looks in to F la c k s' e a rly "career" w ith SDS, one
le a rn s quickly he was f a r from being a Weatherman, and feeljs
th a t h is cooling o ff on SDS might have a lo t to do w ith th e
f a c t they were widely veering from th e course he might have
charted fo r them.
There are common modes, or sta n c e s, among th e researchj-
ers in t h i s a re a . From my read in g , I found few who could
avoid " e d ito r ia liz in g ," most seemed to be caught up in a
m atter which p erso n ally involved them, which c a rrie d them,
in other words, beyond th e i r p ro fe s s io n a l r o le . I include
myself in th is group, as you w ill see. I have had to
be s e le c tiv e in choosing which w rite rs I would t r e a t and
have th e re fo re used only those examples which a re most
b la ta n t or which rep rese n t th e th in k in g of th e most
popular or p r o lif ic w rite rs in t h i s a re a . By "popular,"
I mean to in d ic a te th o se books reaching th e la rg e s t number
of Americans, or re se a rc h e rs who were "m ost-published"
in th e p ro fe ssio n a l l i t e r a t u r e in th is to p ic . I
i
I i l l u s t r a t e s e v e ra l examples of each of the follow ing
te n d e n c ie s. (1) The tendency to g lo r if y both co u n te r
c u ltu re s defined p rev io u sly (th e a c t i v i s t and th e p a s s iv is t)
w ithout d is tin g u is h in g c a re fu lly which group one is ta lk in g
about. In some In sta n c e s, re se a rc h e rs did d iv id e th e
group in to " a c tiv i s ts " and "h ip p ie s," or some s im ila r type
of nominal d is t in c t io n , but s t i l l proceeded to d e ify or
337
Id e a liz e both elem ents. (2) The tendency to d en ig rate
both groups. This is one of th e le a s t freq u en t "happenings
in th e l i t e r a t u r e . (3) The tendency to g lo r if y one group
of youth and deny th e value of th e o th e r. This occurs
most fre q u e n tly in th e id o liz a tio n of th e r a d ic a l a c t i v i s t
and th e put-down of th e h ip p ie . In many of th e se in stan ce s
th e re se a rc h e r is r e a lly ta lk in g about the p a s s iv is t when
he u t i l i z e s th e term "h ip p ie ." (4) The tendency to t r e a t
only th e a c t i v i s t or p a s s iv is t element and to e ith e r
g lo r if y or d e n ig ra te whichever element Is tr e a te d . (5) To
s u c c e s s fu lly t r e a t both elements as com plicated groupings
of people, varying in value w ith th e d if fe re n t m o tiv a tio n s,
g o a ls, and behaviors of th e in d iv id u a l members. Under
t h i s grouping, I mention se v e ra l au th o rs who glim pse the
shadow of conform ity hovering over th e phenomena, but who
seldom tu rn th e lig h t on t h i s shadow, o fte n leav in g us w ith
a ghost of a complete ex p lan atio n . The most im portant
"m istake" made in a l l th e se d if f e r e n t modes of treatm en t
is th a t a n a ly sis or e v a lu atio n is custom arily addressed
to th e f o c a l group as a whole. In d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s
in m otivation are u su a lly n eglected t o t a l l y .
The Glorification or Denigration of Youth in The Sixties
Several social scientists rapidly adopted the stance
that the youth phenomenon of the sixties would radically
change our culture. Many of them felt the change would
336
be a p o s itiv e one, and in s e v e ra l in s ta n c e s , described th e
new youth as m essianic. Although most re se a rc h e rs adopted
a p o s itiv e point of view in t r e a tin g th e phenomenon,
se v e ra l a c tu a lly g lo rfy in g a c t i v i s t s or th e more p assiv e
c o u n te rc u ltu re , a few c r i t i c i z e d one or both of th e se
s u b c u ltu re s. As th e phenomenon mushroomed, however, many
re se a rc h e rs began to g rad u ally modify t h e i r previous stances
i
and to make fewer g e n e ra liz a tio n s . Few, however, moved
in to a c le a r ly c r i t i c a l c o n fro n ta tio n w ith a c t i v i s t or
p a s s iv is t elements in th e manner of q u e stio n in g , fo r
example, th e tru e extent of " ra d ic a liz a tio n " in la rg e
numbers of youth supposedly involved.
The stance adopted by th o se who p resen t extrem ely
fav o rab le p ic tu re s of a c t i v i s t and/or p a s s iv is t youth is
based, n a tu r a lly , on th e conception th a t something in th e
i
la rg e r so c ie ty or th e g en e ra l American c u ltu re has ab o rted .j
Youth’s re a c tio n s are then seen as d e ifie d in th e sense !
they move to "save" a dying s o c ie ty . I
This n o tio n is perhaps best d e lin e a te d by S la te r (1970)
in h is work, The P u rsu it of L o n e lin e ss. This au th o r i s
h ig h ly su c c e ssfu l in p re se n tin g us w ith a p o r t r a i t of
I
American c u ltu re which c le a r ly tu rn s us o f f. S la te r makes j
se v e ra l good p o in ts . He sees th e m ajo rity of Americans j
scorning th e new youth c u ltu re because of th e f a c t they j
are s e c r e tly a ttr a c te d by i t . This a t t r a c t i o n , says S la te d
339
is engendered by th e f a c t th a t th e new c u ltu re promises
th e s a tis f a c tio n of th re e basic needs which are uniquely
f r u s tr a te d in American s o c ie ty . These a re : th e need fo r
( l) community; (2) engagement; and (3) dependence. The
fa c t th a t th e se d e s ire s a re so deeply f ru s tra te d causes
in th e ty p ic a l American a p o te n tia l fo r conversion to th e
new c u ltu re , which is re p re s e n ta tiv e of opposite p o la r it ie s
to th e c e n tr a l c u ltu re in alm ost a l l in s ta n c e s . This
a n a ly sis is appealing and almost im possible to re p u d ia te .
S l a t e r 's adm iration and a d u la tio n fo r th e new c u ltu re
is u s u a lly , however, a t o t a l one. I t is dem onstrated in
t h i s statem ent wherein he c le a r ly stack s the cards fo r
i t in c r e d itin g i t with a l l of what he considers p o s itiv e
or v irtu o u s q u a l i t i e s , w hile d e scrib in g th e old c u ltu re
as t o t a l l y dehumanizing and dem oralizing.
The old c u ltu re , when forced to choose, tends
to g iv e p referen ce to property rig h ts over
p erso n al r i g h t s , te c h n o lo g ic a l requirem ents over
human needs, com petition over co o p e ra tin g ,
v iolence over s e x u a lity , c o n c e n tra tio n over
d is t r ib u t io n , th e producer over th e consumer,
means over ends, secrecy over openness, s o c ia l
forms over p erso n a l ex p ressio n , s tr iv in g over
g r a t i f i c a t i o n , O edipal love over communal love,
and so on. The new c o u n te rc u ltu re tends to r e
verse a l l of those p r i o r i t i e s . (p. 100)
S l a t e r 's c le a r p referen ce fo r what he c a l l s "the new
c u ltu re " is made obvious by h is excusing the violence of
youth, th e ta s te le s s n e s s of youth, th e abusiveness of
youth, the r a tio n a le of youth in d ic a tin g th a t such fa c to rs
3^0
are le ss im portant than the fa c t youth is "w illin g to make
a scene*" and not bend to th e d ic ta te s of th e old c u l t u r e 's
p a r tic u la r s o c ia l form. His th e s is is th a t in our zealous
p re se rv a tio n of " in d iv id u a lity * " we as a c u ltu re have
tr a g i c a l l y f a lle n in to a monotonous ro u tin e wherein th e
few ro le s a c tu a lly open to lead us toward a d isp lay of
"u n ifo rm ity ." S la te r makes a r a th e r spurious d is tin c tio n
between "uniform ity" and "conform ity" so as to j u s t i f y th e
conforming aspects of youth. He sees th e drive to remain
in d iv id u a l as removing from us th e chance of a tta in in g
th e th re e d e sire s mentioned previously* community, engage
ment* and dependence. Therefore* he sta te s * "W e p rid e
ourselves in being a 'democracy' but we are in fa c t slaves"
(p. 45). Is in d iv id u a lity n e c e s s a rily a n ta g o n istic to
an a b i l i t y to jo in th ese th re e d e s ire s?
He is one of th e few authors to make a c le a r
d is tin c tio n between " a c tiv is ts " and "dropouts*" or
" a c tiv i s ts " and "hippies" (th a t which I defined as a c t i v i s t
and p a s s iv is t elem ents). Yet* he makes th is d is tin c tio n
la te in his work and f a i l s to u t i l i z e i t fu n c tio n a lly .
In fact* he lin k s th e se groups to g e th e r in what he c a lls
an e ff e c tiv e two-pronged a tta c k a g a in s t th e old c u ltu r e .
He d escrib es th e h ip p ies as being a c tu a lly more r a d ic a l
in th a t they can drop a l l the v e stig e s of old values*
wherein th e r a d ic a l a c t i v i s t must play by some of th e old
3^1
games (co m p etitiv en ess, e t c .) in o rd er to win h is s tru g g le .
This is a good p o in t but one in d ic a tio n of S l a t e r ’s
" c u ltu ra l" p r i o r i t i e s . The a c t i v i s t s can use th e h ip p ies
to in d ic a te a c u ltu re in which th e "rev o lu tio n has alre ad y
happened," seeing them as th e id e a l form th e a c t i v i s t s
a re fig h tin g fo r on the b a t t l e f i e l d .
He again b a s ic a lly g e n e ra liz e s across th e two co u n ter
c u ltu re s when he s ta te s th a t youth does not a c t only fo r
p leasu re or p r a c t ic a l re a so n s, but because of moral founda
tio n s . "The p u ritan ism of youth d isp lay s i t s e l f in an
i n a b i l i t y to a c t w ithout id e o lo g ic a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Every
act becomes a moral act" (p. 8 0 ).
There is a somewhat su b tle in d ic a tio n th a t S la te r
does recognize th a t youth must o fte n use r a tio n a le in order
to make c e r ta in m atters in to id e o lo g ic a l is s u e s , yet he
never r e a lly adm its to t h i s openly. In th e follow ing
statem en t, fo r example, he n e g le c ts to p o in t out th a t
th e reasoning involved is c le a r ly th a t of th e p h ilo so p h ical!
j
e g o ist or h ed o n ist, which, i f one d efin e s moral judgment
as does Kohlberg ( 1969), is r e p r e s e n ta tiv e of a pre-m oral
le v e l of reasoning. Here is th e example;
What to d a y 's youth seems incapable of is a moral
d e fia n c e . They cannot assume th e r e s p o n s ib ility
of committing an a c t th a t they d efin e as immoral
but too p le a su ra b le to forego. The only way th a t
t h i s i s p o ssib le is to make an id e o lo g ic a l issu e
out of i t ( " i t ' s good f o r people to g et back in to
t h e i r bodies" or you have to do what you want to
d o "), (p. 8 0 ) _______________________
By o ffe rin g t h i s kind of reasoning as "m oral," S la te r in
a d v e rta n tly to p p le s h is own arguments fo r subm ission of
; p a rt of th e s e l f toward a group e th ic w herein, through
some s a c r i f i c e of s e l f , th e in d iv id u a l w i l l u ltim a te ly
gain something fo r h im self. What he has presented us w ith
in the above example is c le a r ly th e "do your own th in g "
e t h ic , so to u ted as a m otif in th e p a s s iv is t c o u n te rc u ltu re
as i t developed. I t seems to me th is a t t i t u d e or stance
is e x a c tly comparable to what he found both re p re h e n sib le
and t r a g i c , th e " d o -it-y o u rs e lf" stan ce of th e suburbanite
whose p erv erse in d iv id u a lity led u ltim a te ly to herm etic
is o la tio n from th e community and from group support.
Such is th e problem w ith many of the authors who do
not m itig a te t h e i r pure-form a d u la tio n fo r a c t i v i s t or
p a s s iv is t youth by a tte n d in g to p o ssib le ra m ific a tio n s of
some of th e a p p lic a tio n of " th e o r e tic a l id eas" they are
e ith e r p ra is in g or excusing.
|
Simmons and Winograd ( 1966) sketched one of the f i r s t j
i
p o r t r a i t s of th e youth c u ltu re , in which they tre a te d
th e whole phenomenon of " trip p in g " as_ one d e lig h tf u l super-j
t r i p . T heir s u p e r f ic i a l treatm en t of sw inging, swapping,
and smoking, a l l evidencing th e new "hang-loose e th ic ,"
enables them to perform th e same kind of t r i c k as did
S la te r wherein d if f e r e n t degrees of moral judgment, or
c le a r ly p arad o x ical sta n c e s , are haphazardly thrown to g e th e r
3^3
in to one "bag.," in order to ju s t i f y otherw ise qu estio n ab le
behavior.
Simmons and Winograd, fo r in sta n c e , in d ic a te th a t one
c h a r a c te r i s tic of th e "hang-loose eth ic" is i t s irre v e re n c e ,
|which r e s u lts in i t s v io la tio n of lo n g -e sta b lish e d a u th o ri
t i e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s . T his irre v e re n c e , according to th e
a u th o rs, r e s u lt s in y o u th ’s being able to stand up to
h is p aren ts and a s s e r t h is rig h tn e s s (but th e authors give
no examples of s itu a tio n s wherein youth is claim ing to be
" r ig h t" ) . Simultaneous w ith t h i s irre v e re n c e , y o u th ’s
hang-loose e th ic is a sso c ia te d w ith:
a d iffu s e and pervasive humanism which puts
g re a t sto re upon th e value of human beings
and human l i f e . Adherents don’t n e c e s s a rily
proclaim th e r a t i o n a l i t y of men or t h e i r i n
herent "goodness," but they do claim th a t people
are precious and th a t th e i r f u l l development is
perhaps th e most worth while of a l l th in g s .
(P. 13)
Yet how can we be s a t i s f i e d w ith th e leap to humanity
th e se authors make from ir r e v e r e n t, co o l, inward youth?
One reads very c a re fu lly and f e e ls th a t th e authors have
prepared a c a re fu l apologia fo r th e h e d o n is tic , s e l f -
centered behavior of young people. There are elem ents in
th e behavior of youth th a t do prompt i n t e l l i g e n t in q u iry ,
but th e authors c a re fu lly s k i r t th e more complex questions
by v irtu e of t h e i r s im p lis tic th e s is th a t most Americans
need to " t r i p o u t." The authors do make a few re fe re n c e s
to th e dangers involved in such a c t i v i t i e s . They do admit
b r ie f ly th a t p a rt of y o u th ’s e th ic is "experience fo r
e x p e rie n c e 's sa k e ." They seem to condone t h i s , however,
and do n o t, in any of th e s e in s ta n c e s , e n te r th e arena
of moral judgment them selves to a sk : "i s youth showing
th a t humanism they are espousing, or th a t we are lay in g on
to them?" Or: "Can we a ffo rd to so b la ta n tly g e n e ra liz e
th a t a l l th e se advocates of the hang-loose e th ic a re
'h u m a n istic '? "
These authors a ls o t r e a t both a c t i v i s t and p a s s iv is t
elem ents under one r u b ric , "w hat's happening," in d ic a tin g
I t i s , though s t i l l a m in o rity movement, transform ing
American s o c ie ty p o s itiv e ly . Like S la t e r , in h is a b i l i t y
to j u s t i f y any f a c to r in th e behavior of youth, Simmons
and Winograd b lith e ly skim over what they dem onstrate as
a lo o se , n o n id e o lo g ic a l, fre e-fo rm stan ce in th e New L e ft,
ju s tif y in g a l l of t h i s as "freedom ." One fe e ls t h e i r
e n t ir e c o n sid e ra tio n of p o l i t i c s so s u p e r f ic i a l th a t we
cannot accept t h e i r p ic tu re of New L eft a c t i v i s t s as any
th in g e ls e but t h e i r own " t r i p ."
Much le s s s u p e r f ic i a l than th e above authors in t h e i r
i
trea tm en t of th e youth phenomenon, but eq u a lly as "general"
and n o n sk e p tic a l in t h e i r co n clu sio n s, are p re se n ta tio n s
of such authors as Roszak, R eich, K eniston, F riedenburg,
and R e ic h a rt. Authors lik e Myerhoff and Flacks held such
a stan ce in t h e i r e a r l i e r works, but would l a t e r modify
345
t h e i r e a r l i e r p o s itio n s .
In th e w ritin g s of Roszak ( 1969) modern youth w ith
h is "apo caly p tic yearning^’ (p . 45) r i s e s t o mythic p ro
p o rtio n s , portrayed by the author as a courageous band
of cen tau rs a tta c k in g th e throne of Apollo.1
Like S la t e r , Roszak views contemporary America as a
decadent "technocracy" wherein th e hope fo r s a lv a tio n lie s
in th e hands of "tech n o cracy 's c h ild re n ." A dm itting th a t
th e r a d ic a l c u l tu r a l c o n s te lla tio n rep resen ted by youth
"has much m aturing to do before i t s p r i o r i t i e s f a l l in to
p lace and before any w ell-developed s o c ia l cohesion grows
up around i t " ( p . x i i ) , th e author n o n eth eless gives us
th e p ic tu re throughout h is work th a t youth, through i t s
development of a new su b je c tiv e consciousness, is alre ad y
th e r e .
Roszak does t h i s s k i l l f u l l y and su b tly through th e
p re s e n ta tio n of i d e a l i s t i c concepts of y o u th 's heroes and
m entors, H erbert Marcuse, Norman 0. Brown, A llen G ins
berg, Alan W atts, Paul Goodman, and Abraham Mas low. The
read e r is so caught up in th e thoughts and fe e lin g s of
th e se v is io n a r ie s , he l i t e r a l l y "fo rg e ts" th a t he i s in
a c tu a l ity reading a book about r a d ic a l a d u l ts , not
r a d ic a l youth.
Roszak, in p re se n tin g th e philosophy of many of our
most avant-garde th in k e r s , p re se n ts us w ith th e concept
3 46
of re v o lu tio n on a l l f r o n ts , in te r n a l and e x te rn a l. He,
th e re fo re , i s g u ilty of again f a i l i n g to se p arate the
a c t i v i s t and p a s s iv is t c o u n te rc u ltu re s which were already
I
i b ifu rc a tin g as he wrote h is book.
Like the au th o rs mentioned p re v io u sly , Roszak breezes
| over what he adm its o ld er ra d ic a ls q u estio n as to an a c tu a l
i
; re v o lu tio n a ry bent or ideology in modern youth. He b lit h e
ly throws out any p o ssib le c r itic is m s . Youth as a whole |
l
i
(in t h i s p a r tic u la r se c tio n , he is a c tu a lly ta lk in g about
h ip p ie s) c le a r ly has "healthy i n s t i n c t s " (p. 4 l) and is
r a d ic a lly " d i s a f f il ia te d " (p. 39).
Roszak, lik e Reich who would follow him, is convinced
| th a t th e ascendance to a new c u ltu r a l consciousness alone J
I ;
I w ill r e s u l t in a new world, yet he is not n e a rly so
i i
a p o l i t i c a l as is Reich (1970).
I f e e l th a t th e choice of t i t l e fo r h is book is
| symbolic irony f o r , reading i t , one ends by fe e lin g th a t
i i t is th e author him self who has "apocalyptic yearnings"
I and has, by v irtu e of th is d riv e , "engaged in th e making of
j '
ia c o u n te rc u ltu re ." He spins th e th rea d s fo r the m ille n a ri-
an fa b ric described by B urridge (19&9).
The e f f e c t on youth of being passed the mythic G ra il
i I
! I
! i s b e a u tifu lly described in a sh o rt d e s c rip tio n of y o u th 's i
i :
| overblown v isio n of h im self, as sketched by flfyerhoff (1971b):!
3^7
The id e a l re v o lu tio n a ry was described by one
young man as a p o st-w a rrio r, re p re se n tin g th e
d u al n atu re of th e re v o lu tio n : m ilita n t stru g g le
and joyous c re a tio n . Like Weberian exemplary
pro p h ets, th ese lead ers had a c tu a lly begun to
p r a c tic e , model, and dem onstrate th i s new l i f e
s ty l e . The symbol of the p o st-w a rrio r was
extrem ely e f f e c tiv e , p re c is e , and u s e f u l ...
(p. 109)
And:
With a fo o t in two d iffe re n t p la n es, lik e a
c l a s s i c a l shaman, th e p o st-w a rrio r bridges th e
r e a l world and th e world of men’s f a n ta s ie s ,
the world of grim, m ilita n t d eterm ination and
s tru g g le , and th e world of whimsy, p le a su re ,
and f r i v o l i t y , (p. 1 1 6)
This highly id e a liz e d p ic tu re of youth (him self a Messiah
in a Messianic movement) merges a c t i v i s t and p a s s iv is t
elements in to a rom antic p ic tu re of th e c la s s ic r e b e l-
prophet co n fro n tin g a decadent world. I t is seen again in
th e n o n c r itic a l p ic tu re of R e ic h a rt:
A lienated youth is not to be confused w ith unpro
d u ctive youth. Through th e a c tio n th a t ch arac
te r iz e s h is s t a t e , he shares w ith many a c re a tiv e
person the ca u tio n of Camus in The S tran g er th a t
i t takes courage to liv e in an absurd w o rld ...
w hile r e je c tin g the a c q u isitiv e n e ss of middle
c la ss v alu es, he demands th e freedom to remain
y o u n g ...h e shows his m a tu rity by not wanting to
grow u p ...H is iconoclasm goes beyond a breaking
w ith t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c e p ts .. .in to a pervasive
l i f e fo rce th a t r is k s self-estran g em en t in th e
land of the H ippie, of th e Yippie of th e New
L eft w hile attem pting new r e la tio n s h ip s with
human-kind through expressions of l i f e w ithout
th e f e a r s of sex. (19^9* P. 1^5)
In h is flow ery p o r t r a i t of contemporary youth as c r e a tiv e |
I
a r t i s t , R e ic h a rt's g e n e ra liz a tio n s and lack of h ea lth y !
1
skepticism again re p re se n t to me t h a t , i f nothing e l s e , I
348
th e s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t in t h i s area of youth re se a rc h is
c o rre c t about th e need of modern man to b eliev e in something^
to c u ltiv a te a new f a i t h .
In th e only work of i t s ty p e , In th e Country of th e
Young (1970), John A ld rid g e, a l i t e r a r y c r i t i c , tak es a
sta n ce d ia m e tric a lly opposite to th o se previously-quoted
a d u la to rs of the youth phenomenon to sc a th in g ly a tta c k the
developing youth c u l tu r e ( s ) . Knowing he is a p aria h in
th is in sta n c e , A ldridge s ta te s t h a t :
I have departed from popular custom by presuming
to suggest th a t th e in flu e n c e of th e young is
not always s a lu to ry , th a t t h e i r motives are not
always im peccable, and th a t th e fa c t of th e i r
youth does not by i t s e l f guarantee them a mono
poly on th e w orld’s v ir tu e s , (p. v ii)
A ldridge is th e only author who openly s ta te s one of th e
m otifs of th i s d isc o u rse , t h a t , in f a c t , th e f a s t growth
of th e youth phenomenon had by th e tim e of h is w ritin g
re s u lte d in to a r a th e r u n ifie d m a jo rity opinion which was
ra p id ly hardening in to a kind of dogmatic and c la u s tr o
phobic p ie tism , p re c is e ly th e opposite from th a t which
youth had claimed o r ig in a lly i t d esired to spawn.
As A ldridge s t a t e s , he plays d e v i l ’s advocate. He j
questions p re c is e ly th a t which o th er au th o rs we have quoted
(and s e v e ra l we have yet to quote) p o p u larly assume, "th a t
th e c u rre n t young are th e most i n t e l l i g e n t , s e n s itiv e ,
m orally scrupulous, and g e n e ra lly m agnificent g en eratio n
1
ever to grace human h isto ry " (p. ix ) . j
3^9
C ontrary to th e p ic tu re of an oppressed group, domina
te d by a g e re n to c ra tic m a jo rity , A ldridge gives us th e
p ic tu re of th is country as having been dominated, taken
over com pletely by youth fo r some 25 y ears. The a d u lts ,
says t h i s au th o r, are th e ones who f e e l tr u ly oppressed
and enslaved. He s ta te s th a t th e a d u lts a c tu a lly modelled
in youth, by tr e a tin g them so obsequiously, th e concept of
having l i t t l e re sp e c t fo r a d u lts and a "grossly in fla te d
re sp e c t fo r them selves"(p. 9 ). In c re a tin g fo r youth a
world in which they had c a r te blanche en tree to t h e i r own
p leasu res and th e f u lfillm e n t of a l l th e i r d e s ire s ,
a d u lts fu rth e r dim inished them selves by ir o n ic a lly sub
s id iz in g t h e i r re b e llio n ag a in st th e very world th a t had
nu rtu red them. A ldridge claim s s ig n if ic a n tly (and I w ill
fu rth e r d iscuss th is p o in t l a t e r ) th a t t h i s r e b e llio n was
eq u ally as m a te r ia l is ti c and d iv e rsio n a ry as th a t world
they now scorned.
A ldridge sketches fo r us a p ic tu re of youth as p h i l i s
t i n e , as unaware, nonq u a l ita tiv e , noni n t e l l e c t u a l , non
d isc rim in a tin g . The very fa c to rs which o th er w rite rs have
alluded to , p ra ise d , or l e t p a ss, A ldridge pounces on and j
a tta c k s . He speaks to th e many paradoxes e x is te n t between
th e r h e to ric and th e a c tio n of youth, and i s perhaps the
only author who does not attem pt to mask th e submergence ofj
th e in d iv id u a l in to th e peer-group c o lle c tiv e . A ldridge !
| 350
a ls o dares to mention "conform ity" as c h a r a c te r i s tic of
the mass youth phenomenon. This is a concept th a t has
i
| been a t best in d ic a te d c o v e rtly by s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t s and
| never tre a te d e x te n siv e ly . A ldridge is not a p sy c h o lo g ist,
i
|n o t a s o c io lo g is t; he is a l i t e r a r y c r i t i c . T herefore,
!though he mentions conform ity, h is treatm en t of i t is as
j
a c u l tu r a l c r i t i c , ra th e r than as s c i e n t i f i c re se a rc h e r
jwho can p resen t us w ith supportive d a ta .
I Yet th is " l i a b i l i t y " is a ls o an a s s e t, fo r A ldridge
|
is looking a t th e phenomena in q u estio n from a d if f e r e n t
p o in t-o f-v iew than th e s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t . He i s adm ittedly
j
|f e a r f u l of th e d e se c ra tio n of a c u ltu re by a su b c u ltu re
|which is c a re le s s in idea and random in a c tio n . Like j
| Mencken before him, he c le a rly fe e ls th a t the g re a te s t
|danger to America i s th e growth of p h ilis tin is m , and he
| makes i t c le a r th a t Mencken's d e s c rip tio n of mobocracy, th e
i
|ta k in g over of t h i s country by boobus Americanus, fo r him
I has i t s danger embodied in th e emergence of the h e rd lik e
! youth c o lle c tiv e .
S ta te s A ldridge, "They must be th e f i r s t g en eratio n
! in h is to ry to see i t s e l f from the o u tse t as a herd ra th e r
than as an aggregate of p riv a te persons who happen to be
! th e same age" (p. 48). Youth, th e re fo r e , cops out on ideas|
i j
j of p erso n al ex cellen ce or achievement: %
i j
! the b e tte r l i f e fo r them is not to be found in
the development of the s e lf in s p it e o f, or in
351
o p p o sitio n t o , so c ie ty but r a th e r in th e tr a n s
form ation of th e s tru c tu re s of s o c ie ty , a t r a n s
form ation which they seem to b eliev e w ill enable
everyone to liv e in a s ta te of continuous e c s ta
t i c to g e th e rn e sa (p. ^ 9 )
This consumption in c o lle c tiv e passion reminds us
ag ain of M yerhoff's p e n e tra tin g connection of th e concept
of communitas w ith the youth phenomenon (1971c). Says
A ldridge, cap tu rin g th e mythic q u a lity Myerhoff as w ell
p o rtra y e d :
Even th e co rp o rate n a tu re of t h e i r re b e llio u sn e ss
is b e a u tifu lly in c h a ra c te r fo r a g en e ra tio n
accustomed from the c ra d le to th in k in g , a c tin g ,
lo v in g , and h a tin g in union. Yet th e re i s some
th in g about th e very p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of th e whole
perform ance, e s p e c ia lly I t s q u a lity of seeming
so ev id e n tly to be a perform ance, th a t is both
p u zzlin g and a lT F tle ominous. One has th e sense
a t tim es of w itn e ssin g an enactm ent, and th e
in c e ssa n t re-enactm ent, of an i n i t i a t i o n r i t u a l
...L ik e f r ie z e fig u re s on a G racian u rn , the
young of today seem to be a rre s te d fo re v e r, and
to have chosen to be a rre s te d fo re v e r, in t h e i r
stan ce of c o n fro n ta tio n , and to view w ith h o rro r
th e prospect of passing beyond i t . (pp. 59- 6 1 )
One can s w iftly f e r r e t out th e f a c t th a t as S la te r eleg ized
t h i s s a c r if i c e of in d iv id u a lity to th e s o -c a lle d group
e th ic , A ldridge d e c rie s i t , as dehumanizing, immature,
and lacking in consciousness.
What th e author has done, in f a c t , is to p rese n t us
a p ic tu re c le a r ly rem iniscent of Riesman’s o th e r-d ire c te d
man (1950). Spouting in d iv id u a lity and, in f a c t , u t i l i z i n g
th e "do-your-ow n-thing" e th ic as r a tio n a le fo r any and a l l
a c tio n s , A ldridge d escrib es th e modern g en e ra tio n as
|c l e a r ly motivated by th e fo rc e and norms of th e c o lle c tiv e .
I
R egardless any r h e to r ic to the contrary* A ldridge would
never view th e c o u n te rc u ltu re as a c o lle c tio n of autonomous
!in d iv id u a ls .
I f e e l th a t many of h is id eas a re highly p ro v o cativ e.
! They are in union w ith many of my own thoughts and th e data
|on the in flu en c e of peer-group and a "popular mass phenome-
inon" as p resented in P a rt I I I . A ld rid g e ’s work is un-
I
fa m ilia r to s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t s and h is view i s sin g u la r
jand s ig n if ic a n t.
| S ev eral w rite rs a tte n d to only one aspect of the
|youth phenomenon* g lo rify in g th a t p a r tic u la r a sp e c t.
i
| Howard Zinn (19&5) a w rite r we have quoted e x te n siv e ly j
! in regards to the C iv il R ights Movement and th e SNCC youth.!
| I
!He is tr e a tin g th e p o l i t i c a l a c tiv is t* th e re fo r e . To !
I him* the youth of SNCC were re p re s e n ta tiv e of a highly
j '
| unique s o c ia l movement of deeply committed young people who
I were "shaking th e n a tio n to i t s bones" (p. 1 ). Zinn gives
i youth c r e d it fo r providing th e major impetus fo r th e C iv il
Rights Movement and w rite s : "To walk w ith th e m ...is to
f e e l th e presence of g re a tn e ss" (p. 2 0 ). Perhaps more
: than any oth er w rite r who engaged in g lo r if ic a tio n of j
: an e n tir e group of youth* Zinn may be a c c u ra te in h is !
I estim ate* fo r h is m a te ria ls were garnered d ire c tly * fo r the!
j most part* he having been on th e spot a t many events over
353
a long period of tim e. He does focus on one p a r tic u la r
phenomenon but he does not g en e ra liz e beyond i t . Nor does
he reach h is conclusions from a narrow base. R ath er,
h is su b je cts rep rese n t some fo u r-an d -o n e-h alf years of the
C iv il R ights Movement and were from both th e cadre and the
fo llo w ers.
Flacks ( 1967, 1970) is outspoken in h is p re se n ta tio n
of a newly "hum anistic" group of youth a c t i v i s t s . His
e a rly stu d ie s avoid d iscu ssio n of th e p a s s iv is t co u n te r
c u ltu re and he b a s ic a lly concerns him self w ith sm all
numbers of SDS le a d e rs, th e p o l i t i c a l o rg an iz atio n of which
he him self had been an e a rly le a d e r. He never mentions
t h i s "bias" in h is re p o rts . R eferrin g to those a c t i v i s t s
as "the lib e ra te d generation" ( 1967) , Flacks fin d s four
value p a tte rn s c h a ra c te riz in g them: (1) Romanticism, or
e s th e tic and em otional s e n s i t i v i t y ; (2) I n te lle c tu a lis m ;
(3) Humanitarianism; and (4) Moralism and S e lf-C o n tro l,
He supports h is claim s with d ata showing th a t a c t i v i s t s
(In comparison with n o n a c tiv is ts ) "scored higher" in the
f i r s t th re e areas and lower in th e t r a d i t i o n a l m o rality
s c a le than did n o n a c tiv is ts . The data was obtained via
Interview m a te ria l, however, and Flacks t e l l s us l i t t l e
about h is coding procedure or h is q u estio n s. Furtherm ore,
although a c t i v i s t s scored higher than did n o n a c tiv is ts
on th e f i r s t th re e value se ts mentioned, th e percentage of
354
a c t i v i s t s in th e high code-category was a c tu a lly only
32- 35$ wherein th e c le a r m a jo rity of a c t i v i s t s scored in
th e medium and low c a te g o rie s on th e se v a r ia b le s . In th e
medium c a te g o rie s , the percentages were as fo llo w s:
V ariable 1: 47$; V ariable 2: 65$; V ariable 3: 47$.
C onsidering th e medium and low c a te g o rie s to g e th e r, th e
percentages were: V ariab le 1: 65$; V ariab le 2 : 68$;
V ariab le 3: 65$. Flacks t o t a l l y n e g le c ts to even mention
th is s ig n if ic a n t f a c t , much le s s emphasize i t .
As a m atter of f a c t , he does l i t t l e to f i l t e r or
temper h is p ic tu re of an i d e a l i s t i c , hum anistic youth pro
t e s t movement "designed" to r e s to r e th e dem ocratic values
i n s t i l l e d in them by p aren ts who had f a ile d to a c t th ese
values o u t. R egardless of the fa c t th a t he does mention
( 1970) th a t th e movement is growing more heterogeneous,
he skims over th a t f a c t and is s a tis f ie d to present us only
w ith th e more p o s itiv e and glowing asp ects of th e p ic tu re .
Such is th e n atu re of th e treatm en t of a few w rite rs
|
who b a s ic a lly focus on th e c u l tu r a l asp ects of th e youth j
i
phenomenon. Myerhoff (19&9) 1 1 1 one her e a r l i e s t a r t i - j
c le s on the youth phenomenon, claim s she i s in clu d in g both I
p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t and flo w er-c h ild in h e r tre a tm e n t, but
a c tu a lly t r e a t s e x c lu siv e ly asp ects of a c u l t u r a l n atu re
such as th e natu re e th o s, tr ip p in g , th e g en eratio n gap,
e tc . M yerhoff’s treatm en t of youth in th is e a r l i e r essay
355
is almost as though she were dazzled . The youth group
members are "new hum anists." The idea th a t they may save
th e decadent a d u lt so c ie ty is again supported. In f a c t ,
she s ta te s th a t only th e midnight and weekend h ip p ies of
the ad u lt world can co rru p t th e young hum anists, and stop
t h e i r odyssey. This is one in s ta n c e , however, wherein a
s o c ia l s c i e n t i s t s tic k s w ith an i n t e r e s t over a period of
y e a rs, to p a r a l l e l th e development of th e phenomenon w ith
a growing s o p h is tic a tio n and s k e p tic a l in q u iry of her
own, fo r " la te r Myerhoff" is c le a r ly no longer s ta g e -s tru c k ,
providing us a p e n e tra tin g and c r i t i c a l view of d if fe re n t
aspects of both a c t i v i s t and p a s s iv is t elem ents.
Friedenburg a lso remains with th e c u l tu r a l asp ects
of the youth phenomenon. He i s a stubborn champion of
contemporary youth r e v o lt, re fu sin g to see i t as th e
customary g e n e ra tio n a l c o n f lic t, or to view a lie n a te d
youth as K eniston ( 1965) d id , as un-committed. R ather,
Friedenburg speaks only to p o s itiv e asp ects of th e counter-!
i
c u ltu re , p o rtra y in g a l l youth as being n o n v io le n t, "firm ly
convinced th a t they w ill never become lik e th e ir e ld e rs ,
a n d .. .w illin g to make th e most extreme s a c r if ic e s of comfor-f:
and s e c u rity to avoid th is fate" (p. 2 5 ). He is so c o n fi
dent in th e committed n atu re of youth th a t he co nsiders
they w ill never change th e i r values to those of t h e i r
p a re n ts, th a t they w ill, in f a c t , be le ss s o c ia liz a b le
than ju v e n ile d e lin q u e n ts* because th e ir values diverge
so much more. He claim s th a t "they can s u s ta in each
! oth er em otionally" (p. 2 6 ). He avoids* however* any
re feren ce to th e f a c t th a t many do not s u s ta in them selves
fin a n c ia lly * but lean back on th e i r parents* even fo r
rock-record money.
He so id o liz e s youth he sees them as able to escape
th e s o c ia liz a tio n process which* to him* is* by d e fin itio n *
an " a lie n a tin g one" in th a t i t always reduces p o ssib le
a l te r n a ti v e s . As in his e a r l i e r work wherein he described
th e g e n e ra tio n a l "war" between a d u lts and youth ( 1965)*
he in s i s t s h erein th a t the c o n f lic t of in te r e s t between
a u th o rity and th e new youth is so g reat th a t h ip p ie s "are
harassed in v ir tu a l ly a l l schools" (p. 3 1) . I found th a t
statem ent a p a r tic u la r ly bald one* e s p e c ia lly co n sid erin g
th a t i t was 1969 when h is a r t i c l e was published* and
by then "radicalism " had become le ss and le ss unique among
j
youth and was more rein fo rc ed by both ad u lts and other |
j
young people. As w ill be discussed la te r* th e magnitude
of the phenomenon a t th a t tim e made i t so popular th a t
most schools could not "affo rd " to h assle g re a t numbers
of th e ir stu d e n ts.
S everal w rite rs favor th e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t and
e ith e r o v e rtly or c o v e rtly question th e value of th e
behavior and a ttitu d e s of his "hippie b ro th e r." In th is
357
category are A llen (1970, 1971)> Hampden-Turner (1970)
Hampden-Turner and W hitten (1971)> and K eniston ( 1968a,
1968b ) .
Based on my observations and on s e lf - r e p o r ts of
stu d en ts recording the process of decision-m aking they
followed leading to t h e i r p a r tic ip a tio n or n o n p a rtic ip a tio n
in th e 1970 Student S tr ik e , I d istin g u ish e d th re e charac
t e r i s t i c types of re b e ls ( 1970).
I saw the f i r s t as a Freudian r e b e l in th a t he or she
was b a s ic a lly p le a s u re -o rie n te d , co n c en tratin g on th e
here and now as a means of reducing h is or her an x iety
about th e ab su rd ity of modern e x iste n c e . In th i s way, th e
"p ro te s to r" is lik e M a iler’s hip w hite negroes (1957).
The h ed o n istic escap er, th e n i h i l i s t , and th e a n a rc h ist
a l l f i t in to th e "Freudian category" I described a t th a t
tim e. I p ic tu red t h i s kind of r e b e l as a " tr ip p e r ." Ju st
as sketched by Simmons and Winograd ( 1966) , th is in d iv id u a l
a c tiv e ly sought
su b je c tiv e experiencing which combines th e
in te n se and th e e x tr a o rd in a r y .. .t h i s d ir e c t
experience can be a n y th in g .. .th e u ltim ate in
tr ip p in g is to reach a s ta te of awareness so
heightened and unmediated th a t i t overwhelms and
tem p o rarily supplants o n e's ordinary conceptions
and perceptions of o n e's s e lf and o n e's world.
(pp. 31-32)
Camus wrote of t h i s type of man as l'homme absurde
(19*12). He sees th e world as ch a o tic because of th e d i s
p a r ity between h is v isio n s and h is e x p e c ta tio n s, and what
358
r e a l ly i s . Out of th e disappointm ent and in s e c u rity
engendered by r e a l i t y , he experiences resentm ent and s tr ik e s
j back, s tr ik e s o u t, g e ttin g what he can fo r him self. The
end r e s u lt is not u su a lly the tru e re s o lu tio n of any
problem, or e x i s t e n t i a l dilemma, but in th e le a s t he is
afforded th e Joy of re b e llio n and a temporary red u ctio n
of te n sio n . In some manner, he has momentarily weakened
th e oppressive fo rces of a u th o rity and so c ie ty (the super
ego c o n s tr a in ts ) .
Myerhoff (1971b) a lso sketched the p ic tu re of the
"rev o lu tio n as t r i p " in her p e n e tra tin g an a ly sis of the
1970 S trik e as experienced by members of the youth co u n ter
c u ltu re .
I continued my 1970 d isc u ssio n of r e b e llio n by
d e lin e a tin g a second type of r e b e l, whom I c a lle d the
American r e b e l . This youth remained tru e to his c u l tu r a l-
c o n d itio n in g , co m p etitiv ely playing "an American game."
For him, th e cause became h is temporary product and h is
o nly s a tis f a c tio n would come " if th e cause (were) a suc
c e s s , i f h is c o n d itio n s (were) m et"(p. 7 2).
Although I never s ta te d i t can d id ly , I was im p lic itly
judging th e th ir d type of r e b e l, whom I c a lle d the humanis
t i c r e b e l, as m orally su p e rio r. This man was, fo r me, a t
i
th e f i n a l stag e in what I was d e scrib in g as th e develop
m ental process toward mature re v o lu tio n . He i s , lik e
359
Camus’ I ’homme re v o lte (1951)* committed to a c tio n on
p rin c ip le * knowing he might have to compromise* or fig h t
ag a in st g re a t odds only to lose* but I f e l t th a t "he
{continues to ac t anyway" (p. 75). 1 commented t h a t : "At
| t h i s s ta g e , h is g re a te s t cause is not an issue* nor even
him self* b u t. . .hum anity"(p. 75). In th is context* I
quoted Camus who wrote of h is c la s s ic r e b e l: Je me
rev o lte* done nous sommes (I rebel* th e re fo re we a r e ) .
In d isc u ssin g th e progress toward mature re v o lu tio n
as developmental* a development th a t c le a r ly involved
e t h i c a l considerations* I found on meeting Charles Hampden-
Turner in Amsterdam in the summer of 1970 th a t our work
n e a tly d o v e -ta ile d . This w ill be explained s h o rtly .
F u rth e r research by A llen and Kaplan (1971) led me
to make an im portant d is tin c tio n between conscience and
consciousness (Allen, 1971). Although increased conscious
ness involves expanded awareness, I f e l t th is does not
n e c e s s a rily imply any kind of commitment, nor p rin c ip le d
a c tio n , wherein the very n o tio n of conscience* when re la te d
to a s o c io - p o l itic a l concern* does* by d e fin itio n * d ic ta te
th a t one a c ts on o n e's b e lie f s . At th is time* th erefo re*
I d istin g u ish e d between the committed re b e l who a c ts
e x te rn a lly fo r h is cause* and th e youth who may be
"conscious" of a l l manner of s o c ia l in e q u itie s* but who is
p rim a rily focused on the I n te rn a l a c tio n of g e ttin g h is
360
own head straightened out. My conclusion was clearly
stated in the form of a value-judgment: "Socio-political
revolution cannot remain a solely internal matter." It
was for this reason that I strongly criticized Charles
Reich (1970).
Although I did not know it at the time, I was engaged
in the idolization of the activist and denigration of
the passivist. Furthermore, I held in my hands data
definitively illustrative of a third group, a group of
"imitators" or "noncommitted actors" (rather than activists).
Even though I did state that the revolution was by then
in vogue and that several students in the Allen and Kaplan
study seemed to be other-directed, the full impact of
what I would later describe as peer-group conformity
had not yet hit me.
Hampden-Turner (1970) and Hampden-Turner and Whitten
(1971) combined the moral-developmental scale of Kohlberg
( 1969) , the work of Maslow ( 1961), and the research of
Haan, Smith, and Block ( 1968) to virtually make some of
the same distinctions as I had.
i
i
Students taking a survey for Haan, Smith, and Block |
( 1 9 6 8) were asked to take the Kohlberg Moral Judgment test.
Two levels of reasoning were found to be characteristic of
students who had formerly participated in the Berkeley FSM.
One of these groups characteristically made moral judgments
361
a t K ohlberg's Stage 2 , th a t le v e l described as being "pre-
moral" in th a t i t involves making d ecisio n s out of the
basic m otivation of s a tis f y in g o n e's own needs, th e re fo re
d ealin g w ith o th ers s o c ia lly in terms of " re c ip ro c ity and
exchange." On th e other hand, the second group of FSM
a c t i v i s t s made moral judgments a t Stage 6, c h a r a c te r i s tic
of people who are m otivated to p ro te s t out of conscience
or p r in c ip le , which o r ie n ta tio n may a c tu a lly lead in d iv i
duals to make choices o u tsid e of convention or law, i f
th e law should be a n ta g o n is tic to t h e i r own conscience
in a given in sta n c e . I t might be noted th a t in d iv id u a ls
a t th ese two le v e ls correspond in terms of moral develop
ment to my concepts of th e Freudian re b e l and th e Humanistic
re b e l as described p re v io u sly .
In 1970, Hampden-Turner compared the "Stage 6 youth"
w ith Maslow's s e lf- a c tu a liz e d man. He and W hitten (1971)
hypothesized th a t th e "Stage 2 a c t i v i s t " p o ssib ly re p re
sented th e group of h ip p ies and s t r e e t people which p a r
tic ip a te d in th e FSM but who were not so c o n s ta n tly in
volved in p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . In referen ce to th a t
group, th ese authors wrote th a t? "The communal, ex p e rien tia l
tra p p in g s of th e c o u n tercu ltu re--m ig h t eq u a lly w ell be
in te rp re te d as a re g re ssio n to an egocentric sta te " ( 1971,
p. 7 6). Hampden-Turner and W hitten did mention in the
j
above a r t i c l e th a t ra d ic a lism had become by then "a lo c a l
362
co n v e n tio n ," but th e y , lik e t h i s author in her 1970 study,
fa ile d a t th a t tim e to t r e a t th e phenomenon of "im ita tio n "
as f u lly as i t deserved to be tr e a te d . They m ight, fo r
in sta n c e , have ruminated about th e p o s s i b ilit y of in d i
v id u a ls from Stages 3 and k 9 those "conventional" le v e ls
of m o rality most c h a r a c te r is tic of th e m a jo rity of Ameri
cans according to Kohlberg, c ro ssin g over to jo in r a d ic a l
e f f o r t s in such in stan ces as those e f f o r ts re p re se n t the
c u rre n t m ajo rity a c t i v i t y . This w ill be d e a lt w ith in
P art I I I .
K eniston ( 1968a, 1968b) studied a dozen young people
working on Vietnam Summer, a p ro je c t intended to engender
g re a te r community awareness and p a r tic ip a tio n in regards
to the War. Adm ittedly on the side of th ese young a c t i
v is ts and concurring w ith most of th e ir b e l ie f s , K eniston
ends in providing th e same kind of c o n tra s t as did A llen
and Hampden-Turner, c h a ra c te riz in g his interview ees as
"committed," tr e a tin g them as m orally su p e rio r to the
so c ie ty they are attem pting to change, and comparing them
favorably to th e group of " c u ltu r a lly a lie n a te d youth"
he had stu d ied in th e e a rly s ix t ie s ( 1 9 6 5). In a la te r
work ( 1972), he d istin g u ish e d th re e types of ty p ic a l college
youth, a lie n a te d youth, conform ists, and a c t i v i s t s .
K en isto n ’s conform ist group is th a t which complies
w ith th e p rev alen t conventions of th e s o c ie ty . He makes
363
no mention of conformity within the radical passivist or
radical activist groups. Because of the vast spread of
these phenomena by this time, I now feel this to be a
i
significant omission.
Keniston's oversight is also an ironic one since,
amidst his own subjective data from leaders of the Vietnam
Summer effort, there is clear evidence that the basic
commitment of many of the individuals was to the collective
rather than to any issue per se. Numerous self-reports
contain statements wherein interviewees state they have
"no ideology," or are not "ideologues." Yet the author
never takes these statements and probes them, asking:
"What is the true degree of their commitment?" Or: "To
what are these young individuals actually committed?"
Perhaps the most marked example of d e if ic a tio n is
found in th e work th a t gained th e most p o p u lis t re c e p tio n
among th e American p u b lic , R e ic h 's Greening of America
(1970). R e ich 's p a tte rn is an in te r e s tin g one, fo r he
is s t e l l a r in th a t he g lo r i f i e s th e c u l tu r a l asp ects of
y o u th 's r e v o lt, w hile su b o rd in atin g or c r i t i c i z i n g the
s o c io - p o l itic a l p r o te s t. In th is manner, h is th in k in g is
in d iam etric c o n tra s t to th a t group of authors we have
ju s t presented.
Generally, his work follows the lead of Roszak, for
he, too, pictures youth as savior stepping in to change
3 64
the d e stin y of a m onstrous, co rp o rate technology. He i s ,
however, cu lpable in th a t he cannot r i s k an a l l - t o o -
obvious "kidnapping" of Riesm an's e a r l i e r p o r t r a i t of
American c u ltu re (1950). Riesm an's in n e r - d ir e c te d , o th e r-
d ir e c te d , and autonomous groupings of American c itiz e n r y
]
become R e ic h 's h i s t o r i c a l development of Consciousnesses
i
| I , I I , and I I I (w ithout so much as a mention of th e
iRiesman " in flu e n c e " ). T his f a c to r a ls o makes one suspect
I
of th e burden of R e ic h 's " o rig in a l" th ought. Many c r i t i c s
shared w ith me t h i s sk ep ticism . R e ic h 's la rg e "fan -clu b "
was, in f a c t , matched by an eq u ally la rg e body of antago
n i s t s , and both groups have t h e i r say in a response to
h is work, The C on-III C ontroversy [N obile (E d .), 197lJ. j
I cannot f u lly "review th e review s" a t t h i s tim e. In ste a d i
i
i
I s h a ll summarize R e ic h 's th e s is and provide my own in itial;!
i
re a c tio n s to th e book, these being re a c tio n s th a t have j
held over tim e, d e s p ite o th er metamorphoses in regards to j
| the youth phenomenon.
j :
| I t is R e ic h 's concept t h a t , c o n tra ry to the claim s
of o th er a u th o rs, Consciousness I I I , th a t high degree of
p ercep tio n th a t perm its th e c o u n te rc u ltu re to transcend
i
th e e rro rs of t h e i r fa th e rs and openly, sw ingingly,
f le x ib l y , in tim a te ly dance rin g s 'round th e g re a t machines,
is a l l th a t is needed to change our s o c ie ty . S o cio p o litic al
re v o lu tio n is not req u ired and, as a m atter of f a c t , those
365
who b eliev e i t is have not yet a tta in e d Consciousness I I I ,
according to Reich.
As I described i t in 1971* i t i s no wonder t h i s book
i
| was gobbled up hap p ily by th e mass of m id d le-cla ss mothers
I
land f a th e r s . Wasn’t i t ju s t what they wanted to hear?
j
|As I saw i t th e n , Reich had sym bolically v in d icated the
|youth movement, washed i t s h a ir , i f you w i l l . With th is
i
| clean in g -u p , th e re was a yet more grandiose sen tim en t,
th a t th is "high le v e l o f cons ciousness may seep out magi
c a lly and m ysteriously in to th e population and g rad u ally
accomplish-, fo r us those needed changes in our so c io
p o l i t i c a l s tru c tu re " (A lle n , 1 9 7 1). And a l l t h i s with none
of those n asty guns.1 -Nobody is going to g et h u r t,
everything is going to be a l l r i g h t , my son, thou a r t
i
I
p ro d ig al a g a in .- |
What had Reich done in so sa lv in g th e confused and j
frig h ten ed p ublic? j
Youth (had) been c a st in a coat of many colours
as guru-dream er, a dreamer of love and fo r :
humanity, and th e myth (had7~~spread th a t the guru
of y o u th ’s dream when planted would sp rin g rip e
in s t e e l and girder, (would) tu rn smog to i
b u b b le ,. . .a n x ie ty to e c s ta s y , and a l l (would) |
be a t grace in the world a g a in ...T h e more d i f f i - ,
c u lt c o n fro n ta tio n s, th e thought of h ard er
weapons is wiped away. Youth and a d u lt a lik e
are absolved of th e need fo r a c tio n and th e
American Dream i s again p u lled over th e face
of the American people so th a t we are again
masked, and the name of th e mask is th e American
Tragedy. (A llen, 1971)
366
Addending my former c r itic is m of Reich* I am now yet
more stru c k by th e a irin e s s with which he f lo r i d ly p ic tu re d
| th e rags of youth as robes* th e bare-footed* slow-moving
I
| fe e t as bejew elled and dancing. Yet more se rio u s is the
|
manner in which he admits th a t "Consciousness I I I begins
w ith s e lf " ( p . 225)5 quickly t r i e s to wipe out the n o tio n
th a t t h i s means s e lf is h n e s s , and leaps (as do so many
au th o rs) from s e lf - o r ie n ta tio n to h u m a n ity -o rien ta tio n .
Consciousness I I I p o stu la te s th e ab so lu te worth
of every human being—every s e l f . Consciousness
I I I does not believe in th e a n ta g o n istic or
com petitive d o ctrin e of l i f e . . .People are
brothers* th e world is ample a f t e r a l l , In
consequence* one never hears th e disparagements*
th e snickers* th e judgments th a t are so common
among I ’s and I I !s. (Reich* p. 226)
M y God* I say to myself* e ith e r Reich has never
v is ite d with e ith e r th e a c t i v i s t or p a s s iv is t co u n te r
c u ltu re s as they developed* or Consciousness III* as he
p o rtray s it* remains as much a v isio n and a fa n ta sy as the
n o tio n th a t i t can so pow erfully germ inate as to* w ith i t s
a ll-a c c e p tin g philosophy* accomplish what a l l manner of
d ir e c t stru g g le has f a ile d to do* r a d ic a lly change our
s o c ie ty .
More than any of th e o th er authors I have discussed*
Reich is g u ilty of overlooking the n atu re of c o lle c tiv e
behavior* e s p e c ia lly in so much as i t e x is ts among l a t e -
ad olescent p e e rs. This Is iro n ic since Reich i s a popular
Yale professor* supposedly surrounded by the youth whose
367
w itness he claim s to be. Perhaps, one might h ypothesize,
h is fa rsig h te d n e ss (not being able to see th e f o re s t fo r
th e tr e e s ) and h is r e s u ltin g fa n ta sy is th e very essence
of h is p o p u la rity . What person in the world, young or
o ld , doesn *t want to hear th a t being, re g a rd le ss of what
one i s doing, is enough, th a t a l l th a t is req u ired of you
is th a t you are a n ice k id , and t h a t , even i f you always
th in k of y o u rse lf f i r s t , th a t is th e sig n of a new,
highly-developed Utopia in which you are one of th e f i r s t
p io n e e rs .
Nathan Glazer (1970) devotes a book of essays to
d e scrib in g his own grad u al d e - r a d ic a liz a tio n , h is own
journey toward conservativism and tr a d itio n a lis m in regards
to the ro le of th e contemporary u n iv e rs ity and campus
p r o te s t. Naming him self as a l i b e r a l / r a d i c a l in th e
f i f t i e s , Glazer claim s he has moved away from h is former j
i
stan ce because he does not see campus p ro te s t as appro- j
I p r i a t e , and cannot see th e u n iv e rs ity and i t s stu d en ts
I ■
as analogous to th e S ta te and th e b la ck s. Although he |
i
admits t h a t : "The r e s t r i c t i o n of rig h ts in an order which j
denies e f f e c tiv e forms fo r p eacefu l change, i s to my mind
s u f f ic ie n t cause fo r r e s o r t to c i v i l disobedience" (p. 115)*j
he says he must fu rth e r ask whether such t a c t i c s w i l l work,
whether they are e f f e c tiv e , and whether th e time i s r ip e .
His conclusion i s , in f a c t , th a t re g a rd le ss th e e f f e c tiv e -
368
ness of civil disobedience on campus such effectiveness
will prove destructive for the university, making it
impossible to achieve its two major goals: training those
the society needs, and maintaining and developing the
traditions and reality of critical and creative thought
which help to control the narrower applications of the
skills and techniques involved in the above professions,
and which offer the opportunity for solving problems which
increasingly grow in complexity.
Glazer is unrestrained in his claim that campus
protest endangers the fulfillment of both these roles and
that, and he stresses this strongly, a university may
not necessarily be improved if it operates on strictly
democratic principles. Says Glazer, the university is j
different from the State in that, after all, students j
are free to enter and leave. I would question if this is I
i
indeed a significant statement about the university
student. After all, a black can enter Georgia, and a j
woman a university faculty, but that says nothing of what
j
will happen to them after they get there. Furthermore,
the ability to leave is often representative of major
defeat or danger to one's entire existence if the invest- j
i
i
ment, while within the Establishment, has been a substantial
one.
369
G lazer looks only a t th e a c t i v i s t p a rt of the youth
phenomenon and says l i t t l e p o s itiv e about i t . R ather than
I
|c r e d itin g youth fo r i t s attem pt to check th e c o n tro ls of
the s o c ie ty , he fe e ls th a t th e growing technocracy demands
of th e government and of the so c ie ty more c o n tro l, not le s s .
Although he does not speak of th e growing "movement"
| as in co rp o ratin g "conform ists" per s e , he in d ic a te s th a t
we never dreamed th a t a r a d ic a l c r iti q u e of
American so c ie ty and government could develop
such enormous power, to the point where i t
| becomes simply th e new convention, and where
even in th e f r a t e r n i t i e s and s o r o r i tie s con
se rv a tiv e opinion has gone underground. (p. 280)
Although I f e e l Glazer i s a c c u ra te about th e rap id growth
of th e youth phenomena, I am r a th e r unimpressed and, in
f a c t , disappointed th a t he so b lith e ly g e n e ra liz e s to
th e e n tir e phenomenon in q u estio n . That he com pletely j
denies th e in flu en ce of co n serv ativ e th ought, even on
th e co lleg e campus, i s , a ls o , g ro ssly in a c c u ra te and
rid ic u lo u s .
F u rth e r, his d e s c rip tio n of how youth has t o t a l l y j
I
taken over and bamboozled th e p ress is highly overdone,
f o r , though th e press c e r ta in ly did begin to tu rn on to j
ra d ic a lism in th e la te s i x t i e s , as we s h a l l d escrib e in
i
a la te r s e c tio n , larg e segments of th e press remained
c r i t i c a l and even blasphemous toward youth. Glazer claim s,
however, th a t "in the press addressed to th e young (whether
th a t press is e l i t e or mass or a g ita tio n a l), a sin g le view
370
of th e so c ie ty and what i s needed to change i t is presented"
(p. 280). This is not only an o v e rs im p lific a tio n , but
I a highly in a c c u ra te p ic tu re of what a c tu a lly occurred,
1
which was a m anipulative and m anipulating metamorphosis
of the media, shaping i t s e l f and th ereb y shaping th e
so c ie ty to th e events as they happened, and seldom rem ain-
| ing "in th e same p la ce" fo r long, ( i . e . , I t would
i
be I n te r e s tin g to have Kohlberg analyze th e le v e l of
moral Judgment of any one of our four major newspapers
during th e s i x t i e s —would he, In f a c t , be ab le t o determ ine
t h e i r stag e of development? I doubt i t . )
G la z e r's conclusion is in keeping w ith his p ic tu re
of an irre s p o n s ib le youth element who, as a whole (and th a t
i s an im portant p o in t) launched "an untempered and I r
r a tio n a l a tta c k on American s o c ie ty , government, and
i
!
u n iv e r s itie s " ( p . 3 0 6).
Although many of th e w rite rs I have mentioned adopted
a stan ce and kept i t , s e v e ra l reconsidered t h e i r i n i t i a l
pure-form v isio n s of youth, or revamped e a r l i e r g e n e r a li
z a tio n s.
Flacks (1972), fo r in s ta n c e , keeps h is form erly
fav o rab le assessm ent of campus a c t i v i s t s bu t, in r e t r o
s p e c t, is f u l l y cognizant of th e h e re to g e n e ity In both
a c t i v i s t and p a s s iv is t elem ents. He had s k ir te d th is
issu e p rev io u sly ; now he co n fro n ts i t . He does n o t,
371
however, mention th e "phony b e lie v e rs" as p o ssib ly r e p re
se n tin g fa c tio n s in both th e se groups. As prev io u sly
in d ic a te d , th e Scranton Commission Report (1970) emphasizes
j
|heterogeneous m otivations in young people involved in
|campus d is s e n t, but does not attem pt to break down th ese
m o tiv atio n s. In one of the most lu c id reviews of theory
and research r e la te d to t h i s phenomenon, Douglas (1970)
n e g le c ts emphasizing th e concept of com pliant conform ity,
although he does b r ie f ly a llu d e to th e importance of p ee r-
group acceptance.
Another w rite r who c le a r ly d ev iate s from her o r ig in a lly
u n ilin e a r p re s e n ta tio n of "new humanism" in youth i s
Barbara Myerhoff, whose l a t e r a r t i c l e s (1971b, 1972c),
p a r tic u la r ly th e la s t one, are highly in d ic a tiv e of her
growing s o p h is tic a tio n reg ard in g c o lle c tiv e behavior
and th e n atu re of p a r tic ip a tio n in th e " r i t e s " of th e
c o u n te rc u ltu re . P a r tic u l a r ly in her h ig h ly - d e f in itiv e
p re se n ta tio n of th e "communitas" experience in youth,
Myerhoff i s , one f e e l s , ju s t on th e b rink of v en tu rin g in to
d isc u ssio n of th e f a c t th a t while youth may be c a rrie d away
in th e passion of th e moment, t h i s passion may have l i t t l e
to do w ith th e very focus of th e p assio n . The f e e lin g ,
afforded by group e c s ta s y , as described by Myerhoff,
might subordinate th e kind of r a tio n a l c o g n itio n and com
mitment to any form of p rin c ip le (o th er than th e p rin c ip le
372
of th e e c sta sy of group union I t s e l f ) I have o u tlin e d .
Myerhoff has a l l th e m a te ria l, but she sto p s ju s t sh o rt
of making th e above statem ent.
| Marcuse, one of th e e a r l i e s t champions of youth and
i
| one of y o uth’s hero es, sta te d in many of h is e a r l i e r
works th a t modern young people were c h a ra c te riz e d by t h e i r
"Great R e fu s a l," t h e i r t o t a l antagonism toward th e S o ciety
proper. In a la tte r - d a y in te rv ie w , however, Marcuse
adm itted th a t th e r e a l re v o lu tio n a ry human-being does not
e x is t y e t, and t h a t , indeed, th e re have been no deep value
changes in any la rg e augment of our so c ie ty as of yet
(Marcuse as interview ed by Keen & R aser, Psychology Today,
February, 1971).
I have mentioned se v e ra l w rite rs who seemed to
im p lic itly recognize th e shadow of peer-group conform ity
in youth p r o te s t, but who only mentioned or attended to
i t p e rip h e ra lly , i f a t a l l . I mentioned p rev io u sly the
is o la te d case of John A ldridge whose sc ath in g a tta c k on
th e c o lle c tiv e n atu re of th e youth c o u n te rc u ltu re does
not give any re c o g n itio n of in d iv id u a l a c ts of conscience
and growth.
A few s c a tte re d authors did s p e c if ic a lly d eal w ith
t h i s n o tio n . Yablonsky ( 1968) , fo r in sta n c e , o ffered th a t
th e re were two v a r ie tie s of h ip p ie s , th e h ig h - p rie s t who
was tr u l y committed to th e h ip p ie philosophy and th e
373
"plastic hippie*" who might be a teeny-bopper or a dope
pusher* but is* at any rate* an imitative hippie just as
"plastic" as the "plastic society" from which he emerges
and to which he still belongs. Yablonsky* however*
speaks of both hippie groups as representing a deviant
!
| group. At least at the date of his writing* he did not
I offer the hypothesis that counterculture activity might
| no longer be deviant on the college campus or community*
but representative of a new "norm."
In a fa s c in a tin g and sin g u la r a r t i c l e , Gould ( 1969)
explores th e inadequacy of th e term " a lie n a tio n " and i t s
re la tio n s h ip to conform ity and to m a rg in a lity (or
"deviance"). He in d ic a te s two p o ssib le hypotheses* p o lar
opposites* each re p re s e n ta tiv e of d if f e r e n t thoughts on
j a lie n a tio n * one th a t th e estranged member of a group he !
i 1
i belongs to nominally will be amenable to its pressure j
(I have referred to several authors who believe in this j
concept previously)* the other making alienation virtually !
synonymous with nonconformity or "deviance." I think it ;
highly significant to mention at this time that Gould’s j
findings indicated that highly-alienated subjects were
much more subject to peer-group pressures in the sense
these pressures would lead them to form than were low-
alienated subjects. Gould’s study does not directly
connect with either the activist or passivist counter-
374
c u ltu re s I have d escrib ed , but h is fin d in g s c le a r ly re la te d
to our notion th a t the so -c a lle d "a lie n a te d " stu d en t might
indeed conform to dominant group p ressu res in a membership
| group, and th a t t h i s conform ity might not c o n s ist of
I
I tr u ly b eliev in g th e thought behind h is a c tio n , but might
ic h a r a c te r iz e mere com pliance. Gould’s s u b je c ts , for
! in s ta n c e , were c h a r a c te r i s tic a ll y low in se lf-estee m and
j
unsure of th e i r norms. His behavioral measure of con- j
form ity was number of t r i a l s on which the su b je c ts gave j
i
i
th e same erroneous response as did co n fed e ra tes. On neutral
t r i a l s preceding the a c tu a l run, co n fed erates had answered !
I i
i i
! questions c o r r e c tly . The fa c t h ig h -a lie n a te d su b je c ts j
| i
| s t i l l followed th e lead of co n fed erate peers as they changed
I I
to In c o rre c t responses is highly re le v a n t to my own th e s is !
i
regarding compliance in both a c t i v i s t and p a s s iv is t modes ;
of p r o te s t on th e co lleg e campus.
A study conducted by A llen , Kaplan, and Bass on four
C a lifo rn ia u n iv e rs ity campuses in 1972 looked back on th e
stu d en t s tr ik e of 1970. S tudents were asked by Bass and
Kaplan, themselves undergraduates, about th e natu re of
t h e i r o r ig in a l p a r tic ip a tio n , th e ir m otivation for p a r t i
c ip a tin g , and th e ir fe e lin g s about p a r tic ip a tio n in a
s im ila r event involving th e Southeast Asia c o n f lic t in
1972. Candid in terv iew s w ith stu d e n ts were judged by
Kaplan and Bass, and much d ata in d ic a tiv e of compliance to
375
group modes (both in 1970 and in 1972) was uncovered.
A llen (1972) discussed th e ra m ific a tio n s of t h i s study and
th e one-year re tr o s p e c tiv e (A llen & Kaplan, 1971) in con
t r a s t with s e lf - r e p o r ts of stu d en ts during th e a c tu a l
|s t r i k e in 1970. This m a te ria l comprises a good p o rtio n of
!
| P a rt I I I . A m ethodological flaw in a l l such m a te ria ls i s ,
of course, evident in th a t they are ex post fa c to re p o rts
and a n a ly s is .
As has been dem onstrated in t h i s c h a p te r, i t seems
th e m a jo rity of re se a rc h e rs in th is area were e ith e r so
turned on or turned o ff by th e sudden emergence of campus
p ro te s t th a t th e e x p lo ra tio n of com pliant conform ity w ithin
an in c re a sin g ly -p o p u la r "m inority" group movement was never
probed w ith any depth. j
j
Media Treatment of A c tiv is ts and P a s s iv is ts !
---------- --------- , — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j
A hig h ly -im p o rtan t book which has, u n fo rtu n a te ly , j
received l i t t l e a tte n tio n from th e p u b lic -a t-la rg e is Bob j
C irin o 's D on't Blame I t On The People (1971). C irin o 's
book is a well-docum ented, h ig h ly -p a la ta b le study of the
manner in which th e media, in p a r tic u la r our newspapers,
a re culpable in playing up or down c e r ta in is s u e s , using
i
1
even th e most rudim entary of s tr a te g ie s such as placement
(fro n t page, burying a r t i c l e s in th e m iddle, back page,
e t c . ) in such a way as to e f f e c tiv e ly propagandize simply
by v ir tu e of g e ttin g c e r ta in inform ation acro ss to th e public
376
and w ithholding or downplaying other inform ation. The
power th e press can have over p e o p le ’s heads is e f f e c t iv e
ly dem onstrated in C irin o 's various " c a s e s .1 ' He c i te s a
| by-now an c ien t (19^7) statem ent of the Commission on
; Freedom of th e P ress re le v a n t to h is h y p o th esis:
(The modern p ress) can f a c i l i t a t e thought and
I d isc u ssio n . They can s t i f l e i t . They can
| advance th e p rogress of c i v i l i z a t i o n or they
! can thw art i t . They can endanger th e peace of
| th e w orld; they can do so a c c id e n ta lly , in a
f i t of absence of mind. They can play up or
down the news and i t s s ig n ific a n c e , f o s te r and
feed em otions, c re a te complacent f ic tio n s and
blind s p o ts , misuse the g re a t words, and uphold
empty slogans.
An e x c e lle n t and involving c a s e -h is to ry dem onstrating
|
the c o r r e la tio n between th e atmosphere created by news- j
papers concerning "rad icalism " and th e handling of the j
S acco-V anzetti case i s provided by th e review ers of th e se !
t r i a l tr a n s c r i p ts (Weeks, 1 9 5 8).
I wish i t were p o ssib le t o do a thorough and m ethod!- |
j
c a l study of the newspapers of the s i x t i e s . Such a ta sk
| was not w ith in th e scope of t h i s d is s e r ta tio n . Since th e
!la te s i x t i e s , however, I have kept a s e t of f i l e s re p re -
! I
!s e n ta tiv e of a c ro s s -s e c tio n of newspaper and magazine
|
! coverage, which now c o n s is ts of se v e ra l hundred a r t i c l e s
on th e su b je c t of youth, p r o te s t , and c o u n te rc u ltu re
a c tiv i ty in America. I m aintain an almost complete f i l e
i
on th e se su b je c ts as covered by th e Los Angeles Times from
1969-1972, and a broad range of a r t i c l e s from th e Minneapo-
377
l i s S t a r , th e Minneapolis T ribune, th e New York Times,
underground papers lik e th e B erkeley Barb, th e Los Angeles
Free P re s s , a sso rte d a r t i c l e s from p o litic a lly - o r ie n te d
| jo u rn als lik e The M ilita n t, complete lib r a r i e s of a r t i c l e s
! from th e fo llo w in g , d iv e rse commercial magazines, Time,
' Saturday Review, E sq u ire , Psychology Today, and
| (thanks to my d e d ic a te d -c lip p e r of a f a th e r) the Reader *s
D ig e s t.
I A c a re fu l p e ru sa l of t h i s c o lle c tio n (I have read
j
and stu d ied a l l th e se a r t i c l e s th re e or more tim es) has
led me to th e follow ing su b je c tiv e overview: (1) I agree
w ith Douglas (1970) and th e Scranton Commission (1970) j
in concluding th a t th e p re s s , as re p re s e n ta tiv e of the
|mass media, h a b itu a lly emphasized s e n s a tio n a l asp ects of
i !
th e youth phenomena, w hile devoting le s s a tte n tio n to
"everyday happenings," An example of th is is th e stro n g
emphasis on v io le n t or ille g itim a te p r o te s t on campuses
and th e alm ost t o t a l n eg lect of th e nonviolent brands of
|p r o te s t on campuses, and few s to r ie s devoted to th e s tru g - ;
i )
Igle of in d iv id u a ls ag a in st th e d r a f t , e tc , (2) The I
tu n in g -in of youth to th e importance of media coverage is
displayed in th e manner in which they g rad u ally learned to
"make them selves seen" as described by Hoffman (1968) and
Myerhoff (1971b), An example of y o u th ’s awareness of th e i
j
media was dem onstrated a t th e Chicago r i o t s when, almost j
373
immediate upon t h e i r a tta c k by th e police* they began
chanting* "The whole world is watching*" acknowledging
! th a t t h e i r martyrdom was being shaped in to a legend as i t
I was film ed liv e over n a tio n a l te le v is io n . (3) In c le a r
! in stan ce s of n a tio n a l sympathy lik e th e Kent S ta te in c i-
jdent* th e p ress came out* a t le a s t overtly* fo r the
p ro te s tin g a c tiv is ts * featu rin g * fo r example* th e now-
c la s s ic p ic tu re of a t r a g i c a l l y bewildered g irl* guarding
and mourning th e body of a slau g h tered classm ate. On th e
occasion of th e May 1970 Student S trik e* the press did
cover nonviolent episodes along w ith more v io le n t p r o te s t.
(*1) The most b iz a rre of events s t i l l received th e g r e a te s t
amount of coverage and was* i f only by accident* presented
i
as r e p re s e n ta tiv e of m ainstream in the youth phenomenon.
The most s tr ik in g example of t h i s is th e Tate-Manson murder!
case which became known as th e murders of a "hippie band." i
U tiliz a tio n of th e term "hippie" in connection w ith th e |
i
"Manson fam ily" s t i l l co n tin u es. The L.A. Times devoted
over 100 a r t i c l e s to th is case from th e time i t broke in
!
|December* 19^9 * through th e p r e - t r i a l period and th e |
|p erio d of th e t r i a l in 1970-1971. I t received as much j
i
a tte n tio n as any category of the youth phenomenon and much
more focus than many of y o u th 's a c t i v i t i e s and a c tio n s .
For th is reason* I f e e l i t is s ig n if ic a n t enough to p resen t
i t as a "case study" exem plifying th e manner in which th e
379
public may be led to consider such an in c id e n t as "hippie
murders" in th e same way in which th e newspapers re c e n tly
superimposed the term "homosexual murders" on th e recen t
I
mass tra g e d ie s in Texas.
Because th e press coverage during th e t r i a l i t s e l f
i
j c a rrie d mainly re p o rts of condensed testim ony of w itnesses
jand courtroom behavior* I w ill not t r e a t th a t period in
|t h i s d isc u ssio n . The periods in focus a re those I b elieve
|t o be of se rio u s import in framing public opinion about
th e natu re of the case its e lf * and* in providing a s s o c ia
tio n s which th e p u b lic w ill* i f only subconsciously* r e la te
to th e involved in d iv id u a ls and th e case in q u estio n .
The break, sto ry on th e Manson fam ily was published on
December 2* 19&9* The sto ry remained fro n t-p ag e news j
fo r the next th re e weeks* o ften followed up by various ;
|
"h u m an -in terest" s to rie s * i f such they can be c a lle d , j
on th e immediately follow ing pages of th e f i r s t s e c tio n . I
These were u su a lly in th e manner of d e ta ile d "case h i s
t o r ie s " on th e accused m urderers. During th e month of i
; !
December* th e L.A. Times c a rrie d 32 s to r ie s about th e case.!
Tw enty-five (25) of th e se s to r ie s a c tu a lly mentioned th e
word "hippie" in a s s o c ia tio n w ith one or a l l of th e mur
d erers a t le a s t once in th e s to ry . Of th e se 25 sto rie s*
16 mentioned th e word "hippie" e ith e r in th e h eadlines or
in the lead two paragraphs. Of the rem aining seven s to rie s ^
380
s ix of them mentioned some m a te ria l c e r ta in to be a s s o c i
ated with hippiedom, such as th e Haight-Ashbury d i s t r i c t ,
c a llin g them a "b iz a rre nomadic c la n ," a "m ystical youth
c u l t , " or the lik e . Of th e se s ix a r t i c l e s , four c a rrie d
| — — ■ —
h ip p ie -re la te d phrases in e ith e r th e h ead lin e or In the
|le a d two paragraphs. Thusly, only one sto ry during th is
i
| e n tire tim e avoided m entioning any connection between the
i
| "Manson fam ily" and th e youth h ip p ie c o u n te rc u ltu re .
| Here are some examples of th e kinds of s to r ie s
j
I fe a tu re d by th e Times. The December 2nd " b re a k -sto ry " was i
I !
! h e a d lin e d , "Savage m ystic c u lt blamed f o r 5 T ate murders, j
|
2 o th e rs ." The s to ry begins as fo llo w s: "P olice b elieve
they have solved the Sharon T ate murder case and th a t an
o c c u lt band of h ip p ies d ire c te d by a lead er who c a lls
him self 'J e s u s ,' committed th e fiv e k i l l i n g s " (p. 1 ). |
i ,
i :
| The lead a r t i c l e on page 1 of th e December 5th issu e j
| t e l l s of Susan A tk in s' breaking th e c a se . In th e lead
j paragraph is the follow ing sen ten ce: "She was working under
i th e hypnotic s p e ll of C harles Manson, le ad er of a band
; of h a te -o rie n te d h ip p ie s ." I found th is an in te r e s tin g
! tw is t and a f a c i l e one, coupling "hate" with h ip p ies and
I confounding th e customary connection of the term with
"love. "
S everal a r t i c l e s in th e next weeks would rep eated ly
r e f e r to Manson as the "leader of a h ip p ie band."
381
Another a r t i c l e in th e Issu e of December 5th was
t i t l e d : "Friends ask--w hat changed C harles Watson?"
D escribing W atson's re c e n t t r i p back to h is hometown in
Texas, p a rt of th e f i r s t column read : "His h a ir was so
|
long. His mouth hung open. He seemed so detached. What
had happened to th e crew -cut boy they a l l remembered as
a s t a r on th e F arm ersv ille f o o tb a ll team, th e c h e e rfu l
lad who had been voted most v e r s a tile stu d e n t a t th e
| school six years ago?" (p. 3 ). C le a rly , th e Times was
h e re in making a dram atic c o n tra s t (concealing an im p lic it
value judgment) between th e h e a lth of th e " s tra ig h t b efo re-
Watson" and th e w eirdness, or deviance of th e "hippie j
!
afte r-W a tso n ." j
A s im ila r "h u m an -in terest" a r t i c l e dated December l l t h |
I
was h ea d lin ed : "Susan A tkins--from ch o ir g i r l to h ip p ie ." ;
The L.A. Times (December 14, 19&9) ex c lu siv e s to r y j
authored by Susan A tkins (copyw ritten by Susan A tkins
and Laurence S c h ille r ) was among th e most sp e cta cu la r
during th e f i r s t two-week p erio d . One wonders how much i
i
S c h ille r ed ited to emphasize th e b iz a rre and h ip p ie -re la te d j
elem ents. Here is th e opening of th a t s to ry :
| |
One day a l i t t l e man came in with a g u ita r and
s ta r te d sin g in g f o r a group of u s, in th a t place
where we were liv in g in Haight-Ashbury, in San
F ra n cisc o . Even before I saw him, while I was
s t i l l in th e k itc h e n , h is voice ju s t hypnotized
me, mesmerized me. Then when I saw him, I f e l l
a b so lu te ly in love with him, I found out l a t e r
h is name was C harles Manson. But he had oth er
382
names, to o , and so would I .
He gave me nothing but love, complete love,
gave me th e answer to a l l the questions I 'v e
ever had in my mind. T his whole world and
everybody and everything in i t has been God's
game, and th a t game is ju s t about to come to
an end. Judgment Day fo r every human being on
th e face of the e a rth is coming, (p. 1 )
| These are ty p ic a l examples of th e kind of sto ry fe a tu re d
| by th e Times during th e f i r s t month. I t is my fe e lin g
j
th a t f i r s t page s to r ie s ju s t a f t e r the break of a spectacu
la r murder case lik e t h i s one draw read ers who would
otherw ise read nothing but h eadlines to , in such an i n
stan ce, soak up as much m a te ria l as is a v a ila b le . There-
j
fo re , t h i s easy u t i l i z a t i o n of th e term "hippie lead er"
or "hippie band," e s p e c ia lly when repeated i n f i n i t e l y , is j
i
I
bound to "wear in.," to leave i t s tr a c e . The r e s u l t , one j
I
might h y p o th esize, is sim ila r to the rece n t C o rll murders !
wherein the i n i t i a l f a c t s , "C o rll was a homosexual" and |
"C orll was a murderer" turned l a t e r in the press to th e j
phrase "homosexual m urderer," then to "homosexual murders" j
and can p o ssib ly , in the loose a s s o c ia to r, l a t e r be
computed as "Homosexuals a re p o te n tia l m urderers."
During th e month of January, th e Times c a rrie d seven j
more Manson-Tate s t o r i e s . Five u tiliz e d th e term " h ip p ie ,"
th re e of th ese in h e a d lin e s, or th e lead two paragraphs.
One’ c a rrie d h ip p ie -re la te d item s. Only one made no connec
tio n between th e "Family" and " h ip p ie s ."
383
Was i t ju s t th e L.A. Times th a t la id th e "hippie
trea tm en t" on Manson, or th e "Manson trea tm en t" on h ip p ie s ,
which is probably more our concern herein?
| A review of th e leading w eeklies of th e p e rio d , L if e ,
I Time, and Newsweek showed th e follow ing kind of coverage.
| ■ ■
Newsweek (December 15, 19^9) fe a tu re d a s to ry c a lle d :
"Case of th e hypnotic h ip p ie ." Tim e's fe a tu re d a r t i c l e
| (December 12, 1969) was e n t i t l e d : "The demon of Death
i
jV a lle y ." Here is one of th e lead paragraphs:
I
She (re fe rr in g to Susan A tkins) sketched out a
weird s to ry of a m y stic a l, se m i-re lig io u s h ip p ie
drug-and-murder c u lt led by a bearded, demonic
Mahdi able to d isp a tch h is zom bie-like fo llo w e rs,
m ostly g i r l s wearing hunting k n iv es, to commit
a t le a s t e ig h t murders and, p o lic e say, p o ssib ly
four o th e rs. (p. 2 2 )
Note the f a c i l i t y w ith which co u n te rc u ltu re r e la te d m otifs i
!
lik e drugs and m ysticism a re b lith e ly and r a th e r a r b i t r a r i l y
i
linked w ith murder and to r tu r e and n e u ro tic q u a l i t i e s . j
This a r t i c l e mentions th e word "h ip p ie" th re e tim es |
in the f i r s t column alo n e. I t then goes on t o play up a l l j
th e more v io le n t, s e x -o rie n te d , and b iz a rre a sp e c ts of j
th e Manson fam ily l i f e - s t y l e . j
A second a r t i c l e in th is same issu e is e n t itle d :
"Hippies and v io le n c e ." The magazine quotes Dr. Lewis
Yablonsky as s ta tin g th a t th e re is more v iolence among
hippies than one u su a lly r e a l iz e s . "Many h ip p ie s are
s o c ia lly almost dead i n s i d e . . .They need b iz a r re , in te n siv e
3 8 * 1
a c ts to f e e l a l i v e —sex u al a c ts , a c ts of v io le n ce , n u d ity ,
every kind of Dionysian t h r i l l " ( p . 2 5 ). Yablonsky and
Time emphasize th a t "the h ip p ie movement has always been
|a n in v ita tio n to f re e d o m ...It has drawn a l l s o rts of
|p e o p le , th e r e b e llio u s , th e lo n e ly , th e p o e t, th e d is -
i
|a f f e c te d , and w orse"(p. 2 5 ). According to Yablonsky,
th i s major i n f i l t r a t i o n occurred some two years p rev io u sly
when "hippiedom became a magnet fo r sev erely em otionally
d istu rb ed people" (p. 2 5 ).
Two th in g s should be s w iftly picked up in th is d es
c r ip tio n . One, th a t the expert is ad m ittin g to a change
in an o r ig in a l movement to a le ss pure-form base. Two,
th a t th e expert is ig n o rin g mention of th e fa c t th a t the
c o rru p te rs of the o r ig in a l values and core philosophy
of the so -c a lle d "hippies" may n o t, in f a c t , deserve j
j
to be embraced beneath th e same b la n k et. Another th in g j
th a t I am sure you have noticed by now is th e d i s t i n c t l y j
j
io p p o site p ic tu re given of "h ip p ies" in t h i s kind of j
coverage compared to th e elegy given by Genet a f t e r Chicagoj
i
in th e same year as he pleaded w ith th o se golden and
g e n tle people, those flo w ers, to save a bleeding, corrupted!
e a rth . E ith e r treatm en t is extrem e. N either is perhaps j
"deserved" in a c o u n te rc u ltu re so i n f i l t r a t e d by th is
tim e, so heterogeneous as to b e lie any g e n e ra liz a tio n s
or la b e llin g s .
385
L ife (December 19* 1969) matched th e s ty le of th e
o th e r two w eeklies in fin d in g i t im possible to n e g le c t the
| s e n s a tio n a l. T itlin g t h e i r a r t i c l e "The wreck of a mon-
j
I stro u s ’fa m ily ’*" a frig h te n in g p ic tu re of a tr u ly
|
monstrous looking Manson was d isp la y e d , h is eyes w ildly
s ta rin g out of th e cover a t us (unspoken q u estio n : Would
we, to o , be hypnotized, and so lo se c o n tro l of ourselves
as to follow him and fin d out in th e process who we tr u ly
were, what we were tr u ly capable o f? ) . Spread across the
! to p of the magazine, beside th e g la rin g anima1-man-son
was th is copy:
The Love and T erro r C ult
The man who was t h e i r lead er
The charge of m u ltip le murders
The dark edge of h ip p ie l i f e
I have to ld my s to ry . I wish to comment l i t t l e upon
i t save to say th a t nowhere in any of th e coverage I read
was th e re any attem pt to d is s o c ia te Manson and h is group
w ith th e core philosophy of the h ip p ie s . No w rite r ever
ventured to question th e use of th e term in conjunction
w ith Manson’s fam ily. I can only muse about as to th e
|e f f e c t on th e heads of read e rs th a t t h i s coupling of
murderers and h a te - o rie n ta tio n w ith g e n tle people and
lo v e -o rie n ta tio n must have had.
I t i s a ls o a p o s s i b ilit y th a t th e freedom and guts
of the more g e n tle hippie i s so th re a te n in g to th e g re a te r
p u b lic ’s ideology th a t "locking up h ip p ie s" who are savage
386
c rim in a ls reduces th e f e a r .
The Manson case has been u tiliz e d because i t was
I c e r ta in ly th e most w idely-read news-item during th e two-
| year period i t remained in th e p re s s . Long before i t
I came t o t r i a l , Southern C a lifo rn ia and the n atio n were
|s a tu r a te d w ith d e ta ile d inform ation about t h i s "b iz arre
| band of h ip p ie m urderers." So conditioned were we, in
!
j f a c t , th a t Nixon even c a lle d Manson g u ilty before th e
j
I t r i a l sc a rc e ly sta rte d .'
I
| But whereas I u tiliz e d t h i s case fo r i t s f a m il ia r ity ,
i
|o th e r such cases e x is te d . The same handling was given to
th e k i l l i n g of a Santa Cruz fam ily by a stran g e loner of
a fello w , a lso to be c a lle d "hippie" because h is h a ir was
|lo n g , he played w ith t a r o t c a rd s, and he had dropped o u t. !
i !
| The a s s o c ia tio n of "h ip p ies" w ith th e b iz a rre or
v io le n t was seen in a R ead er's D igest a r t i c l e (January, j
| 1 9 6 8) . C alled by R eader's D ig est, "Trouble in H ippyland," I
i !
j i t s subheading was th e fo llo w in g : "Murder, rap e, d is e a s e , I
| s u ic id e , th e dark sid e of th e h ip p ie moon has become j
|in c re a s in g ly v is ib le " ( p . 59).
In R e ad e r's D ig e s t, a w idely-read jo u rn a l by the
American m asses, seven a r t i c l e s a sso c ia te d w ith th e p a s s i-
v i s t c o u n te rc u ltu re were published between 1967 and 1 971.
j
Six of th e se a r t i c l e s d e a lt b a s ic a lly with the drug problem|
in America, one w ith s e x u a lity . Although th e eig h th was
337
simply e n t itle d "The H ippies" (October* 1967)5 i t , too*
fe a tu re d th e drug m otif as c e n tr a l to th e h ip p ie way of
l i f e . Speaking of th e philosophy of th e hippies* the
e d ito rs immediately reduced th e credo t o fa n ta sy and
1
I tra c e d th e etio lo g y of t h i s fa n ta sy to drugs: "Although
|t h a t sounds lik e a pipe dream (R eaderfs D igest ta lk in g of
|th e h ip p ie v isio n here)* i t conveys th e u n re a lity th a t
I
permeates hippiedom* a c u lt whose mystique d eriv es
e s s e n tia lly from the in flu en c e of h allu cin o g en ic drugs"
(P. 70).
Although posing a t a " r e p o r te r ia l d istan ce* " the
e d ito rs of R eader's D igest leave i t s audience no question j
about t h e i r a ttitu d e toward drugs and toward th e "h ip p ie-
a d d ic t" they sketch fo r u s. They are c le a r ly ju d g m e n ta l...
about both. The s u b ti tle on th e aforem entioned a r tic le * i
fo r instance* r e a d s : "Are they cru sad ers fo r a b e tte r way j
of l i f e —or simply deluded dropouts in need of a sound
i
spanking? A look a t th e b iz a rre su b cu ltu re c u rre n tly ;
making headlines in every major U.S. city" (p. 70). Again*!
i
note th e f a c i l e im plantation of th e word "b iz a rre " dropped j
i
b lith e ly onto an e n tir e mass of people* many of whom could j
only claim hippiedom by v ir tu e of t h e i r long h a ir and
th e f a c t they lis te n e d to t h e i r G ra te fu l Dead albums
under red and blue li g h t s . An a r t i c l e by Drury (August,
1969) a lso re v e a ls i t s bias in th e t i t l e : "The drug ’t r i p ’
338
—voyage to nowhere."
The subheading of an a r t i c l e on sex by th e Flemings
(December, 1970) again puts down th e 15-24 year age group,
as a whole: "Today’s young people—who claim to be leading
a sexual re v o lu tio n —tu rn out to be s u rp ris in g ly ignorant
about a basic f a c t of l i f e . " The authors claim in t h e i r
lead paragraph th a t more than two m illio n young Americans
get in to tro u b le each year "because they do not know or
w ill not face one of l i f e 's fundamental f a c t s : sexual
in te rc o u rs e causes b ab ies"(p . 153). They then go on to
show (without ad m ittin g i t ) t h a t , in f a c t , what t h e i r
in terv iew s and data r e a lly in d ic a te has nothing whatever
to do w ith a lack of knowledge about in te rc o u rs e , only
th a t many young people cannot gain access to inform ation
or resources about b ir th - c o n tr o l, or th a t many fe a r the
|
various c o n tra c e p tiv e methods. F acts about lack of
knowledge about in te rc o u rs e are t o t a l l y absent from th e
a r t i c l e . Furtherm ore, th e re is no evidence th a t th ese
young people a c tu a lly engaged in making th e "sexual rev o
lu tio n " are involved in th e data p rese n ted , or what p a rt
of th e c ro s s -s e c tio n studied they re p re s e n t. This a r t i c l e
is designed to make one fu rio u s in th a t i t f i n a l l y succeeds
in su b tly dropping in i t s value-judgment (shades of th e
hidden agenda.1) in th e end. "Perhaps," th e authors s t a t e ,
"the best s o lu tio n comes from New York p s y c h ia tr is t Dr.
3S9
Max Levin: 'G irls should be taught th e value of p re m a rita l
c h a s tity as th e id e a l to f o llo w .1" (p. 155). The f a c t
th a t young people become pregnant because they cannot
|
|g a in access to c o n tra cep tiv e d ev ices, or because th e re a re
I yet no com pletely "safe" d e v ic e s .in terms of r e s u lt s or
]
s id e - e f f e c ts has l i t t l e to do w ith ignorance about sex,
or with th e sexual re v o lu tio n in which both youth and
| ad u lts a re c u rre n tly p a r tic ip a tin g . But i t ap p aren tly
has a g re a t deal to do with th re a te n in g th e value-system
of the e d ito rs of R eader's D ig e s t.
I m aintain a f i l e c o n s is tin g of s e v e ra l clip p in g s
from s e v e ra l sources which emphasize th e "b iz a rre " or
sp e c ta c u la r elements of so -c a lle d members of youth sub
c u l t u r a l groups. As in the a r t i c l e s c ite d in th is
s e c tio n , th e h ip p ies a re custom arily th e ta r g e t of such
a r t i c l e s . Seldom do the authors question whether or not
t h e i r "su b je c ts" are "tru e h ip p ie s" or those " p la s tic "
im ita to rs mentioned by Yablonsky. Seldom do authors
attem pt to mention in any way th a t th e phenomenon which j
began w ith th e "flow er ch ild re n " in the m id -six tie s is now
a m assive, convoluted, highly d iv e rse s e t of phenomena.
As an ending to th is s e c tio n , I o ffe r what I admit
i s an extreme example of the treatm en t I am d escrib in g
because i t i s p a r tic u la r ly n au seating in i t s smug sta n c e ,
i t s g la rin g g e n e ra lity , and i t s s ta rk v u lg a rity . I must
390
confess t h a t , even a f t e r th e sp e c ta c u la r treatm ent of
th e Manson-Tate d e t a il s from 1969-1971* I am s t i l l su rp rised
to fin d th is kind of a r t i c l e in th e L.A. Times (December 14 ,
1971). I t is typed ex a ctly as i t appeared in th e news
paper, h e a d lin e , subheading, and f u l l t e x t .
P re sc rip tio n ; Soap. What Else?
A n cien t M aladies P lagu e H ip p ies
F t. Lauderdale, F la . (AP)—Big b e lt buckles
rubbing a g a in st the w aist can cause a nagging
n av e l, says two re se arch ers who have been
studying asso rted i l l s among h ip p ie s.
The re se arch ers a ls o say th a t preventive medicine
- - p a r ti c u la r ly a good dose of soap and w ater—
is about the best so lu tio n fo r com batting such
medical woes.
Dr. Joseph M . W ilentz, a F t. Lauderdale derma
t o l o g i s t , and Dr. Robert A. Berger of New York
C ity have published th e i r fin d in g s on hippie
m alaise in a m edical Jo u rn al.
P la g u in g H ip p ies
Medical problems th a t have been ra th e r uncommon
in the la s t 100 years are plaguing many h ip p ie s, |
the doctors sa id . In p a r tic u la r , they c i te j
itc h in g scalps and skin rash .
W ilentz said some of the sc a lp tro u b le stems
from a b e lie f th a t i f you do not wash your head, I
you w ill not go bald.
"I heard th is over and over when we'd go down |
to the communes," W ilentz s a id . |
A fter a year or so without washing th e ir h a ir
many hippies complain about an itc h in g head.
" i t 's not the d i r t but the itc h in g t h a t 's bother
ing him," W ilentz s a id . "So, he g ets some t r e a t
ment and tak es a hot shower and th e itc h in g sto p s.
Same Problem s
"And then he goes rig h t back to the way he lived
b efore. Six months l a t e r w e 'll see him again
391
w ith th e same problem ."
Another com plaint—mostly from women—is a
f ie r c e ly itc h in g rash a ff e c tin g th e n av el and
stomach. W ilentz says th e top of big b e lt buckles
when worn with low slung pants rubs th e m id riff
and r e s u lts in a ra sh .
W ilentz said a c o n d itio n c a lle d "vagabond s k in ,"
named fo r an a f f l i c t i o n th a t plagued hoboes, is
making a comeback.
He and Berger dubbed th e co n d itio n "hippie sk in ."
They said th e co n d itio n is marked by li c e , bed
bug b ite s , patches of m issing skin and caked
d i r t on the body.
Hippie headbands a ls o produce a rash th a t has
not been seen sin ce hats were common, W ilentz
s a id .
He a ls o discussed a more modern problem—h ip p ies
who a re a l le r g ic to m arijuana.
"They wind up w ith 'f la n n e l m outh,' an extreme
dryness which f e e ls lik e th e y 'v e Ju st sucked a
lemon," W ilentz s a id .
Other symptoms include bloodshot eyes, sinus j
tro u b le and even asthma. |
Said one youth who had th e malady: "I have been j
re je c te d by g ra s s ."
D espite th e f a c t th a t follow ing Kent S ta te , the
N ational Student S tr ik e , and re la te d tr a g e d ie s , the press
seemed to be more com passionate in i t s stance toward
student p r o te s t by 1970 (G lazer, as I mentioned, claimed j
j
in f a c t th a t the press was highly biased toward student
a c tiv ism , making heroes out of the p r o te s to r s ) , an ACE
j
study conducted by th a t com m ittee's d ir e c to r and deputy
(A stin & Bayer, 1971) d e f in ite ly supports our in q u iry as
392
to the tendency of th e press to magnify or withhold in f o r
m ation. This study (th e r e s u lts were a ls o rep o rted in
Time, October 4, 1971) dem onstrated (See: P a rt I of th is
d is s e r ta tio n ) th a t although campuses were q u ie te r during
th e 1970-1971 school y ea r, they were by no means q u ie te d .
I As a m atter of f a c t , 20$ of the n a tio n ’s schools had
!
|s u ffe re d a t le a s t one "severe" p r o te s t, and d isru p tio n s
had declined to ju s t below th e le v e l of the 1968-1969
school year when p ro te s t a tta in e d p o p u la rity across th e
n a tio n . In a c tu a l ity , th e s i t e s of a c t i v i t y had s h ifte d
from th e major co lle g e s to th e g ra s s -ro o ts sch o o ls, and
newsmen had not s h ifte d th e i r a tte n tio n acco rd in g ly .
Whereas 40$ of the n a tio n ’s c o lle g e d istu rb an ces were
j
covered in 1968- 1969, only 10$ had h it th e papers in th e j
1970-1971 year. One can e a s ily draw h is own conclusions j
from th is potent d a ta . As mentioned p re v io u sly , i t was
d i f f i c u l t to tr u ly know whether p ro te st was in f a c t "dead" !
in 1971, while various campus a d m in istra to rs were d is c u s
sing the t r a n q u il ity of th e ir form erly bombastic populaces.j
|The evidence shows t h a t , although i t may have been i
i 1
|d im in ish in g in i t s o r ig in a lly - a c tiv e arenas (wherein e a rly j
le ad ers might have graduated, gone on to p o lit ic s in th e S
community, and follow ers might have by then fatig u e d o u t),
!
th e "ideas" and "methodology" had spread to th e boondocks. |
!
But th e blanket with which th e press chose to cover the
393
s till-w a rm body of campus p ro te s t may in fa c t have helped
to g rad u ally and su b tly su ffo c a te what l i f e was s t i l l l e f t .
In th is c h a p te r, I have o u tlin ed my own conception
of th e youth co u n te rc u ltu re or movement as two d is t in c t
su b cu ltu res which overlap in th a t they share some (but
not a l l ) v alues. I see them as d i s t i n c t because one
values an a c t i v i s t s ty le of p r o te s t, while another p ro te s ts
only in d ir e c tly , and is in g en e ra l p a s s iv is t in philosophy
of l i f e and mode of liv in g ,
I have discussed th e c la s s ic ideas of various
th e o re tic ia n s about p o te n tia l fo r conversion to s o c ia l
movements or c o u n te rc u ltu re , in d ic a tin g th e c a tc h - a l l
n atu re of th e term '’a lie n a tio n " and p rese n tin g th e hypo
th e s is th a t converts to such forms of p ro te s t may be com-
i j
p lia n t conform ists r a th e r than tr u e b e lie v e rs .
The tendency of re se a rc h e rs in t h i s area to place
stro n g emphasis on th e m essianic or deviant asp ects of
i :
th ese two c o u n te rc u ltu re s was d isc u sse d , again n o tin g th e
paucity of a tte n tio n to th e concept of conform ity w ithin i
a m inority movement which grew ra p id ly to mass p ro p o rtio n s j
in th e co lleg e communities.
i
A sh o rt se c tio n was given to a b rie f overview of j
press treatm en t of youth phenomena, and i t was explained !
i
th a t as of y e t, th e re have been no in -d ep th stu d ie s of
th i s phenomenon.
39*
This chapter is an e n tre e in to P a rt I I I , in which I
w ill focus on v a lu e s, the process of r a d ic a liz a tio n and
commitment, and the notion of a c tin g out of conscience
and p rin c ip le as opposed to merely complying and "serving
one’s tim e in th e re v o lu tio n ."
PART I I I
LOOKING BA C K AFTER COM ING D O W N
395
CHAPTER 7
CONFORM ITY AND C O M M ITM E N T IN CAM PUS PROTEST
Lenny seem s l ik e a changed man. He lo o k s up a t
Cox and s a y s , "When you w alk in t o t h i s h o u se ,
in t o t h i s b u ild in g " — and he g e s tu r e s v a g u ely as
i f t o ta k e i t a l l i n , th e m o ld in g s, th e s c o n c e s ,
th e e le v a t o r a tte n d a n t and th e doormen down
s t a i r s in t h e i r w h ite d ic k e y s , th e m arble lo b b y ,
th e b ra ss s t r u t s on th e marquee out f r o n t —
"when you w alk in t o t h i s h o u se , you must f e e l
i n f u r i a t e d ."
Cox lo o k s em b arrassed . "No, m a n ...I manage t o
overcom e t h a t . . .T h a t's a p e r so n a l t h i n g . . . I used
t o g e t v ery u p tig h t about th in g s l i k e t h a t , b u t—
. . . " W e l l , " sa y s Lenny, " it makes me madj"
(1971, PP. 82-83)
Lenny i s Leonard B e r n s te in ; Cox i s Don Cox, F ie ld
I
M arshall of th e Black Panther P a r ty ; and th e scene is th e
B e rn stein apartm ent. I t is the F a ll of 1969, and th e
B ern stein s a re h o stin g a p a rty to "p resen t" some of th e
Panther programs to t h e i r frie n d s . I t is Tom W olfe, how-
| ev e r, who is t e l l i n g th e sto ry (Tom W olfe, th e 2nd, th a t
j
| i s , who does n ot want t o go home a g a in ) , and th e " r e a l
|e v e n t" th a t to o k p la c e in New York C ity in th e s i x t i e s taken
i
jon sim u lta n e o u sly — by v ir t u e o f h is in im it a b le mode o f
p o r tr a y a l— both a f i c t i o n a l and an h i s t o r i c a l q u a lit y .
I t s s in g u la r it y i s due t o W o lfe 's a b i l i t y t o h old r e a l l i f e
396
397
so clo se to th e microscope th a t th e fig u re s and th e surround
emerge so p a in fu lly human as to become th e mlse en scene
! in a piece of T heater of the Absurd.
I
But th e "cast of c h a ra c te rs " Wolfe (1971) p rese n ts
j us were a liv e and liv in g in New York and were hobnobbing
| i t w ith the Panthers and donating to th e Panthers and
|
| having t h e i r p ic tu re s taken w ith th e Panthers in th e F a l l
j
| of 1969. Most of them were upper-middle and u p p er-cla ss
I well-knowns from the a r t s and from Academe. One recognizes
them as th e same c a st of c h a ra c te rs who probably supported
Hubert Humphrey in th e la te f o r ti e s during h is then avant
garde push fo r c i v i l r ig h ts , but suspects t h a t , i f the
name of H.H. came up a t the ’69 c o c k ta il p a rty , Humphrey
was tr e a te d as a p a ria h , an e a rly fla sh -in -th e -p a n -g o n e -
c o n se rv a tiv e . But th en , 19^7 and 1969 were years a p a r t,
time enough fo r p rogressives and lib e r a ls to "go r a d ic a l,"
w asn 't i t ?
I t is now the F a ll of 1973> a mere four years l a t e r .
The menage of In d iv id u als spread out in th e B ern stein
liv in g room lik e canapes a re s t i l l , one a n t ic i p a te s , a liv e j
|
and liv in g in New York. Have you seen t h e i r p ic tu re s in j
i
th e s o c ia l pages th is F a ll? Probably so. Are th ey being
I
film ed w ith Don Cox, F ield M arshall of th e Black P an th e rs,
or Angela Davis, or Huey Newton, or even Tom Hayden?
Probably n o t.
398
F o r, as Tom W olfe a r t ic u la t e d s o c a r e f u lly and c le v e r -
| l y , 1969 was th e se a so n o f " R ad ical Chic" ju s t as th e
I
| S p rin g o f 1968 had been th e se a so n o f "H ippie C h ic ." For
I want o f a b e t t e r name, I a ls o dub th a t tim e when most o f
| my Sherman Oaks yo u n g -co u p le fr ie n d s l e f t t h e ir c h ild r e n
w ith b a b y - s it t e r s and s a t w ith dazed e y e s f in g e r in g th e
beads th a t d eco ra ted t h e i r Nehru s h i r t s in l i v i n g rooms
| w ith o th e r fr ie n d s in c o u p le s who had l e f t t h e ir c h ild r e n
I w ith b a b y - s it t e r s t o l i s t e n t o Donovan and J a n is J o p lin
| and smoke and compare g r a ss and f e e l young and w ith i t ,
I p a rt o f th e G reat Som ething th a t seemed t o be moving in
i
i
| and a c r o s s our c o u n tr y .
|
i M id d le -c la s s weekend h ip p ie s in Sherman Oaks and
|
| u p p e r -c la s s weekend r a d ic a ls in New York C ity had and have
| about them d if f e r e n c e s s o s t r ik in g th e y need n o t be
I m en tion ed , th e m ost ob viou s b ein g t h e i r le v e l o f income
and s t a t u s . Leonard and F e l i c i a B e r n ste in were p h o to -
| graphed w ith Don Cox; e n g in e e r Ed B u ck ley and h is w ife Sue
I
| were not film e d in th e k itc h e n o f E d 's form er SC roommate,
a tto r n e y Ned S ch w artz, as both ex p lo red th e f a c i l i t y o f
a 10-sp eed o s t e r iz e r a t c le a n in g a l i d o f A capu lco G old.
T h e r e fo r e , th e se a so n o f "H ippie Chic" in Sherman Oaks
and T iberon and o th e r p o in ts West p assed r e l a t i v e l y i n
c o n sp ic u o u sly compared t o th e 1969 se a so n o f " R adical Chic"
in New York C ity and B e v e r ly H i l l s . What i s o f i n t e r e s t
399
t o me in th e F a l l o f 1973> how ever, are n o t th e d if f e r e n c e s
betw een th e incom e and s t a t u s o f B e r n s te in and B u ck ley ,
| but th e s im i l a r i t i e s between t h e i r m o tiv atio n s, and the
i
| symbolic value of th e ir a c ts as s e t a g a in st th e panorama
| of th e s i x t i e s .
! I tu rn back to W olfe’s document t o help d e lin e a te
i
! what is fo r me th e most s ig n ific a n t of th o se com m onalities.
I
| Wolfe p o in ts out th a t i t is t r i f l i n g to attem pt t o judge
|
whether or not th e basic impulse behind R adical Chic was
"sin cere" or n o t. "B ut," he sa y s, "as in most human
endeavors focused upon an id e a l, th e re seemed to be some
|
| d o u b le -trac k th in k in g going o n." This i s how he d escrib es
!
| the d o u b le -trac k syndrome:
On the f i r s t tr a c k —w e ll, one does have a sin c e re
concern fo r th e poor and the underp riv ileg ed and
an honest outrage a g a in st d isc rim in a tio n . One's
h e a rt does cry out— q u ite sp o n tan eo u sly i—upon
hearing how th e p o lic e have d e a lt w ith th e
P a n th e rs, dragging an e p ile p tic lik e Lee Berry
out of h is h o s p ita l bed and throw ing him in to
th e Tombs.
...O n th e o th er hand—on th e second tr a c k in j
o n e's mind, th a t i s —one a ls o has a sin c e re con
cern fo r m aintaining a proper E ast Side l i f e
s ty le in New York S o c ie ty . And th is concern is
ju s t as sin c e re as the f i r s t , and ju s t as deep,
I t r e a lly i s . I t r e a l ly does become p a rt of
o n e 's psyche. For example, one must have a week
end p la ce, in th e country, or by th e shore, a l l
year round p re fe ra b ly , but c e r ta in ly from the
middle of May to th e middle of September. I t
is hard to get across to o u tsid e rs an under
standing of how ab so lu te such ap p a re n tly t r i v i a l
needs a re . (pp. ^8-^9)
400
In o th e r words, r e f e r r in g back to our opening ex c erp t,
| no m atter how nauseated and repulsed B ernstein might have
j
| been ( in one p art o f h is p sy ch e) a t th e o p u len t decour
! su rrou n d in g him , th e o th e r part o f h is psych e would probably
work in tandem (much l i k e th e sy m p a th etic and parasympa
t h e t i c n ervous sy ste m s) t o d is s o lv e th e n a u se a , p rob ab ly
v ia a b s o lv in g him from th e g u i l t behind th e n a u se a ,
probab ly v ia r e s o lv in g th e c o n f l i c t behind th e g u i l t . . .
i
I Why do I have so much when you have so l i t t l e ? A fter a l l ,
i
II was born a l i t t l e Jew ish boy whose p a r e n ts j u s t g o t by,
and, I f i t had been 100 y e a r s ago In P o la n d , I m ight have
been y o u . . . For B e r n s te in , th e o p tim a l road t o p u rg a tio n
i s a c h iev ed th rou gh u t i l i z i n g h is fame and money fo r th e
exp osu re o f th e P an th ers t o more p e o p le w ith fame and
m oney--a kind o f la t t e r - d a y R obin Hood a c t , or a t l e a s t
an a c t w ith th e lo o k o f R obin Hood, fo r in d e e d , th e r ic h
i
a r e n ’t b e in g robbed or even h avin g t o s a c r i f i c e a g r e a t j
I
d e a l, ju s t enough to pay fo r enough b re a k fa sts of black j
| kids to get t h e i r p ic tu re s in th e S ociety page. T herefore,
| B e r n s t e in ’s nausea i s tem p o r a r ily s ta y e d . He may even have
a tta in e d a kind o f " co n ta ct h ig h ." F urtherm ore, he I s n ot
o n ly d oin g good, but he i s w ith i t ; he Is where i t ’s a t
In th e F a l l o f 1969. He i s a c t in g th e p a rt o f a v i t a l 2 1 -
y e a r -o ld (or th e 2 1 -y e a r -o ld s who were where i t was a t in
th e F a l l o f 1 9 6 9 ). He i s , a t l e a s t fo r t o n ig h t , a
p o l i t i c a l p r o t e s t o r .
And what o f our " c u ltu r a l p r o te s to r s " In Sherman
Oaks? In l i e u o f h avin g t h e i r p ic tu r e s ta k e n , t h e ir
r e in fo r c e m e n t i s la r g e ly th a t g iv e n by th o s e w ith whom
th e y sh are t h e i r J o in t s . A sid e from th e v ery r e a l h ed on ic
to n e a ffo r d e d by th e J o in t i t s e l f — th e in sta n ta n e o u s
r e le a s e from th e r o u tin e o f la v ie de to u s l e s Jours (every^-
day l i f e ) - - th e r e i s th e more s u b t le reward g iv e n m u tu a lly ,
though p o s s ib ly n o n v e r b a lly , by th e sm a ll group o f 3 0 -
i
| and ^0- y e a r - o ld s . Through t h e i r t o g e t h e r n e s s , and th e
i
! " to o l" o f th e J o in t , th e y c a n , a t l e a s t fo r t h i s e v e n in g ,
|
I c o n v in c e each o th e r th a t th e y a r e a l l d o in g som eth in g out
i
!o f th e o r d in a r y , th a t t h e i r l i v e s h a v e n 't gone i s o s t a t i c ,
!th a t th e v ery f a c t th e y r is k p o lic e b u sts means th a t th e y
i
a r e n o t t o t a l l y E sta b lish m e n t (ev en g iv e n th e f a c t th a t
in th e drivew ay o u ts id e P o r s c h e s, Trium phs, and Ford
s ta tio n -w a g o n s a w a it th e r id e hom e).
The b a s ic s i m i la r i t y in t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , in summary,
i s : ( 1 ) th a t both th e B e r n s te in s and th e B u ck leys by
v ir t u e o f t h e i r b eh avior probably r e c e iv e d maximum su pp ort
from s i g n i f i c a n t o th e r s in t h e i r l i v e s — t h e i r own p eer
group— in th a t th e y were p erform in g e x a c t ly th e a p p r o p r ia te
b eh a v io rs fo r th e "Seasons" in q u e s tio n . In f a c t , a lth o u g h
t h e s e same b eh a v io rs would have c e n te r e d them out as non
c o n fo r m ists even a year p r e v io u s ly , I t i s my f e e l i n g th e y
-402
had become so in fa s h io n as t o r e p r e se n t a new norm in
| th e S p rin g o f 1967 and th e F a l l o f 1969. (2 ) R e g a r d le ss
I th e " f l i r t a t i o n ” w ith th e p o lic e ( in th e in s ta n c e o f th e
; pot-smoking) and th e government (in th e in sta n c e of the
1
| Panther support p a r ty ) , th e chances were th a t n e ith e r
p a rty would be invaded. In both th ese Seasons, n e ith e r th e
p o lic e nor th e government were focused on weekend p r o te s
t o r s . They were perhaps more in tune w ith a f a c to r th a t
both the B ernsteins and th e Buckleys subconsciously tr ie d
t o s h ie ld . On Monday morning, Ed would be back a t h is
| desk a t Douglas, working on h is new re e n try p ro p o sal, and
I
iLenny would be in h is business m anager's o f f ic e , review ing
]
! w ith h is accountant th e r o y a ltie s on h is c u rre n t re c o rd in g s,
I In o th er words, though Wolfe wrote th a t "Lenny seemed lik e
| a changed man," th e c r u c ia l q u estio n one asks him self
| about B ern stein (which is a p p ro p ria te a ls o to Buckley) is
!
| "Has he changed? I f so, how? I f n o t, have he and F e lic ia
j j
J (and Buckley and Ms. Buckley) simply added another item j
! i
to t h e i r s o c ia l agendas? I
i
% im p lica tio n s here a re markedly ta in te d w ith personal
I i
I b ia s , th a t bias in d ic a tiv e of a w ell-d efin ed a t titu d e toward
1
| p erso n al commitment. T h erefo re, you w ill undoubtedly sense
a cynicism as you read my d e s c rip tio n of th e B ern stein and
Buckley " p ro te s ts " of th e Seasons of 1968 and 1969. X !
began t h i s chapter in t h i s manner not simply to hypothesize
....................... '..........'..........' . '.. '....403'
th a t th e re was p o ssib ly lim ita tio n and non-commital opera
ti v e in upper and m id d le-class a d u lts a t th a t tim e, but
j a lso to dem onstrate how broad an impact rad ic alism and
r a d ic a liz a tio n had by th e end of th e s i x t i e s , going so f a r
as to invade th e san ctu ary of New York E l i t i s t S o cie ty .
I t i s only a sh o rt ste p t o th e next su g g e stio n : i f
ra d ic a lis m , o r, should I say, th e " ra d ic a l s t y l e ," was so
| in vogue w ith th e a d u lt p o p u latio n , i t probably had even
| a g r e a te r impact on th e c o lleg e campuses.
! I th in k i t im portant here to emphasize th a t the
i
questions presented in th is in te g r a l ch ap ter are not in
tended to c ru c ify a l l th e prople involved in an immensely
com plicated s e t of phemomena. In d iv id u a l fa c to rs in th is
s e t have been, a r b i t r a r i l y and b lith e ly , categ o rized as
th e youth movement or the c o u n te r-c u ltu re . M y focus is
the ex p lo ra tio n of d if f e r e n t depths of involvement in
th e se phenomena, p a r tic u la r ly in th e s o c io - p o l itic a l
aspect of stu d en t p r o te s t.
Consciousness and Conscience
The concept of "commitment" (which I see as c e n tr a l
to th i s issu e ) is not n e c e s s a rily confined in a p p lic a tio n
to th e s o c io - p o l itic a l are n a , but I f e e l i t extrem ely
p e rtin e n t to an a n a ly sis of what is involved in so cio
p o l i t i c a l change and p r o te s t, perhaps more than in th e
maintenance of a c u l tu r a l ideology, or in the ev o lu tio n of
| c u lt u r a l ch an ge.
In an e a r l i e r paper ( 1971) , I t r ie d t o ta p t h i s same
d i s t i n c t i o n in a n oth er m anner, by d e lin e a t in g th e d if f e r e n -
| c e s I saw in th e n o tio n s o f " c o n s c io u s n e ss ," an "in" term
! d u rin g th e s i x t i e s , and " c o n s c ie n c e ." In th a t p a p er, I
| s ta te d th a t " c o n scio u sn e ss" i s but a synonym fo r "p ercep -
|
| tio n " and t h a t , c o n c u r r e n tly , th e n o tio n s o f a lt e r e d
| c o n s c io u s n e s s or c o n s c io u s n e s s - r a is in g im p lie s g r e a te r
j a w a ren ess, or more a c u te and a s t u t e p e r c e p tio n . Con-
i
| s c io u s n e s s , how ever, a s a s t a t e o f b ein g may rem ain p u rely
| p h y s ic a l. I t c e r t a i n ly need n o t be v e r b a l, and does n ot
| r e q u ir e (even though i t m ight f a c i l i t a t e ) any r e la t e d
| a c t io n , or a c t io n s . The n o tio n o f c o n s c ie n c e i s a very
d if f e r e n t o n e. I t Im p lie s a l e v e l o f m o r a lity or e t h i c a l
i
developm ent w h ich , even though i t m ight be p r im itiv e
d e v e lo p m e n ta lly , I s r e la t e d i m p l i c i t l y , but n e c e s s a r ily ,
t o a c e r t a in s e t o f a c t io n s .
I co n tin u ed t o e x p la in in th a t same paper th a t th e
i
! b e l i e f in drugs a s a key t o expanded c o n s c io u s n e s s and a
i
| r ic h e r s t y l e o f l i f e , and th e b e l i e f th a t th e U n ited S t a t e s
i
|
! was m o ra lly g u i l t y fo r i t s a c tio n s in S o u th e a st A sia were
i
both c o n tr a r y t o th e a t t i t u d e s and norms o f th e dominant
c u ltu r e a t th e b eg in n in g o f th e s i x t i e s . For th o s e who
!
!
did h old th o s e b e l i e f s , th e same p a tte r n o f r e a c tio n s was
n ot r e q u ir e d . The drug a d v o ca te i s in e v er y way j u s t i f i e d
k05
| in rem ain in g a lo n e w ith h is d op e. He need o n ly change i n -
i
| t e r n a l l y a s th e drugs change him . The a n ti-w a r in d iv id u a l,
| how ever, i s bound t o a p r in c ip le w hich demands o f him th a t
i he move o u ts id e h is own head fo r th e f a c t th a t s o c i a l and
| p o l i t i c a l ch an ge, by d e f i n i t i o n , must be e x t e r n a l. I t
j was fo r t h i s same rea so n th a t I in d ic a te d in C hapter 6
I th a t I found th e t h e s i s o f R eich ( 1970) t o be an u n ten a b le
I
I o n e. D e s p ite t h e i r s i m i l a r i t i e s , c u lt u r a l e v o lu t io n and
l
| s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l change a r e two v ery d i f f e r e n t phenomena.
; The f i r s t can ta k e p la c e over a g r e a t le n g th o f tim e , be
i
; t o t a l l y n o n -s y s te m a tiz e d , and In v o lv e no d e lib e r a t e moves
i tow ard th e g o a ls in q u e s tio n . In many in s t a n c e s , th e
i
i g o a ls th e m se lv e s a r e vague and n o n d e s c r ip t, d evelop ed out i
! o f th e r e s t l e s s and perhaps d iv e r s e (or even a n t a g o n is t ic )
I a c tio n s o f in d iv id u a ls , p o s s ib ly a c tin g s o l e l y out o f p e r -
| s o n a l m o tiv a tio n . As d e sc r ib e d in C hapter in s o c i o -
i
j p o l i t i c a l ch a n g e, th e a c to r s are u s u a lly p r e sse d toward
j more ra p id a c t io n , th e c r e a tio n o f a m o b illz e a b le f r o n t ,
; and th e c l a r i f i c a t i o n and p r o s e ly t lz a t io n o f t h e ir g o a ls , j
i
T h is i s tr u e b ecau se o f th e n a tu re o f th e b e l i e f s in v o lv ed ,)
I
t
b e l i e f s em ergent out o f u n iv e r s a l p r in c ip le s w hich d e a l
w ith th e w e lfa r e (a n d , in th e c a se o f a V ietn a m ), th e very
| s u r v iv a l o f men. Such was th e n o tio n o f Hannah A rendt
(1963) which I p r e sen ted in r e l a t io n t o r e v o lu t io n . Such
i s th e im pact behind Camus' s ta te m e n t: Je r e 'v o lte , done
if 06
i
i
I nous sommes (I r e v o lt, th e re fo re we a r e ) .
Of course, p erso n a l e th ic s may be involved in th e
d e c isio n of a Timothy Leary or a Richard A lpert/B aba Ram
Das to become m is s io n a rie s . But t h i s a c tio n was not a
requirem ent of a lte r e d co n scio u sn ess. On th e o th er hand,
th e value system of a D aniel E lls b e rg , faced w ith h is
sp ecies of a lte r e d p ercep tio n n e c e s s ita te d th a t he had to
a c t, and th a t p a rt of h is a c tio n would need to be a broad-
base attem pt a t "conversion" as ra p id ly as p o s s ib le .
W e w i l l d is c u s s s h o r t ly K o h lb erg ’s L e v e ls o f M oral
Judgment (1 9 6 9 ). A summary o f th e s e l e v e l s i s in c lu d e d
as T ab le 3 . S u f f ic e i t t o say fo r now th a t th e a c tio n o f
I an E llsb e rg was c e r ta in ly th a t of K ohlberg’s Stage 6,
j
iw herein th e a c to r is driven to place p erso n a l conscience
1
; and commitment above th a t of th e c u rre n tly -o p e ra tiv e law.
I have alread y pointed out th a t many of th e te n e ts
of p a s s iv is ts and a c t i v i s t s which stood c le a r ly a g a in st th e
mores of th e dominant c u ltu re a t th e beginning of th e
s i x t i e s were p o ssib ly "popular" by th e end of th e decade.
The read e r may agree or d isag ree w ith t h i s su g g estio n ,
but I f e e l he or she w ill be in accord w ith th e f a c t t h a t ,
no m atter how popular th e new " c u ltu r a l h a b it" or "socio
p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e , " th e ro le of the tr u e b e lie v e r in
e ith e r case would remain th e same.
407
| For th e p o l i t i c a l p r o te s to r, th e fa c t of rap id
| in c re a se of p o te n tia l and a c tu a l converts a m p lifie s , i t
|
! would seem, h is p erso n al r e s p o n s ib ility . In th e h i s t o r i c a l
| s e c tio n , I mentioned my own re tic e n c e t o accept th a t
| " in s ta n t r a d ic a llz a tio n " a c tu a lly happens, o r, i f seeming
| t o occur, th a t I t endures. M y thoughts h erein a re echoed
! by K ohlberg's th e s e s . I t is h is claim th a t one cannot
| suddenly make th e leap over one or two stag es of moral
j
| development in to an o th er. The Stage Two in d iv id u a l who
| Is grounded In an o rie n ta tio n toward hedonism and recip ro ci-
| ty as motives cannot suddenly make m oral d ec isio n s r e la te d
l
i
| t o c a re fu lly -d e lib e ra te d m atters of conscience. T his does
I
| not mean, however, th a t h is a c tio n s may not look th e same
| !
as those of committed in d iv id u a ls . j
i
This lin e of thought brings me back to my consideration
of C a n tr il and of Hoffer in th e l a s t c h a p te r. I c r i t i c i z e d
t h e i r works fo r th e manner in which they seemed t o d e sc rib e
! I
! a l l p a rtic ip a n ts in s o c ia l movements as tru e b e lie v e rs .
I !
| Both, as I mentioned, stro n g ly stre s s e d th e s u g g e s tib il ity ,
i
| th e m a lle a b ility , and th e fic k le n e ss of co n v erts to s o c ia l
; movements, In d ic a tin g they would commonly change lo y a ltie s
| !
I from a p o l i t i c a l cause to a re lig io u s one, or vice v e rsa .
I a ls o suggested th a t one must be dubious as to th e depth
of a "quick conversion p ro cess." For th ese reaso n s, I
en te rta in e d the idea th a t many of th e s o -c a lle d members of
liOS
mass movements a re p o ssib ly not m otivated by "tru e b e lie f "
| but by o th er fa c to rs lik e group p re ssu re , group reward,
| th e need fo r belongingness. I a ls o hypothesized t h a t , in
, !
| th e se in s ta n c e s , th e behavior of c e r ta in in d iv id u a ls may
; be b e tte r c h a ra c te riz e d as com pliant, in d ic a tin g th a t he
! may not p riv a te ly accept th e p rin c ip le s he o v e rtly , or
| p u b lic ly , su p p o rts.
j I t i s fo r th is reason th a t one needs to examine a
| "peak period of p ro te s t" ( lik e th e Season of R a d ica l C hic),
I ta k in g in to c o n sid e ra tio n both th e n atu re of c o lle c tiv e
|
a c tio n and th e fe e lin g s and motives of d if f e r e n t individuals
w ith in th e mass. Again, t h i s is not meant t o brand a l l
of campus p ro te s t as m otivated by th e above f a c t o r s , fo r
I t r u ly f e e l (from d ir e c t experience) th a t in d iv id u a l
| stu d e n ts were committed and acted c o n s is te n tly on t h i s
i
j commitment, d e s p ite p erso n al s a c r i f i c e , long before and
| long a f t e r th e "Popular S easons."
i
I What was America before the s ix tie s ? Riesman, G lazer,
|
j e t a l . c h a ra c te riz e d th e main m otif in m iddle-class Ameri-
i
jean so c iety as o th e r-d ire c te d n e ss (1950). The basic f a c to r
in o th e r-d ire c te d n e s s as th e authors d escrib e i t is th a t
th e main cues fo r behavior a re th e a c tio n s of one’s con
te m p o ra ries, those w ith whom one is d ir e c tly or in d ir e c tly
acquainted, frie n d s and/or th e mass media. A fu rth e r
e la b o ra tio n by Riesman e t a l . is p a r tic u la r ly s ig n ific a n t
4o 9 1
!to our p resen t d isc u ssio n :
i
| This source i s . . ." in te r n a liz e d " in th e sense
th a t dependence on i t fo r guidance in l i f e is
| implanted e a r l y . The goals toward which the
o th er d ire c te d person s tr iv e s s h i f t w ith th a t
guidance: i t i s only th e process of s tr iv in g
i t s e l f and th e process of paying clo se a tte n tio n
t o th e s ig n a ls from o th ers th a t remain u n altered
through lif e . (p. 3 7 )
jR iesm an's d e s c rip tio n is of course i l l u s t r a t i v e of a
| conforming and group-conscious so c ie ty wherein th e in d iv i
d u a l's c h ie f source of d ire c tio n and of v u ln e ra b ility i s
o th e rs , wherein th e need fo r approval (Crowne & Marlowe,
196^) i s an " in s a tia b le fo rc e ." For th e o th e r-d ire c te d
j person, power, according to th e se a u th o rs, may look lik e
j a g o al, but he is defined as a minor m anipulator, moving
i
! toward ad ju stm en t, via alignm ent w ith power-sources and
I power lo c i, ra th e r than seeking power f o r h im self.
This p ic tu re of American m id d le-class so c ie ty in th e
j
i post-w ar years is p a r tic u la r ly s ig n ific a n t in th a t i t
| re p re s e n ts , i f a c c u ra te , th a t s e ttin g in which th e campus
I p ro te s to rs of the s ix t ie s were ra is e d . R egardless th e
j
! in d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s in p aren ts of th e e a rly campus
I r a d ic a ls (as described by Flacks and K eniston in a r t i c l e s 1
j
| mentioned p re v io u sly ), th e dominant m otif in th e i n s t i
tu tio n s and communities in which th ese c h ild re n grew in to j
j
adolescence and young adulthood was one which promoted
conform ity as a mode of s u rv iv a l. X doubt th a t any author
w ritin g about th e period in question would d isa g re e . As
410
a m atter of f a c t , I am sure th a t most people Involved in
c o u n te r-c u ltu re or p ro te s t a c t i v i t i e s f e l t or spoke to th e
I f a c t they f e l t they were stru g g lin g a g a in st th a t very
i form idable conform ity.
N onetheless, th e Riesman statem ent s tic k s w ith us in
th a t i t s tr e s s e s the e a rly im p lan tatio n process of a tte n -
| dance to group cu es, group reinforcem ent, and group
i
v alu es. What is in te r e s tin g in th e rese arch on th e youth
phenomena is th a t F la c k s, K eniston, and o th er authors who
attem pt to sketch th e p a re n ta l backgrounds of a c t i v i s t s
are com pletely in accord w ith th e sketch of Riesman, save
I
| th a t they p o in t out th e c o n tra d ic tio n s between th e values
j of th e p aren ts and th e manner in which they a c tu a lly liv ed
| th e i r liv e s , t h i s c o n f lic t re c e iv in g th e c r e d it fo r
I
l
in s tig a tin g th e r e b e llio u s a c tio n s of t h e i r yo u n g sters.
T his i s th e o ld : "Don't do as I do, do as I say" syndrome,
i s n 't i t ? Reich (in h is in im ita b le manner of borrowing
th e Riesman model w ithout c i t i n g i t s o rig in s ) d escrib es i t
as Consciousness I I , adds to i t some of th e Flacks A e n ls to n
s tr u c t u r a l d a ta , and claim s i t to be th e source of the
sudden flow ering of Consciousness I I I .
| Let me say th a t In my own l i f e , In th a t of my f rie n d s ,
and in a l l of th e youngsters I 'v e ever read about, or
tr e a te d , th e "Don't do as I do, do as I say" message not
only reads double and plays double, but leaves g re a t con-
411
f l i c t and no l i t t l e resentm ent in th e wake of i t s double
message. In my own l i f e , any voice of a u th o rity lo s t no
sm all amount of th a t a u th o rity in th o se moments when he
o r she tresp a sse d and asked a t th e same tim e th a t I not
do th e same. With no i n t e l l e c t u a l understanding of the
! concept of v a lu e s, I was, in those moments— even as a
j
| sm all c h ild —deeply dubious th a t i t r e a l ly m attered to
| th a t person th a t I do as he s a id . I am a ls o convinced
th a t more modeling was engendered by watching the behavior
of s ig n if ic a n t-o ld e r - o th e r s than by hearin g t h e i r le c t u r e s ,
| even though th e younger g en eratio n may l a t e r p a rro t th e
| very same le c tu re s.'
| In r e la tio n to my thoughts on commitment and con- j
science and w ith a l i t t l e le s s n aiv ete than in those child-!
!
hood y e a rs , I now se rio u s ly doubt whether such values were j
d eep ly -in g rain ed in those a u th o rity fig u re s who made use
of the above-mentioned " p a tte rn " when d ealing with t h e i r
| c h ild re n . On th e c o n tra ry , th e i r a c tio n s revealed to me,
j i t would seem, l e t us know th a t th e i r primary values or
I p r i o r i t i e s lay elsew here.
This is not to say such people do not want to value
| those p rin c ip le s from which they frame m in iatu re le c tu re s |
i i
fo r th e ir c h ild re n . Nor i s i t to say they would not lik e
I
t h e i r c h ild re n to hold those values as prim ary. They ta k e j
|
them to church, expose them to moral axioms and proverbs,
| and deeply hope th a t someday t h e i r own c h ild re n w ill liv e
i
) in a world wherein th e se values w ill be dominant, a b e tte r
! world. This is s im ila r to th e f in a n c ia l investm ent they
i
! r e g u la rly d ep o sit toward t h e i r c h ild re n 's fu tu re education,
j a b e tte r education than th ey had. What ij3 tr u e , or was
|
j tr u e is th a t th ey them selves could not have in te g ra te d
I
! th o se values a t g u t- le v e l and th a t they did not choose to
| recognize th a t unless they them selves p a r tic ip a te d in a
| massive change, th e re would be no change.
i
j The "d o u b le-track th in k in g " described by W olfe, and
i
d e lin e a te d e a r l i e r in th i s c h a p te r, is a la tte r - d a y version
of th e double-message syndrome re fe rre d t o above. What
i
| i s d if f e r e n t in th e l a t t e r form i s t h a t , fo r an "acted-out
i a lle g ia n c e " to some of th e hum anitarian values and t h e i r
I
a p p lic a tio n s only v erb alized by th e p a re n ts of th e f o r t i e s
and f i f t i e s , th e Buckleys and B ern stein s re c e iv e d , I
! b e lie v e , quanta of th a t same reinforcem ent toward which
j
! t h e i r e a r l i e r predecessors g r a v ita te d . N onetheless, a c tu a l
| l i f e change s t i l l meant s a c r if ic e s th e Buckleys and Bern- i
! s te in s were no more ab le to consider s e rio u s ly than were
th e T a rtu ffia n (am I too tough?) p aren ts d e liv e rin g p l a t i
tudes t o t h e i r doubting Thomases and Marys. "And so i t
g o es," wrote Kurt Vonnegut (1 9 6 9 ), in h is sad-sad chorus
i
of Slaughterhouse F iv e . M iany words going down in genera- |
j
tio n a f t e r g e n e ra tio n , and many bodies (not in v o lu n ta rily
| 413
i
!
i .
| mechanisms, a l b e it asp e c ts of ro b o tiz a tio n ) perform ing
a c tio n s o fte n in d iam etric c o n tra s t to th e words. And so
i t goes. . .
I In d esc rib in g th e dominant c u ltu re a g a in st which th e
I h ip p ie s moved (or from which th e h ip p ies dropped), Yablonsky
I ( 1968) coined th e term " P la s tic S o c ie ty ." He draws h erein
I a p o r t r a i t wherein means, ends, and values m u ltip ly in to
| a massive p ile of a c q u is itio n s , su c cesses, rap id movements
I w ithout end, t h i s p a tte r n so ro u tin iz e d and autom atized
in u ltim a te appearance th a t th e t o t a l product i t s e l f ,
assessed along w ith i t s d riv e n , wiped-out owner, looks
lik e p l a s t i c . For Yablonsky, however, p la s tic as substance
i s obviously th a t which is se c o n d -ra te , im ita tiv e , a r t i
f i c i a l in comparison w ith the o r ig in a l a f t e r which i t was
i
c a s t. So in Y ablonsky's s o c ie ty , or in th e su b -so c ie ty
which i t b ir th s , do th e re a r is e " p la s tic h ip p ie s ," hangers-
on, teeny-boppers, im ita to rs . These in d iv id u a ls p la y , as
1
I see i t , th e same conform ist ro le w ith in th e new sub- !
: c u ltu re as did t h e i r p aren ts in th e o ld , simply a d ju stin g
i
; to new norms, Seeking what t h e i r peers a re not handing out
I
I as reinforcem ent. They a r e , in th e end, as in fre q u e n tly
j
I "autonomous" as were t h e i r p a re n ts .
In Coleman's c la s s ic study of adolescence ( 1961) , he
argues fo r a n a tu r a l youth su b cu ltu re in America, which as
a u to m a tic a lly re c re a te s changes i t s e l f as p a rt of the
41A
ev o lu tio n a ry p ro cess. V arious au th o rs have disagreed w ith
Coleman’s assessm ent, but few a u th o r itie s on adolescence
i would d isag ree w ith a re la te d n o tio n , th a t ad o lescen ts
i
seek one another as th e s ta b le fo rc e in t h e i r ever-changing
| growth p ro cess. The notion of peer-group consciousness,
| belonging, and p ressu re i s , in f a c t , n u clear to any th eo ry
! of adolescence, be i t determ inate or in determ inate in form.
Katz ( 1968) in h is e x c e lle n t study of p r i o r i t i e s in
I co lleg e youth gave evidence th a t t h i s same a lle g ia n c e to
| th e peer-group ex isted on campus.
| Among d ev e lo p m en talists, th e idea of a prolonged
adolescence la s tin g in to and through th e c o lle g e years
has received much a tte n tio n . Both Erikson (1950) and
Mead (1961) e n te rta in e d t h i s id ea of a "psychological
m oratorium ."
j Follow ing d ir e c tly in t h i s lin e of thought is th e work
l
| of K eniston, prev io u sly alluded to , which hypothesized
| th a t th e re had come to be, in f a c t , a "new stag e of youth
j (1971)."
|
| As K eniston has described t h i s new stag e (See: Chapter
i
! 6 ) , he somehow manages (as do Reich and Roszak) to in d ic a te
|
i t as one which embraces so many rev o lu tio n a ry asp ects th a t
one envisions Youth as Emancipated Man/Woman. C e n tra l to
th e concept of th is prolonged adolescence (but not stre s s e d
by K eniston) is th e idea th a t youth i s , a t once, id e n tif ie d
w ith h is own age-group (and th e re fo re c o lle c tiv e ly con
scious in my term s) and more concerned w ith su b je c tiv e
I expansion. Embroidering upon E rik so n ’s idea of th e id en
t i t y c r i s i s a K e n isto n 's "new sta g e " is one in which th e
" c e n tra l c h a r a c te r is tic is th e te n sio n between selfhood
and th e e x is tin g s o c ia l order" (p. 3 ) . This te n sio n and
|
| th e need to reduce i t v ia th e achievement of id e n tity
r e s u l t s , says K eniston, in a " b e llig e re n t non-adulthood"
(P. 3 ).
K eniston*s work is of i n t e r e s t t o me because he,
lik e so many a u th o rs, p o rtra y s a sta g e or s t a t e of l i f e in
which th e in d iv id u a ls are in t r a n s i t , in limbo. Con
c u r r e n tly , however, he re p re s e n ts th e youth group as
capable of both p o l i t i c a l and p sychological re v o lu tio n .
The f i r s t re v o lu tio n i s , as he d e scrib es i t , p a r a l l e l to
th a t of Arendt ( 19^3 )^ one a tte n d a n t to th e u n iv e r s a lis t
p rin c ip le th a t " a l l men be granted th e freedom, goods,
and p r iv ile g e s " ( p . 3 0 3) o fte n reserved fo r th e e l i t i s t s .
j
The second is th a t p sy ch o lo g ical freedom which transcends
p h y sic a l lib e r a tio n in i t s "quest fo r a world beyond
m a te ria lis m ,. . . ( i t s ) r e je c tio n of careerism and v a c a tio n -
alism , and th e emphasis on genuineness, re la te d n e s s ,
community, and lo v e"(p . 3 0 3).
X do not wish to q u estio n K e n lsto n 's d e lin e a tio n of
th e kind of world th a t a m a jo rity of co lleg e youth t a l k
4l6
about today. On th e o th er hand, I would hypothesize t h a t ,
as a r e s u lt of th e tremendous wave of s o c ia l and c u l tu r a l
|
; p r o te s t th a t h i t our country in th e s i x t i e s most Americans
| you and I know, re g a rd le ss t h e i r age, v e rb a lly yearn fo r
i
| t h i s same U topia. The e s s e n ti a l q u e stio n , however, is
i
| not what th ey wish f o r , or wish to wish f o r , or f e e l they
should b eliev e in , but how they a c tu a lly liv e , and what
they a re w illin g to s a c r if i c e to lay th e co rn ersto n es fo r
a new world.
I f u lly b eliev e th a t one can be made t o see something
from a d if f e r e n t angle ( ra is e h is co n scio u sn ess, i f you
w ill) q u ite ra p id ly and e a s ily , p a r tic u la r ly i f he or she
i s under th e tu te la g e of an ab le or a p ersu asiv e te ach e r
I or guru. I am com pletely convinced th a t th e consciousness
i
of t h i s country has been ra ise d to a new le v e l v ia th e
many movements mentioned in th e h i s t o r i c a l se c tio n of t h i s
d is s e r ta ti o n , in novative approaches in ed u c atio n al th e o ry ,
and such widespread phenomena as issued out of th e human
j j
| p o te n tia l movement (which embraced ev erything from yoga,
| m e d ita tio n , every manner of encounter group, drugs,
! a lte r n a tiv e modes of s e x u a lity and m ating). A ll of th is
a c tio n and a c t i v i t y somehow u n ited t o f a c i l i t a t e in Ameri-
i
cans th e p ic tu re of a more open, f l e x i b l e , and communal !
e x iste n c e , a kind of s o c i a l i s t i c and expansive mecca where
in war would be over and love would trium ph. Among my own
417
f r ie n d s , I would venture to say th e re i s probably not one
of them who does not wish fo r (or th in k he wishes fo r)
| p re c is e ly t h i s U topia. And th e se are not Ju st my 2 0 -y ear-
| old c o lle g e stu d e n ts , nor my 30-y ear-o ld p e e rs, but my 40-
I and 50-y ear-o ld c o lle a g u e s, f r ie n d s , and r e l a t i v e s .
i
i
I In order to achieve such a world out of t h i s p resen t
i
j
! one, th e re must be deep commitment. There must be an
i
| a b i l i t y to throw out th e re sid u e of th e old world. There
i
| must be th a t e t h ic a l d riv e which can only emerge ( i f we
! adhere to th e rese a rc h on moral development) o u t of th e
h ig h est le v e ls of conscience. And, although I am c e r ta in
| th a t th e consciousness of th is country has been ra is e d , I
i
am com pletely u n c e rta in th a t th e re has been a concurrent
growth of co n science.
The work of Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) c le a r ly shows th e
in flu e n c e of P iag e t in i t s c o g n itiv e em phasis. C learly
divergent from s te re o ty p ic a l conceptions of m o rality as
"v irtu o u sn e ss," K ohlberg's developm ental scheme promotes
| th e concept th a t th e growth of th e a b i l i t y to make moral
judgments a t a mature le v e l wherein adherence to p r in c ip le
predominates over any o th er c o n sid e ra tio n is based on th e
i
in d iv id u a l’s a b i l i t y to in te g ra te an idea of a ju s t w orld,
one where re sp e c t fo r human l i f e and human in d iv id u a lity
p r e v a il even over le g a lity or s p e c if ic e t h i c a l codes lik e
the Ten Commandments. T herefore, u n ju st laws must be
418
broken by th e in d iv id u a l o p eratin g a t Stage 6 . (See:
Table 3 ).
T herein l i e s th e j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r any and a l l
|
j r a d ic a l a c tio n which is geared to fre e in g in d iv id u a ls from
! s itu a tio n s which co rru p t a se t of a b s tra c t p rin c ip le s th a t
I I would r e f e r to as human law. Such is th e j u s t i f i c a t i o n
i
j of an E llsb e rg (or of a l l th e a n ti-w a r p ro te s to rs who tr u ly
| believed th a t our a c tio n s in Vietnam were u n ju st) in
defying th e w ritte n law of th is cou n try . By th e same
to k en , however, had E llsb e rg h ired someone to ta k e and
reproduce th e Pentagon Papers fo r a larg e f e e , i f th e fee
was foremost in th e h i r e l i n g ’s mind, he would be o p eratin g
a t th e Stage of In stru m en ta l R e lativ ism , which, according
to Kohlberg, is p re-co n v en tio n al (and p rim itiv e m o ra lity ).
This stag e would a lso be c h a r a c te r is tic of th o se c o lleg e
stu d e n ts who entered in to a given a c t of in s u rre c tio n fo r
"k ic k s" or because they were o ffered something in exchange
fo r th e ir bodies being out th e re . In both th e se in sta n c e s,
th e a c to rs , although they performed perhaps th e same
! a c tio n s , would not be s im ila rly j u s t i f i e d as t h e i r m otiva-
! tlo n s and judgments were a t a c le a r ly more p rim itiv e and
naive le v e l.
TABLE 3
L. KOHLBERG *S M O R A L JUDGM ENT SCALE
Stages of Moral Development:
Stage 1: Obedience and punishment o r ie n ta tio n . E gocentric
deference to su p erio r power or p r e s tig e , or a
tro u b le -a v o id in g s e t. O bjective r e s p o n s ib ility .
Stage 2 : In stru m e n ta l R e la tiv is ts (IR ). N aively e g o is tic
o r ie n ta tio n , Right A ction I s th a t in stru m e n ta lly
s a tis f y in g th e s e l f 's needs and o c c asio n ally
o th e r s '. Awareness of re la tiv is m of value to
each a c t o r 's needs and p e rsp e c tiv e . Naive e g a l i
ta ria n ism and o r ie n ta tio n to exchange and r e c ip -
ro c ity .
Stage 3: P erso n al concordance (PC). Good-boy o r ie n ta tio n .
O rie n ta tio n to approval and to p le asin g and h e lp
ing o th e rs. Conformity t o s te re o ty p ic a l images
of m a jo rity or n a tu r a l r o le behavior, and judg
ment of in te n tio n s .
Stage 4: Law and order (LO). A u th o rity and s o c ia l-o rd e r
m aintaining o r ie n ta tio n . O rie n ta tio n to "doing
duty" and to showing re sp e c t fo r a u th o rity and
m aintaining th e given s o c ia l order fo r i t s own
sake. Regard fo r earned ex p e cta tio n of o th e rs .
Stage 5: S o c ia l c o n tra c t (SC). C o n tra ctu a l l e g a l i s t i c
o rie n ta tio n . R ecognition of an a r b i t r a r y element
or s ta r t in g p o in t in ru le s or ex p e c ta tio n s fo r
th e sake of agreem ent. Duty defined in term s of
c o n tra c t, g en e ra l evidence of v io la tio n s of the
w ill or r ig h ts or o th e rs, and m a jo rity w ill and
w elfare.
Stage 6: In d iv id u a l P rin c ip le s ( I P ) . Conscience or
p rin c ip le o r ie n ta tio n . O rie n ta tio n not only to
a c tu a lly ordained s o c ia l ru le s but to p rin c ip le s
of choice involving appeal to lo g ic a l u n iv e r s a li
ty and c o n siste n c y . O rie n ta tio n to conscience
as a d ir e c tin g agent and to mutual re sp e c t and
t r u s t .
Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence; The C o g n itiv e-
Developmental Approach to S o c ia liz a tio n , In Handbook
of S o c ia liz a tio n Theory and Rese a rc h , D. A. G oslin,
E d ., New 'York: Rand McNally, 1969, p. 376.
F a c tu a lly , K ohlberg!s 15 years of re se arch show th e
d i f f i c u l t y of developing a high le v e l of moral reasoning
i in th is country, which he b la ta n tly c l a s s i f i e s as an un-
| ju s t s o c ie ty . He fin d s th a t fewer than one out of th re e
Americans o p erate a t Stage 5 th in k in g . Stage 6 is ra re
| fo r Americans and i s u su a lly c h a r a c te r is tic of younger
people when i t does occur.
j
Hampden-Turner (1970) and Hampden-Turner and W hitten
i
| (1971) have discussed th e Kohlberg re se arch in conjunc-
I t io n w ith a review of th e stu d ie s of Haan, Block, and
i
| Sm ith. The c r u c ia l study in r e la tio n to th i s d isc u ssio n
| i s th e ir 1968 study in which th e authors assigned groups
j
! of c o lleg e stu d e n ts in Berkeley to K ohlberg's le v e ls by
j
| v ir tu e of having them ta k e h is Moral Judgment S cale.
! S u b jects a re asked to solve moral dilemmas th a t a re p re -
| sented to them, and t h e i r responses a re analyzed as to
I th e in d ic ated sta g e of moral development.
The authors discovered th a t of those who reasoned a t
j
| Stage 6 , 80# had p a rtic ip a te d in th e Berkeley FSM in 196*1.
|
Of Stage 5 th in k e rs , 50$ had p a r tic ip a te d . Only 10$ a t
th e Conventional Level of M orality (Stages 3 and 4) had
p a rtic ip a te d a t th e Sproul H all s i t - i n of 1964, but a t the
p re-co n v en tio n al Stage 2 , 60$ had p a r tic ip a te d . These
r e s u l t s dem onstrate th e im portant concept t h a t , although
th e re were more p o st-co n v en tio n als (n = 5 6) a t Sproul
421
H a ll than p re-co n v en tio n als (n = 13), th e p ro p o rtio n in
volved In th e p ro te s t was about th e same. This upholds
th e Idea behind th e d isc u ssio n I am developing a t present,
th a t th e re is no lin e a r c o r r e la tio n between le v e ls of moral
development and p o l i t i c a l p r o t e s t .
Of fu rth e r relevance is an unpublished study of
Kohlberg done In 1970 a t Harvard which the author c o rre c tly
p re d ic te d would dem onstrate th a t th e stu d e n ts In th e
Harvard S trik e of 1969 would NOT show an o v e rre p re se n ta tio n
of Stage 5 and 6 th in k in g . He based t h i s p re d ic tio n on
h is idea th a t th e Harvard s i t - i n did not involve th e same
kind of appeal to a b s tra c t p rin c ip le as was present in
th e PSM. I f you w ill r e c a l l , I attem pted t o i l l u s t r a t e
t h i s same point in th e h i s t o r i c a l se c tio n of t h i s work,
showing th e kind of p a stic h e p ro te s t which was not only
dem onstrated in th e Harvard ep iso d e, but in many of the
s tr ik e s (even th e major ones) which took place In 1969
and th e r e a f t e r , by which tim e campus p ro te s t had become
a "popular" a c t i v i t y .
K ohlberg's theory m a te ria l in te g ra te d w ith h is own
re se arch and by th e stu d ie s alluded to above c le a r ly
supports my main points In t h i s d isc u ssio n : (1) That not
a l l p ro te s t is m oral. The d ec isio n as to whether th e
in d iv id u a l a c t is a moral one or not Is dependent upon an
a n a ly sis of the in d iv id u a l’s moral reasoning and m o tiv atio n ,
422
| and upon th e asp ects of the s p e c ific s itu a tio n ; (2) T hat,
I '
j r e la te d to th e above f a c to r , Is the a d d itio n a l aspect th a t
j
! one cannot p re d ic t th a t in d iv id u a ls w ith high le v e ls of
i
! m oral .judgment w ill n e c e s s a rily p a r tic ip a te in a l l p r o t e s t s ,
! s i t - i n s , e t c . ; (3) T hat, given an issu e wherein a person
I of h ig h -le v e l moral reasoning fe e ls th a t h is conscience or
| h is p r in c ip le are being v io la te d , or th a t u n iv e rs a l or
I "human law ," as I termed i t , has been th re a te n e d , he is
! more apt to p r o t e s t , even ag a in st th e p re v a ilin g "law"
than In d iv id u als a t o th er le v e ls . (4) T hat, among the
"a c to r s " in in d iv id u a l p r o te s ts , s i t - i n s , e tc . one w ill
fin d people a t a l l le v e ls of moral reasoning and th e re fo re
a t a l l le v e ls of m o tiv atio n .
Although Haan, Sm ith, and Block; Kohlberg; and
Hampden-Turner focused t h e i r analyses of th e above d ata on
Stages 2 , 5, and 6, and avoided g iv in g much a tte n tio n to
th e conventional Stages 3 and 4, th a t co n sid eratio n i s ,
1
I f e e l , e s s e n ti a l to t h i s d isc u ssio n . In th e a n a ly sis
j of th e s i t - i n of 1964 a t B erkeley, I t was found th a t of
! th e 145 conventional th in k e rs , only 10# p a rtic ip a te d in j
th e s i t - i n . That fig u re Is somewhat d ecep tiv e, however,
sin ce i t re p re se n ts 15 s u b je c ts . I t is p o ssib ly deceptive
in th a t t h i s group of conventional th in k e rs (Stages 3 and
4) is la rg e r than th e e n tir e preconventIona1 group te s te d
(n = 13)5 emphasizing th a t 60# of such a sm all number can j
be m isleading.
R e fe rrin g back to the h is to ry c h a p te r, one is in touch
i
I w ith th e f a c t th a t th e Berkeley s i t - i n of '64 was th e
j f i r s t episode of i t s ty p e, th e re fo re i t s nickname, "the
| Berkeley in v e n tio n ." Although th e c i v i l r ig h ts predeces
so rs of th e B erkeley a c t i v i s t s had long before had t h e i r
baptism in f i r e , chancing p o lic e b r u ta li ty and a r r e s t ,
i t h i s type of occurrence on a N orthern campus, centered
i
i
! around a "new issu e" was a t th a t tim e unique. On th e
i
I
| o th er hand, th e core of th e B erkeley cadre were experienced
i
I through th e c i v i l r ig h ts s tru g g le , the Cuban co n tro v ersy ,
e tc . The re se a rc h (L ip set & Wolin, 19&5) shows them to be
j
| a h ig h ly -d e d ic a te d , iss u e -o rie n te d group of young stu d e n ts,
| c o n s is te n t in t h e i r d ialo g u es, p e r s is te n t in t h e i r a c tio n .
The gap between 1964 and 1970, th e year of the National
Student S trik e , was a long one not in terms of tim e but
in th e manner w ith which re v o lu tio n was transform ed both
in to a p o p u lis t piece of jargon and came to encompass a l l
| manner of a c tio n and a c t i v i t y , from smoking a jo in t a t th e
I Buckley’s , to c u ttin g c la s s e s , to phoning campus a u th o ritie s
i
I
; and warning them of n o n ex isten t bombs, thereby evacuating
c la s s e s o r ig in a lly scheduled to have exam inations, to
saying "Puck you" to on e's p a re n ts.
I have alre ad y in d ic ated in th e th e o r e tic a l ch ap ter
on mass movements th a t my own conception of s o c ia l move-
j ments and my yet more r a r i f i e d understanding of re v o lu tio n
I
| is one considerably le ss encompassing than th a t d elin ea ted
j above. Im portant to th e se conceptions in my own canon
i
| are th e follow ing previously-m entioned f a c to r s : (1) th a t
! a mass movement must c o n s is t of a membership m obilizeable
| over tim e and narrow re g io n a l boundaries, and th a t th a t
| membership i s d ire c te d toward some s p e c ific g o al; (2) th a t
i
i
! th e in d iv id u a l members are committed and th a t such commit-
i
]
! ment involves such fa c to rs as p e rsis te n c e of a c tio n and
i
!
| e f f o r t d e s p ite f a i l u r e , f a tig u e , p erso n al s a c r i f i c e , e tc .
| C u ltu ra l ev o lu tio n which embodies both slow, g rad u al,
i
| and o ften in v o lu n tary or unconscious a c tio n , along w ith
i
I
| various types of fa d s, e tc . does not f i t t h i s d e f in itio n ,
j As I have mentioned b efo re, i t cannot be in te rp re te d as
1 such because th e p a rtic ip a n ts in such ac tio n s or behaviors
do not n e c e s s a rily ac t so as to change th e s o c io - p o l itic a l
s tr u c tu re of th e s o c ie ty , o r, even more c r u c ia lly , may be
unaware th a t th e re is any d i s t i n c t goal in t h e i r ac tio n s
a t a l l .
T herefore, th e p a r tic ip a n t in a group a c tio n which
i
| does not i t s e l f meet th e in d ic ated c r i t e r i a fo r so c io -
I
! p o l i t i c a l movements cannot be a tr u e re v o lu tio n a ry ,
i
j
although he may indeed be involved in a psychological
re b e llio n .
425
F u rth e r, th e o n -a g a in /o ff-a g a in , d ro p -in /d ro p -o u t
(th e one-night or one day-stand) syndrome is q u estionable
I as to m otivation and d e lib e ra te n e s s .
i
| The rev o lu tio n ary n atu re of c e rta in c u l tu r a l events
! which, although they may e v e n tu ally summate toward some
s ig n if ic a n t s o c io - p o litic a l change, may come to do so in
a manner which is a t le a s t p a r t i a l l y random or nonplanned.
!
i T his involved p a r tic ip a n t could be considered a kind of
f a d d is t, ju s t as th e c u l tu r a l phenomena may, in and of
themselves t be fa d s, whatever t h e i r ev en tu al ra m ific a tio n .
This lin e of thought is d ire c te d to my dubiousness
as to the v a lid ity of the process of "sudden r a d ic a liz a -
t i o n . " I have touched on th is alre ad y and now tu rn back
i
| to Kolhberg ag ain , whose c r o s s - c u ltu r a l stu d ie s ( 1 9 6 9)
I
! show th a t th e re can be no "leaps" over stag es in moral
development. The process is organized and s e q u e n tia l.
Being a c o g n itiv e model, one can conceive of i t as en
gendering th e building-up of more and more complex concepts,,
i
i True understanding and in te g ra tio n of such concepts
|
obviously involves much more than mere f a m ilia r ity w ith
them.
For in sta n c e , l e t us assume th a t someone is a t Stage
|
4 , which is asso c ia te d with p o l i t i c a l conservatism in t h i s
i
country, and w ith a law -and-order o r ie n ta tio n . According
to Kohlberg, people a t t h i s sta g e must pass through Stage
I 5* t*1 ® s o c ia l c o n tra c t le v e l c h a r a c te r is tic of p o l i t i c a l
| lib e r a ls before they can move on to Stage 6.
I f K ohlberg's th in k in g is c a rrie d over in to th e arena
! of s o c ia l p r o te s t, we understand h y p o th e sis, th a t th e
m id d le-o f-th e-ro ad er cannot genuinely a b ru p tly tu rn in to
I
I a genuine re v o lu tio n a ry . Because he is not so developed
| e th ic a lly , he cannot be p o l i t i c a l l y .
I But why, you may ask , am I tu rn in g to a c o n s id e ra tio n
of th ese c o n v e n tio n a lly -le v e lle d in d iv id u a ls when re se a rc h
showed so few of them as having been involved? F i r s t of
a l l , r e f e r r in g back to th e Haan, Smith, and Block d ata
th a t covered th e Berkeley FSM s i t - i n a t S proul H a ll, i t is
im portant to note s e v e ra l items th a t are not u su a lly
stre s s e d when t h i s study is c ite d : (1) As we mentioned
p rev io u sly , th is in c id e n t served as th e c a ta ly s t fo r the
Free Speech Movement, and l a t e r dubbed th e B erkeley Inven-
: tio n , i t provided th e model fo r th e f i r s t few years of
campus p r o te s t. But th e su b je cts evaluated as to moral j
judgment took p a rt in an in c id en t in 1964, when i t i s indeed
p o ssib le th a t most a c t i v i s t s were o p eratin g a t a higher
I
le v e l of m o rality , or were p o ssib ly t r u ly committed. !
i
Campus p ro te s t was by no means a common happening a t th a t j
tim e. I t was a c tu a lly novel as a phenomenon on N orthern
campuses, although i t had been "suggested" by th e C iv il
R ights Movement in the South, as has been shown in th e
427
h i s t o r i c a l s e c tio n ; (2) I t has never been mentioned e l s e
where t h a t , as I in d ic ated p re v io u sly , while Haan, Smith*
and Block m aintain th a t only 10# of Stage 3 and 4 su b je c ts
p a rtic ip a te d in th e 1964 in c id e n t, th e a c tu a l number of
p a r tic ip a n ts involved a t th a t le v e l was 15. Whereas th e se
au th o rs focus on the 60# th a t p a rtic ip a te d out of th e Stage
2 group, the number involved th e re was only £ , h a lf th a t
of the aforem entioned group. S im ila rly , although the
percentagea of Stages 5 and 6 p a rtic ip a n ts were 50# and
80# re s p e c tiv e ly , th e a c tu a l number of both groups com
bined was 32; (3) Another serio u s o v ersig h t on th e p a rt of
re se a rc h e rs looking a t t h i s im portant study was th e f a ilu r e
t o note th a t th e focus was not Ju st on those who had
p a rtic ip a te d but on th o se who a c tu a lly were a rre s te d a t
the s i t - i n . Anyone who has been in or near a campus in
s u rre c tio n knows th e e r r a t i c n a tu re of p o lic e a r r e s t s .
This has always been an a r b itr a r y and disorganized a c tiv i ty
even in th e years when p ro te s t became a common happening.
C e rta in ly in th e e a rly y ea rs, p o lic e were somewhat a t a
disadvantage in so f a r as knowing how to handle "the chosen
young of our n a tio n " in such unexpected and unprecedented
a c tio n . In th e case of Sproul H a ll, i t is very p o s s ib le ,
as in o th e r in c id e n ts of t h i s n a tu re , th a t those who were
a c tu a lly a rre s te d were those who "stuck in th e r e ," th e
tr u ly d ed icated . In e ith e r c a se , a group of hangers-on j
I 428
i
j
! may have been " lo s t" in th e " sh u ffle " in so f a r as th e
I data count is concerned; (4) What a l l th ese d if f e r e n t
j
! fa c to rs combine towards is the follow ing h y p o th e sis: That
i
| sin ce th e re were some p a r tic ip a n ts e x is te n t a t co nventional
i le v e ls of m o rality even in th e e a rly years of th e campus
j p r o te s t movement, th e se being id e n tif ie d in th e a fo re -
i
| mentioned stu d y , i t was dem onstrated th a t conform ists
| and law -and-order "m oralizers" do sometimes e n te r th e arena
|
| of s o c io - p o l itic a l p r o te s t. This says nothing about t h e i r
| in te r n a l m o tiv atio n . Does i t not then follow th a t w ith
|
| th e r i s e in p o p u la rity and acceptance of th e "p ro te st
! „
!p a tte r n on th e campus th e re would be more and more
I
I tendency fo r th e "conventional stu d e n t" to ( i f only occa-
!
I s io n a lly ) e ith e r come to see what was going on o r, i f
j
I th e event or phenomenon became popular enough, to a c tu a lly
|" jo in " d e sp ite th e f a c t t h a t , in t r u t h , th e p a r tic u la r
j
|in d iv id u a l were not a tr u e b e lie v e r?
I am now re c a p itu la tin g th e suggestions I made in
i
jth e la s t ch ap ter about compliance in mass movements in
I . !
|l i e u of a c tu a l b e lie f in th e cause. I am convinced t h i s
!i s the case. I b elieve th a t th e unpublished Kohlberg
j
Harvard study of 1970 supports my h y p o th e sis. I f e e l th a t
th e d ata I m aintain from s e v e ra l s tu d ie s w ill help substan
t i a t e my argument. I th in k i t th e only v ia b le ex p lan atio n
fo r the changes which occurred during th e peak years of
p ro te s t as compared w ith e a r l i e r y ears. F u rth e r, t h i s
hypothesis seems to me to be e s s e n ti a l in helping us to
! ex plain th e apparent " f a l l ” of th e a c t i v i s t movement on
t
|campuses which occurred over th e past two or th re e y e a r s :
i
| th e ranks were " i n f i l t r a t e d and overcome" by n o n -tru e
i
; b e lie v e rs.
| C o lle c tiv e Behavior
This brings one to th e co n sid e ra tio n of one of the
most f r u i t f u l stu d ie s on c o lle c tiv e behavior I have
i
j lo c a te d . McPhail ( 1970) c o lle c te d data on elem entary
| c o lle c tiv e behavior in th e form of a stu d en t walkout in an
i
! attem pt to challenge th e c l a s s i c a l p o sitio n of Blumer
(19*16). His claim much influenced stu d en ts of sociology
and p o l i t i c a l science and was e s s e n tia lly th a t d if f e r e n t
p rin c ip le s are o p e ra tiv e in conventional s o c ia l behavior
than in elem entary s o c ia l behavior.
Blumerfs theory s ta te s t h a t , although one can lo o sely
term a l l manner of sm all group a c tiv i ty to be c o lle c tiv e
behavior, th e fu n ctio n in g of groups or of people In
1
| ro u tin iz e d s o c ia l behavior d if f e r s from elem entary c o lle c -
I tiv e behavior (such as occurs in mobs, e t c . ) . In the f i r s t
ca se , he fe e ls th a t th e re are c le a r d iv is io n s of labor
organized to form o rd erly and concerted group a c t i v i t y and
t o m aintain group conduct. T herefore, in th e se in s ta n c e s ,
human beings in te r a c t v ia s e ts of common understandings
430
and e x p e c ta tio n s. On th e o th er hand, th e c o lle c tiv e
behavior allu d ed to in th e case of th e mob, e tc . i s th a t
which is c h a ra c te riz e d by spontaneous, unexpected,
" c irc u la r re a c tio n s " among in d iv id u a l p a r tic ip a n ts resulting;
i
in th e development of homogeneous p a tte rn s of behavior
not due to p re -e s ta b lis h e d understandings, t r a d i t i o n s , or
o rg a n iz a tio n a l schemes.
Blumer c h a ra c te riz e s th e se phenomena as elem entary
forms of c o lle c tiv e behavior in c o n tra s t w ith those of
th e aforem entioned groups or ro u tin e s o c ia l s e ttin g s
which we might term more complex forms of c o lle c tiv e
behavior. In d e sc rib in g them f u r th e r , he s ta te s t h a t :
I t s elem entary n atu re Is suggested by I t s
sh o rt l i f e , i t s sp o n ta n e ity , i t s sim ple forms
of em otional in te rp la y , i t s lack of th e d e l i
c a te and com plicated alignment th a t occurs
between se lf-c o n sc io u s in d iv id u a ls , and i t s
la ck of any i n t r i c a t e o rg a n iz a tio n . (1957s
p. 131)
McPhail gathered to g e th e r both th e o r e tic a l m a te ria ls and
evidence from stu d ie s which dem onstrate th a t c e r ta in
j
explanatory p rin c ip le s a re a p p lic a b le both to th e so -
c a lle d elem entary and complex s e ttin g s we have mentioned,
obviously in o p p o sitio n t o th e Blumer " d o c trin e ."
Prominent among th e se are th e d iscu ssio n s of Smelser
(1963) and Turner (1964). They fin d th a t in in stan ce s
involving e ith e r crowds or d is a s te r s itu a tio n s , th e re
have been various stu d ie s showing th a t su b je c ts (or r a th e r
431
p a r tic ip a n ts ) rep o rted th a t they did a tte n d t o one
a n o th e r’s behavior so as to c o n stru c t co o rd in a ted , d i f
f e r e n t i a l , and s im ila r lin e s of behavior to attem pt to
" f i t to g e th e r ” based upon th e cues th ey picked up from
one another (Form & Loomis, 1956; Q u a ra n te lli, 19575
Q u a ra n te lli, i 9 6 0).
Such p rin c ip le s as those of Mead, of Blumer, and of
o th ers which p re v a il in s o c ia l b eh av io ral a n a ly sis are
based on th e awareness of p e o p le ’s cueing o ff of one
another in order to form t h e i r own r e a c tio n s . Foote (1951)
d e a lt w ith th ese im portant fa c to rs in a valuable a r t i c l e
concerning id e n tif ic a tio n as a b asis fo r m o tiv atio n . He
described th e s itu a tio n th a t ty p ic a lly occurs in ro u tin e
encounters wherein r e g u la r it ie s are e s ta b lis h e d among
th e in d iv id u a l group members by v irtu e of shared i d e n t i f i
cations and ex p ectatio n s fo r ju s t those group s tr u c t u r a l
f a c to rs . Foote i l l u s t r a t e d th a t th is kind of behavior,
which might be termed coord in ated , w ill be su stain ed so
long as in d iv id u a l p a r tic ip a n ts m aintain t h e i r i d e n t i f i
c a tio n and claim s upon one a n o th e r. On th e o th er hand,
!
unexpected ac tio n s of in d iv id u a l p a r tic ip a n ts or th e
entrance of an in tru d e r on th e scene can d e fle c t or change
th e course of co o rd in ated , or of ro u tin iz e d , a c t i v i t i e s .
Many s o c ia l th e o r is ts b elieve th a t th e r e s o lu tio n of such
d e fle c tio n as is caused by an in tru d e r w ill be determined
432
by the re a c tio n s of the o th er p a r tic ip a n ts who were
o r ig in a lly in th e group s e ttin g "p ro p er."
An e a rly a r t i c l e of G. Mead’s (1924-1925) served as
a d ir e c t p recu rso r of the experiment o u tlin ed by McPhail.
In th is a r t i c l e , G. Mead described th e two types of
behavior as p rev alen t in the genesis of s e lf and s o c ia l
behavior. Both r e l a t e to th e fa c t th a t in s o c ia l s i t u a
tio n s , in order to f a c i l i t a t e th e ir own behavior, in d iv i
duals reh earse in te rn a lly the expected responses of others
to t h e i r own conduct. This i s a kind of a n tic ip a to ry
process which in v o lv es, according to Mead, tak in g th e
place of th e o th e r.
The f i r s t group of such behaviors i s known as
d esig n atin g b eh a v io rs. E s s e n tia lly , they involve id e n ti
fying or la b e llin g th e rev elan t a c to r s , in clu d in g one's
s e l f , and asking such questions a s : Who am T? Who is
he? What i s t h a t ? E sta b lish in g th e se f a c ts provides
a basis fo r r e la tio n s h ip between the namer and the named,
fo r a s o c ia l r e la tio n s h ip , in other words.
The second type of behaviors is re fe rre d to as
p ro sc rib in g b eh a v io rs. In t h i s in sta n c e , they specify
some course of a c tio n from or toward th e in d iv id u a l a c to rs
or r e a c to r s , th is re p re se n tin g th e su b stan tiv e content of
the re le v a n t r e la tio n s h ip s . They might answer such
q uestions a s : What is expected from me by him? What can
4 33
I do to him? What can he do fo r me?, e tc . I f members of
a group m aintain congruent d e sig n atin g and p re sc rib in g
behaviors, i t w ill be p o ssib le to co ordinate t h e i r in d i
v id u al lin e s of behavior and to m aintain same. Again,
such co o rd in a tio n can be d isru p te d by unexpected a c tio n
of a member, or by a c tio n of an in tru d e r.
The McPhail d ata was based on an in c id e n t wherein a
classroom le c tu re was su b je c t to a stu d en t w alk-out.
D etailed s e lf - r e p o r ts were c o lle c te d d e sc rib in g th e
in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t's re a c tio n s to th e events as they
occurred.
On t h i s occasion, a l l but two members of th e c la s s
l e f t th e room before th e end of th e te a c h e r 's le c tu r e .
Very much a ffe c te d by th e in c id e n t, th e te a c h e r was ab le
to recover s u f f i c ie n tly to co n tact th e m ajo rity of th e
stu d en ts th a t same aftern o o n to ask them fo r statem ents
c o n stru c tin g th e sequence of events as i t happened to
each of them as in d iv id u a ls . Twenty-one of th e 25 p ro
vided th is d e s c rip tiv e d a ta , in clu d in g th e two who did not
walk o u t. M cPhail's a r t i c l e includes highly s ig n ific a n t
and re p re s e n ta tiv e a b s tra c ts from th is d ata.
The in c id e n t was s e t o ff by th e i n s t r u c t o r 's having
re la te d to h is c la s s a few days before d e ta ils of an
experiment wherein a le c tu r e r had nonchalantly l e f t a
c la s s in th e middle of a sentence and not re tu rn e d . The
i n s tr u c to r in focus to ld h is c la s s he had considered
tr y in g th e same th in g , and even went so f a r as t o demon
s t r a t e how he would have done i t . H erein, th e model or
modal concept fo r what would ev e n tu ally unfold was p ro-
i
vided by th e p ro fe sso r h im self. He was, of cou rse, one
of th e s ig n if ic a n t "acting u n its " in th a t group.
Subsequently, a few of th e stu d e n ts walking out of
c la s s th a t day discussed th e f e a s i b i l i t y of "outexperim en-
tin g th e experim enter." They had no tim e to d iscu ss i t
w ith th e r e s t of th e c la s s before th e event a c tu a lly took
p la c e . T h erefo re, th e re was some sp o n ta n eity in th e event
as i t a c tu a lly occurred a few days l a t e r .
On the appointed day, some of th e stu d e n ts began
d isc u ssin g th e idea w ith o th er stu d en ts as they entered
th e c l a s s . A n a tu r a l leader emerged, and very quickly
"commitment" to a new lin e of behavior was made by s e v e ra l
members of the c la s s . Im p o rtan tly , McPhail p o in ts out th a t
th is new lin e of behavior was developed out of th e compo
nents of form erly e s ta b lish e d lin e s of behavior (the
previous ru le s in th e classroom , the p r o fe s s o r 's own
su g g estio n , e t c . ) . The au th o r s ta te s th e fo llo w in g :
. . .new lin e s of coordinated behavior always
Involve a new or d if f e r e n t sequencing of old
elements' of behavior, s k i l l , and knowledge.'
Whether th e new p a tte r n of behavior involved
p rep arin g and h u rlin g a molotov c o c k ta il,
ta k in g an item from a s to re and walking out
with i t , or walking out of a classroom , the
component a c t i v i t i e s do not spontaneously
435
emerge; r a th e r , th e re Is a new and d if fe re n t
sequencing of th e component behaviors.
(P. 447)
(Note th e s im ila r ity to th e c re a tiv e process as you look
over t h i s d e s c r ip tio n .) These same p rin c ip le s are adhered
t o by Turner (1964) and Couch ( 1968), who stro n g ly d i s
agree w ith th e concept of t o t a l sp o n tan eity in new p a tte rn s
of coordinated behavior.
Of in t e r e s t (and t h i s Is re le v a n t to our d isc u ssio n
of commitment to new types of behaviors) is th e d ec isio n
of th e stu d e n ts as they ra p id ly form ulated t h e i r plan to
walk out a t a tim e clo se to th e end of th e le c tu re so as
not to miss too much and not to antagonize th e p ro fe sso r
In h is r e la tio n s w ith them. In oth er words, i t becomes
c le a r th a t they wanted to minimize th e element of r i s k .
Also im portant Is th e re v e la tio n th a t statem ents of
commitment from o th er stu d en ts were e s s e n ti a l to th e
d ec isio n s of many to p a r tic ip a t e . I n te r e s tin g ly , those
I
who heard no such statem ents or who l i t e r a l l y did not know j
i
what was going on were among those who did not p a r tic ip a te j
or who were l a s t to leave th e c l a s s .
The idea th a t su c c e ssfu l im plem entation of new lin e s
of conduct i s d ir e c tly r e la te d t o th e commitments which
members make to one another and to th e new lin e of conduct
Is a ls o s u b sta n tia te d by Becker ( i 960) and by Blake and
Mouton ( 1961), They provide e x c e lle n t em p irical data on
43 6
th e consequences of commitment among members of groups to
one another and to proposed lin e s of behavior« The f o l -
I
| lowing statem ent from one of M cPhail's su b je c ts is th e
j
most s ig n if ic a n t in regards to commitment, r i s k , and
im plem entation of behavior. I t is a ls o highly re le v a n t
t o m a te ria ls from my own stu d ie s which w ill be presented
in th e next se c tio n of th is ch a p ter. Here is th e s t a t e
ment :
Then someone turned to me and s a id , "W ill you
go along w ith i t ? " W ithout much thought about
purpose or consequence I sa id I would. M y
only thoughts were th a t i f everyone e ls e was
f
oing to do i t . i t would be sa fe fo r me to do
t a ls o , and I did not want to hold out and
ru in i t fo r o th er people. (Emphasis supplied
by M cPhail.) (p. 449)
This le g itim iz in g of a form erly untenable lin e of
conduct via the c o lle c tiv e judgment of th e sm all group
i l l u s t r a t e s th e same manner of p ressu re and quick d ecisio n
noted in crowd behavior, wherein the power of th e crowd
has o fte n been dem onstrated. This i s extrem ely re le v a n t
to th e course of th e development of campus p r o te s t as
a new form of behavior, both as i t developed in sm all and
| in la rg e group s e ttin g s .
Furtherm ore, a p rin c ip le or te n e t described by
Turner and a ls o by Asch ( 1966) was a ls o supported by th e
a c tio n of th is classroom . They have shown th a t as
p a r tic ip a tin g a c tin g u n its follow th e new course of
a c tio n w ithout d e fle c tio n in th e form of challenge or
437
d is s e n t, t h i s course is in c re a sin g ly viewed as le g itim a te .
The evidence shows th a t I t is probably th e case th a t th e
p ro p o rtio n of stu d e n ts ta k in g the a c tio n (th e s iz e of the
m a jo rity ) is not so im portant as Is th e absence of c h a l
lenge or d iss e n t to th e involved behaviors.
Asch, fo r in sta n c e , has demonstrated th a t a m ajo rity
of th re e w ithout one d is s e n te r produced more group com
p lia n c e than did a m ajo rity of e ig h t with one d is s e n te r.
This p rin c ip le has a d e f in ite relevance to th e co n sid e ra
tio n of campus p r o te s t, p a r tic u la r ly in i t s la tte r - d a y
s ta g e s , when any In d iv id u a l in c id en t (though re p re s e n ta
t i v e p o ssib ly of a new lin e of behavior or course of a c tio n
on a given campus) was probably viewed as in c re a sin g ly
le g itim a te along w ith th e growing f a m ilia r ity and, X do
not h e s ita te to v en tu re, p o p u la rity of th e phenomenon in
g e n e ra l.
In essence, t h i s e x c e lle n t a r t i c l e provides us w ith
both th e o r e tic a l and e m p irical data d e f in it e ly supporting
th e idea th a t th e re may be some rudim entary p rin c ip le s
of s o c ia l or c o lle c tiv e behavior which u n d e rlie a l l manner
of group behavior and which are highly u se fu l in th e
a n a ly sis of a l l such phenomena.
K ie s le r and K ie s le r ( 19&9) provide us w ith th e best
review to date of stu d ie s ex p lain in g th e n o tio n and the
n a tu re of group com pliance. As was d e lin e a te d in th e la s t
438
c h a p te r, th e member who conforms to a group’s stan d ard s
and behaviors does so because of what th e group has to offer
him, reinforcem ent, higher s ta tu s , inform ation necessary
to provide him with c lo s u re , th e fe e lin g of belongingness,
whatever. This d e s c rip tio n of conform ity s p e c ifie s the
im portant or e s s e n ti a l f a c to r as being change in some past
b e lie f or behavior. This change comes about as th e r e s u lt
of r e a l or imagined group p re ssu re . This kind of m oti
v atio n may, as I have explained p re v io u sly , lead an in d i
v id u al to o v e rtly d isp lay c e r ta in b e lie fs or behaviors,
w hile inwardly he may not r e a l ly accept the g ro u p 's value
system.
The classroom McPhail picked out as focus fo r h is
a r t i c l e is a good example of conform ity w ithout a necessary
p riv a te or permanent acceptance of th e new behavior in
question ( i . e . , walking o u t). As th e s e lf - r e p o r ts show,
th e event mushroomed as in d iv id u a ls ' statem ents th a t they
would jo in grew more vocal and le ss h e s ita n t. Subjects
f re e ly adm itted th a t they were jo in in g in because others
were ( i . e . , th e statem ent of th e su b je c t above is a
i
re p re s e n ta tiv e one). A lso, i t was easy to remark th a t
th e plan would be a one-shot d e a l, involving l i t t l e r i s k
and much mutual rein fo rcem en t. As th e moment of th e a c tu a l
movement grew c lo s e r, 13 of th e 21 stu d en ts rep o rted
having grave doubts as t o whether th e w alk-out would tak e
*»39
p la ce, more s p e c if ic a lly , as to who would be th e f i r s t to
leav e, e tc . Many adm itted they did not know w hether,
when th e time came, they would a c tu a lly move to p a r t i c i
p a te . Here a re sample statem ents from th re e su b je c ts
c le a r ly dem onstrating th e need f o r group support and
le a d e rsh ip in th e new course of a c tio n :
(a) At 1:40 (the tim e chosen) no one moved.
I s ta rte d t o put my th in g s away q u ie tly so
th a t th e p ro fe sso r wouldn’t n o tic e anything.
(She) did th e same th in g and so did th e
o th e r kid s around me. But s t i l l , no one
moved. W ell, I wasn’t going t o be th e
f i r s t to go because I thought maybe they
had changed th e i r minds and w ouldn't
follow .
(b) One point is im portant, however. I d id n 't
want to i n i t i a t e a c tio n when th e plan was
endangered by some changes in th e planned
time of the walkout. X suppose now th a t
X wanted to s l i p back in to th e e s ta b lish e d
ro u tin e , in stead of doing something d ra s
t i c . . .
(c) I wanted to do i t , but I d id n 't want to
be th e le a d e r. I wondered i f everyone e ls e
would walk out or i f they would ju s t s i t
th e re , (p. ^ 5 2)
Of f u rth e r sig n ific a n c e to our d isc u ssio n i s th e f a c t
th a t in implementing th e behavior, as people a c tu a lly began
r is in g and le av in g , su b je cts ended by beginning to prod
one an o th er, reminding each other of th e p r io r commitment,
using challenges t o get each o th er going, and g rin s to
re in fo rc e one another once people a c tu a lly began standing
up and leav in g .
Wo
What of the two people who decided not to p a r tic ip a te ?
As was mentioned b efo re, they rep o rted they d id n 't r e a lly
understand what was going on. One, however, had i n i t i a l l y
decided ( u n c r itic a ll y , he rep o rted ) to p a r tic ip a te when
urged to do so by th e group le a d e r. L ate r he began
q u estio n in g whether th a t lead er were him self engineering
an experiment and reco n sid ered . He was to o nervous to
le av e, yet remained nervous a f t e r th e other l e f t : "...m y
fa c e was stin g in g and I c o u ld n 't understand much of what
th e p ro fe sso r sa id " (p . ^5^).
I have labored long over t h i s a r t i c l e , spending much
space on i t because I f e e l i t i s a c la s s ic (although
i t has not gained re c o g n itio n as such) and because X f e e l
i t so re le v a n t to t h i s d isc u ssio n .
In Chapter 6, I reviewed m a te ria ls on conform ity which
I f e l t e s s e n ti a l t o a d isco u rse on c o lle c tiv e behavior
in g en eral and th e stu d en t p ro te s t movement in p a r tic u la r .
Although th e concepts of s u g g e s tib ility , fa n a tic ism , and
i
need fo r belongingness a re notions which have been con
sid ered in r e la tio n to th e psychology of members in mass j
!
movements, th e iss u e of group compliance has not been
developed by any of th e major t h e o r is ts in th is a re a . I
presented my th e s is th a t most w rite rs considered stu d en ts
who p a rtic ip a te d in the a c tio n s of th e s i x t i e s as alienatedj
or deviant re b e ls (re p re se n ta tiv e of K ohlberg's preconven-
if ill
tlo n a l Stage 2) or as s a in tly sa v io rs (with a Stage 6
co n scien ce). I added th a t th e re may have been ( p a r tic u
la r ly in th e peak years of p r o te s t) many p a r tic ip a tin g
b a s ic a lly out of a need fo r group acceptance or peer-group
rein fo rcem en t.
I t is in te r e s tin g t h a t , across th e boards, re se a rc h e rs
and th e o r is ts on th e youth phenomena in our country,
re g a rd le ss th e i r p a r tic u la r favored e x p l a n a t i o n s ) fo r th e
phenomena, a llu d e to th e f a c t th a t t h i s g en e ra tio n stro n g ly
id e n tif ie s w ith i t s own age-group. As I have mentioned
in previous c h a p te rs, th is is tr u e even of those who have
a tte s te d to th e in d iv id u a lity of youth, w rite rs lik e
Charles Reich, fo r in sta n c e . I t i s im portant, I th in k ,
th a t th is a t t i t u d e not be confused w ith a generation-gap
t h e s i s . K eniston, fo r example, is emphatic in h is fe e lin g
th a t th e generation-gap hypothesis is one too narrow to
ex p lain th e range of phenomena presented by th e c u l tu r a l
and p o l i t i c a l happenings of youth in th e s i x t i e s . None-
I
th e le s s , group I d e n tif ic a tio n i£ a f a c to r which th read s j
through h is d e lin e a tio n of a new stage of youth. P a rt j
of th e essence of a psychological moratorium, f o r in s ta n c e ,
is th e em otional need fo r rem aining young, w ith o th ers
o n e’s own age, and shielded from th e r e s p o n s i b ilit ie s and
p ressu res of the ad u lt world v ia th e comfort of one’s peer
group.
kk2
I would u t i l i z e the element of need fo r a f f i l i a t i o n
w ith o n e's peer group as a f a c to r , not th e f a c to r , in th e
phenomena under c o n s id e ra tio n . But I would c le a r ly s tr e s s
th a t t h i s peer group id e n tif ic a tio n and s u s c e p tib ility
(th ereb y ) to peer group p ressu res need n o t, by any means,
be c o rre la te d w ith or p re d ic tiv e of a g en e ra l r e je c tio n
of the a d u lt age group.
P a rt of my h i s t o r i c a l review was geared to emphasizing
th e e f f e c t th a t c e r ta in a d u lts had on th e youth g en eratio n
and th e p r o te s t movement. Y outh's heroes in th e s i x t i e s ,
fo r in s ta n c e , co n siste d of many a d u lt m artyrs, lik e th e
Kennedys or King. Such people supplemented t h e i r own
d iv e rse l i s t of peers comprised of liv e rock s t a r s and
poets lik e th e B eatles and Dylan, tra g ic a lly -d e a d rock
s ta r s lik e H endrix, J o p lin , and M orrison, and o th e rs . As
was dem onstrated in th e h i s t o r i c a l s e c tio n , no so c io
p o l i t i c a l movement in th e s i x t i e s operated only w ith th e
!
le a d e rsh ip of youth. F u rth e r, th e f a c to r of ad u lt le a d e r- I
|
sh ip in th e campus p r o te s t movement, though much under- j
played, e x iste d as a major f a c to r , p a r tic u la r ly on th e
la rg e co lleg e campuses. R e jec tio n of the i n s t i t u t i o n s of
th e " f a th e r s ” (as Feuer might term them) does not th e re fo re
equate w ith r e je c tio n of a l l th e f a th e rs .
There were th e Kennedys, th e re was King, th e re was
Leary, th e re was McCarthy, th e re was McGovern, and th e re
443
were i n f i n i t e numbers of nameless f a c u lty members on
i n f i n i t e campuses who helped stu d e n ts get th in g s going,
engineered t h e i r g e ttin g on a d m in istra tiv e com m ittees, got
|
| them access to telephones and xerox machines, and took
perhaps more of a r i s k w ith t h e i r own Jobs than did many
of th e stu d en ts in c u ttin g c la s s e s . On our campus, th e
support of th e fa c u lty was an e s s e n ti a l p a rt of th e
a c tiv a tio n p ro cess, and much of th e le g itim iz a tio n fo r new
lin e s of behavior (as described in th e previous se c tio n )
came from fa c u lty advocacy.
But I am not focused on a d u lt p a r tic ip a tio n h e re in .
I am merely seeking to emphasize th e fa c to r of peer-group
belonging and p re ssu re , o r, as I c a l l i t , group con
sc io u sn e ss. I am emphasizing i t as i t somehow became so
de-emphasized by o th er a u th o rs, d e s p ite th e f a c t none of
them f a ile d to n o tic e th e stro n g n a tu re of group i d e n t i
f ic a tio n in th e s i x t i e s ,
I
M y own "cognitive growth process" in r e la tio n to
youth p ro te s t came about p rim a rily as a r e s u lt of two
f a c to r s : (1) an assessment of my own experience while a
te ach in g a s s is ta n t/g ra d u a te stu d e n t sometimes d ir e c tly
involved w ith th e se phenomena and sometimes on th e frin g e s
of th e se a c t i v i t i e s ; (2) th e inform ation X gathered in
th re e stu d ie s d ealin g w ith th e N atio n al Student S tr ik e of
1970, the peak event in campus p r o te s t in America. These
are not th e only fa c to rs which led me t o slowly come to
focus on group consciousness as a major fa c to r in th e se
phenomena, but they a re , I b e lie v e , th e key f a c to r s .
The N atio n al Student S trik e
as a C o lle c tiv e Phenomenon
I w ill review th e s ig n if ic a n t r e s u lt s of th e se stu d ie s
more e la b o ra te ly than in previous c h a p te rs. I t i s impor
t a n t , a ls o , th a t I d e scrib e to you how, p a r tic u la r ly in
th e case of th e f i r s t study, my own stan ce as a p a r tic ip a n t
observer prevented my "seeing" c e r ta in fa c to rs or making
c e r ta in in te r p r e ta tio n s which l a t e r seemed m a n ife stly
b la ta n t and s ig n if ic a n t.
Student Jo u rn als and th e Decision-Making Process
The f i r s t study came about almost by ac c id e n t, or
perhaps out of an in tu i tio n th a t th e events of the N atio n al
Student S trik e were so im portant to th e p a r tic ip a tin g
in d iv id u a ls , and so unprecedented an event in h is to r y ,th a t
i t should be charted as i t happened. To me, th e in tric a c y
of the decision-m aking process which stu d en ts faced a t th a t
tim e was fa s c in a tin g and m agnetizing.
At USC i t was a t o t a l l y novel event to have to decide
whether c la s s e s or personal fe e lin g s about th e events in
S outheast Asia were more im portant. The USC student had
not gone to school on a p o litic iz e d campus. In th a t
m ilie u , th e main e f f e c t of th e events of th e s ix t ie s had
~ ^ 5
been a c u ltu r a l one. Much lik e masses of o th e r c o lle g e
stu d e n ts , th e SC stu d en t had (by now) long h a i r , seldom
wore anything o th e r than blue je a n s, lis te n e d to a lo t of
music and smoked a lo t of dope. This was not tr u e of a l l
SC s tu d e n ts , but i t was tr u e of a good percentage of them.
I had led encounter groups on th e campus and been c lo se to
many s tu d e n ts. The word "rev o lu tio n " was a common one
by the Spring of 1970, but one could hardly c a l l th e liv e s
of many S(j stu d en ts re v o lu tio n a ry . How then did they a c t
when th e "rev o lu tio n " a c tu a lly h it?
I was teaching w ith Dr. Herman Harvey a t th a t tim e,
and we were involved in working with a p ro g ressiv e approach
to th e teaching of In tro d u c to ry Psychology. The aspect
of human c r i s i s and p erso n al dilemma was a c e n tr a l one t o
both of us and to th e substance of our course.
Paced w ith making m y own d ec isio n reg ard in g p a r t i c i
p atio n in the S trik e ( ju s t a t th e end of my f i r s t and very
c r u c ia l "screening" year as a d o c to ra l s tu d e n t), I i d e n t i
fie d w ith what th e undergrads must be going through and
thought they might be helped by d e ta ilin g t h e i r thoughts
on paper (in ju s t such a way as I came to keep th e jo u rn a l
I entered as a P reface t o th is work). The assignment was
o p tio n a l and u n stru c tu re d . Students were asked only to
t r y t o d escrib e the process they were going through in
try in g to decide i f they would p a r tic ip a te and how they
M6
would p a r tic ip a te . They were asked t o be as d e ta ile d as
p o s s ib le . I received 180 of th e se papers, among which I
found tw ice as many stu d en ts who ev e n tu a lly decided to
p a r tic ip a te d as those who decided not to . Among th e non
p a r tic ip a n ts , I included those who, though they supported
th e s t r i k e "in t h e i r heads" had decided to remain in c la ss
and not to jo in in any of th e a c t i v i t i e s of th e S tr ik e .
Going down to Tommy T rojan to hear a speech, or atte n d in g
th e "Open Forum m eetings" was not considered p a r tic ip a tio n .
I have a lre a d y described in th e l a s t ch ap ter th a t
th e se papers and c lo se personal involvement in the S trik e
allowed me to form ulate a scheme fo r th e "development of
a r e b e l "(A llen, 1970). I w ill not review th a t e n tir e
scheme again in t h i s chapter but w ill again mention t h a t ,
when I presented my ideas in Amsterdam and met Charles
Hampden-Turner, I found th a t th ey p a ra lle le d h is thought
I
and th a t of h is co llea g u e, Lawrence Kohlberg. i
i
When I was in v ite d to speak a t th e F i r s t In te r n a tio n a l
Congress on Humanistic Psychology in Amsterdam, th e p ro-
i
gram chairman, S tan ley K rippner, s p e c if ic a lly asked th a t j
a t le a s t one of my papers address i t s e l f to th e iss u e of
campus youth in America. Although t h i s req u est came la te
in May, 1970, I was a b le to co n tact many of my stu d en ts
and most of them gave me perm ission to u t i l i z e th e ir papers
as background m a te ria l fo r my comments in Europe.
4*»7
At th a t tim e, I was s t i l l immersed in my own p a r t i c i
p atio n and em otional re a c tio n s to th e S tr ik e . As I
commented in l a t e r papers (A llen, 1971$ A llen, 1972) and
in th e l a s t c h a p te r, I believe t h i s led me to emphasize
th e more p o s itiv e asp ects of th e s tu d e n ts ’ s e lf - r e p o r ts .
Although I spoke of " e a r lie r le v e ls of re b e llio n " (See:
Chapter 6 ), dubbing in d iv id u a ls a t th e se le v e ls "Freudian
re b e ls" and "American r e b e ls ," I saw many of th e stu d en ts
as p a r tic ip a tin g out of p ersonal commitment, p ersonal
conscience, and re c e iv in g in re tu rn fe e lin g s of meaning
fu ln e ss and s e lf-tra n se n d a n c e . I saw th e se stu d en ts as
embodying th e id e a ls of Camus in h is d e s c rip tio n of l ’homme
r^volte'' (1951). In my e stim a tio n , th is h ig h -le v e l r e b e l
lio n was c h a r a c te r i s tic of th e tr u e re v o lu tio n a ry . I
saw him as a hum anistic re b e l in th a t he acted out of
m o tiv atio n r e la tin g t o u n iv e rs a l p r in c ip le s . In th is way,
i
as I mentioned in th e l a s t c h a p te r, he could be compared |
|
t o K ohlberg’s Stage 6 in d iv id u a l.
The follow ing i s an excerpted v ersio n of one s tu d e n t's
paper which i s perhaps th e best example of the kind of
m a tu rity of thought and judgment I f e l t in d ic a tiv e of the
hum anistic re b e l. I t a ls o embraces most of th e elem ents
many o th er stu d e n ts mentioned in t h e i r papers:
(R .l) W e have come a liv e ...W e are j u s t i f i a b l y
angry; th e p re sid e n t i s u n ju s tifia b ly
w rong.. .
448
M y fe e lin g s extend f a r beyond the campus of USC.
Campuses nationw ide a re f i l l e d w ith v io le n ce .
S tudents are dying* people are lo sin g t h e i r
composure* and property i s being d estro y ed .
How does one se p a ra te th e token expression from
the meaningless abandonment of p rin c ip le ?
Today is a g reat day. However* i t did not seem
th a t i t would be th is way e a r l i e r in the day.
As I entered P ounder's H all fo r a morning c la s s ,
stu d e n ts shouting in rhythm picketed th e e n tra n
c e s. I slowly made m y way in and went to my
c la s s . I see myself a t th a t time as not
committed* to or a g a in st th e s t r i k e —t h i s type
of d ecisio n fo r me is not easy by any means.
I t is a bad fe e lin g being uncommitted--you
a re n e ith e r here nor th e re , and cannot speak or
i n te r p r e t from a frame of re fe re n c e . ...m y
in a b i l i t y to a r r iv e imm ediately a t a r a tio n a l
d e c isio n as to my p o s itio n frig h te n e d me. I t I
was lik e an i n f i n i t e range of e x is te n c e .. .and j
so I stru g g led with t h i s confused s ta te of mind*|
struggled to find d e f i n i t i o n . . .This morning I |
had nothing to g r a b ... j
The basic c o n f lic t I faced la y in th e relevance j
and Importance of each type of education. The
w e ll-stru c tu re d ro u tin e of classroom education
on th e one hand, u n stru c tu re d , but a p p lic a b le
education on th e o t h e r . . . I value each, I am torn!
between th e m ...( I have gone through) a r a d ic a li- j
zatio n of thoughts on what a worthwhile educatlcn
r e a lly should be* in terms of rele v an ce , p a r- !
ti c i p a t i o n , and m eaningfulness. . . 1 now re c o g n iz e ’
and hold more value in th e a p p lic a b le education
and what may be learned from o th e r people—M y
d e c isio n (to p a r tic ip a te ) has l e t me e n te r in to :
a new and d if f e r e n t realm of education, where
education comes through in v o lv em en t...
There is g re a t meaning to a l l of th is fo r me.
I never a c tu a lly re a liz e d th a t one shoud, i f
committed, do what he can in p u rs u it of what
he fe e ls or b eliev es in . I t seems th a t to be
uncommitted i s to be a p a th e tic . . .t o la ck id en - j
t i f i c a t i o n , and thereby uniqueness. When j
t h i s lack of uniqueness occurs, one ceases to
be a human being, fo r every human being i s I
unique. Although I am fo r th is p resen t cau se,
when I speak of commitment, I do not n e c e ssa rily :
449
mean p o l i t i c a l commitment, but r a th e r th e
commitment one makes to any cause by which he
i s a ffe c te d , e ith e r p o s itiv e ly or n e g a tiv e ly ...
I t is in th is vein th a t I made my commitment
(to t h i s c a u s e )...a n d in tu rn I th in k I have
brought myself c lo se r to th e r e a l meaning of
l i f e . • •
Here is another statem ent from a female stu d en t who
had ex h ib ite d f r u s t r a tio n in working over q u ite a period
of time on th e an ti-w ar e f f o r t w ithout seeing any p o s itiv e
ra m ific a tio n s in Washington. She is re p re s e n ta tiv e of
only a sm all sample of stu d en ts covered in t h i s study a t
SC (le s s than 5$) who had been a c tiv e in t h i s cause p re
v io u sly . J u s t as did o th er stu d e n ts, she described th e
need to overcome her previous f r u s t r a tio n and co n tin u e,
or renew, her commitment:
(R.2) I was t o t a l l y f r u s tr a te d w ith th e sy s te m ...
I t ’s hard to ex p lain th e t o t a l r e je c tio n ,
d ep ressio n , and apathy which a r is e s when th e
government you’ve been to ld a l l your l i f e
li s t e n s to th e voice of the people tu rn s a deaf
and uncaring ear to your own voice, e s p e c ia lly
when you t r y so d e sp e ra te ly to be heard. America
was tu rn in g i t s c h ild re n away w ith no view to
th e consequences of t h i s in th e fu tu re .
When th e s tr ik e came to SC, I was somewhat le e ry
and d o u b tfu l about th e wisdom of s ta r tin g another
le t t e r - w r i t i n g , convassing type of p r o te s t. I
had done th a t scene before w ith no success;
to me, i t seemed a waste of tim e. But I a lso
wanted to keep a l l p r o te s t a t SC n o n -v io le n t,
so I f e l t obliged to work my way in to the system
and t r y t o l e t my voice be heard.
Nothing could have made me reg ain my confidence
in America b e t te r . I learned th a t th e so -c a lle d
s i l e n t m a jo rity was s i l e n t because i t had no
o u tle t. In two n i g h t s . . . a t th e L.A. A irp o rt,
___________Hollywood Boulevard, and the l a s t show a t th e
450
Aquarius T h eater, we c o lle c te d one thousand
sig n a tu re s . What a f e e lin g of e la tio n and p rid e
i t gave us.’ Glassy s ta r e s were few in n um ber...
I must c o n tin u e In th is s t r i k e . Even i f i t i s
n o t a t o t a l success p o l i t i c a l l y , I t w ill be to
me p e rso n a lly . I no lonfeer f e e l t o t a l l y f r u s
tr a te d and w ithout support as I d id . I am
g r a te f u l to le a rn th a t o th e rs are so dedicated
as to tu rn in d r a f t c a rd s, d isreg a rd grades and
f u tu r e , and work day and n ig h t fo r th e concept
of peace and fo r an eleventh-hour plunge to save
America.
I should mention t h a t , re g a rd le ss th e d i f f i c u l t process
and w re stlin g w ith value p r i o r i t i e s , of th e 120 stu d en ts
who rep o rted they had decided to p a r tic ip a te in th e S tr ik e ,
80#, a number which seemed a t th a t tim e highly s ig n ific a n t
t o me, wrote of experiencing th e same kind of e la tio n
through p erso n a l commitment and a c tio n th a t th e above two
stu d e n ts re p o rte d . Many were n o t, of co u rse, as lu cid or
as p re c ise in dealing w ith th e se concepts as were o th e rs ,
b u t, in 1 9 7 I was marked w ith th e in d e lib le Im pression
of an event which was p rim a rily s ig n if ic a n t in i t s enabling
p a r tic ip a n ts to fin d meaning (and th ereb y dim inish th e
i
o r ig in a l fe e lin g of a b s u rd ity caused by th e Cambodia/
Kent events) through p erso n al "commitment. ” The natu re
of th is commitment i s yet to be d iscu ssed , however.
S im ilar conclusions were drawn in a paper by Barbara
Myerhoff (1971a) a lso taken from s e lf - r e p o r ts of stu d en ts
involved in th is event. Her sample co n siste d of p a r t i c i
pants only who were doing t h e i r paper as p a rt of th e
451
"USC p la n ,” usin g t h i s as a means of f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r
c la s s requirem ent. Myerhoff s ta te s t h a t , although th e re
were c o n f l i c t s , doubts, e t c . , present in th e r e p o r ts , she
d e lib e r a te ly chose to emphasize th e p o s itiv e a sp e c ts of th e
papers and th e re fo re p resen ts us w ith ex cerp ts much lik e
th o se alread y quoted. Ju st as I d id , Myerhoff s tre s se d
the f a c t th a t th e S trik e had been p o s itiv e in th a t i t had
changed where th e s tu d e n ts ’ heads were a t . Furtherm ore,
she wrote th a t because of th e fe e lin g s of se lf-w o rth and
in d iv id u a lity experienced through p a r tic ip a tio n , th e
r e s u lta n t e ff e c ts were th e " a n tith e s is of a lie n a tio n ."
As I mentioned p re v io u sly , Douglas (1970) in his
e x c e lle n t review of l i t e r a t u r e on th e youth phenomena of
th e s i x t i e s , s tr e s s e s the d earth of p a rtic ip a n t-o b s e rv e r
stu d ie s and re se arch rev o lv in g around s e lf - r e p o r t. In a
previous c h a p te r, I joined my voice to h is , attem pting to
dem onstrate t h a t , p a r tic u la r ly because of th e dynamic
natu re of c o lle c tiv e behavior, th e ty p ic a l experim ental
study or fo cu sed -q u estio n n aire i s highly inadequate fo r
t h i s realm of study.
For many of th e same reaso n s, arm -chair in tro s p e c tio n
aimed a t tr a c in g c a u s a lity i s probably as i l l - f a t e d (See:
Chapter 5 ). Because of th e p au c ity of s tu d e n ts ' s e l f -
re p o rts a c tu a lly e l i c i t e d in th e process as i t evolved,
such d ata as were c o lle c te d in th e two stu d ie s ju s t
H52
mentioned are extrem ely v a lu a b le .
I th in k th a t I did not r e a liz e ju s t how valuable
such stu d ies were u n t i l I did f u r th e r re se a rc h and u n t i l
I came across m a te ria l such as was provided by th e McPhail
a r t i c l e c ite d p rev io u sly . But only in re tro s p e c t was
I ab le to see t h a t , in my f i r s t enthusiasm fo r th e s t r i k e
and fo r th e id e a ls i t re p re se n te d , I had perhaps de
emphasized or f a ile d even to recognize o th er aspects
eq u ally as s ig n ific a n t and contained w ith in th e d e ta ile d
s e lf - r e p o r ts I 'd gathered.
The McPhail a r t i c l e serves as a model fo r the demon
s tr a t io n of the elem entary p rin c ip le s of c o lle c tiv e beha
v io r. R e ca ll t h a t , in th e in sta n c e of th e stu d e n t walk
o u t, McPhail emphasized th e im portance of the in d iv id u a l
c la s s members cueing o ff of one an o th er. This rudim entary
element in s o c ia l behavior was dem onstrated as a b s o lu te ly
e s s e n ti a l both in th e rap id planning of th e w alk-out,
th e in d iv id u a l decisions of whether to p a r tic ip a te o r n o t, j
j
and th e ev en tu al im plem entation of th e "new lin e of
b e h a v io r."
So f a r as th e S trik e is concerned, I recognized only
in re tro s p e c t t h a t , in my co n c e n tra tio n on th e u ltim a te
d ecisio n of th e stu d e n ts, and in my bias toward Stage 6
m o tiv atio n , conscience and commitment, I had neglected
to give equal a tte n tio n to th e a c tu a l process wherein th e
4 53
stu d en t watched th e behavior of o th e rs , lis te n e d to the
words of o th e rs , and was buffeted back and f o r th by the
opinions of o th ers u n t i l he or she resolved (o r, in a few
i .
in s ta n c e s , f a ile d to re so lv e ) th e dilemma. Here is the
a rc h e ty p a l statem ent of a stu d en t who remained u n reso lv e d :
(R.3) When th e c r i s i s h i t , I knew I did not
know what to do. I t seems we have not
been taught what to do when c r i s i s h i t s .
A ll my education did not help in d ire c tin g
me to do what was r ig h t. W e liv e in such
n ic e cocoons th a t we do not seem to s ti c k
our heads out very o fte n . Consequently
we become d iso rg an ized . The w orst th in g
fo r me was r e a liz in g th a t I do not r e a lly
know anything about what i s going on,
when I thought I d id .
The follow ing statem ent is a summary of a young man's
jo u rn a l. He was an extrem ely "c a re fu l" person in g en e ra l
and made h is d ec isio n about involvement in h is u su a lly
c a re fu l manner. In his paper, a very long te s tim o n ia l of
some 12 pages, he gave an e x ten siv e ly d e ta ile d p ic tu re
of th e kind of process th a t McPhail stu d ie d . Note his
continuous re fe re n c e s to o th er people (those a c tiv e and
in a c tiv e in th e S trik e ) and th e i r e f f e c t or lack of e f f e c t
on him (depending on h is resp e ct fo r them via h is knowledge
of them ). Note a lso the p ic tu re of th e Z e itg e is t he gives
u s , obviously an e s s e n tia l in g re d ie n t in h is d e c isio n
making p ro cess. In ex cerp tin g R. 4 's paper, I have taken
th e lib e r ty of in s e ttin g c e r ta in inform ation about in d i
v id u als in order th a t th e read er can id e n tif y t h e i r ro le
a t SC, or in th e S trik e (any of th e se a d d itio n s are in
b ra c k e ts ).
(R.4) Last week, I remember standing o u tsid e th e law
school lis te n in g to a few s p e a k e rs .. .th e y a l l
seemed to have d if f e r e n t view points about what
th e student uproar of th e past few weeks r e a lly
means. One fello w , B ., a candidate f o r some
o f fic e , wanted people to work fo r peace (by
working to e le c t him, of a l l th in g s ). D.
HWote: The young man who was to become known
as th e student lead er of the S tr ik e ! was co o l,
as u su a l—no v io len ce, be co o l, we don’t want
any tr o u b le —of a l l th e student l e a d e r s ...
maybe D. comes across as the b e s t, in s p ite of
the h a ir ...T h e group of people gathered had a
mild e f f e c t on me, but i t was f a v o r a b le ...
e s p e c ia lly by comparison with some of the
stu d en ts who seem to re a c t to Je rry Rubin (th a t
dedicated h ip p ie -y ip p ie a n a rc h ist who wants us
to d estroy America and s p e ll i t w ith a "k"
a f t e r we get out and buy h is book) lik e over
grown teeny b o p p e rs ...I n I'.R'., somewhat lik e
P sy ch ., th e re is an option open to leave school
now. I r e a lly d o n 't b eliev e in the S tr ik e —
I su re d o n 't b elieve in doing th e X.R. paper
e i th e r . I t seems th a t Malaysia exports a lo t
of t i n —I c o u ld n 't care l e s s . . .F rid a y , I ran
in to T .—T. used to be a member of Alpha E psi
lon P i—then he got married and had to q u it. I
used to be a member to o . Anyhow, I was on my
way to the law lib r a r y to work on something
fo r ju d ic ia l advocacy c la s s . T. was saying:
"W ill you look a t th a t (in d ic a tin g th e Student
A c tiv itie s C enter across the way), you'd th in k
th a t E. l_another S trik e le a d e r ! never knew me
or a n y th in g .. .lik e he d o e s n 't even recognize
m e ...h e 's on th e biggest " h e a d - tr ip " .. .T. and
E. used to be roommates, now E. is th e Senior
Rep. He seems t o be absorbed in the S tr ik e ,
he seems to be having a good tim e. He seems
to me to f e e l a new sense of im portance. Tony
may be r ig h t. I got to th in k in g th a t fo r a
l o t of people th e dem onstrating is what mattersL
not any is s u e . I mean, th e guys may f e e l one f
way fo r awhile on some is s u e , lik e Vietnam, or
Kent S ta te — but th e r e a l reason fo r demonstra
tin g i s th a t 1) i t gives you a fe e lin g of
belonging to a group, 2) i t takes you away f rom
455
your r e s p o n s i b ilit ie s a t sch o o l, and 3) i t has
no d u tie s of i t s own.. .N. is my p a rtn e r in p re
paring a b r i e f . . . h e sa id he was se rio u s ly con
sid e rin g s tr ik in g , but he thought h is parents
would give him a r e a l h a s s le . I to ld him th a t
I d id n 't th in k s tr ik in g was a good id ea, because
i t would only re in fo rc e th e p o sitio n s of people
lik e Reagan, Nixon, Agnew, and Yorty. Once
stu d en ts s t a r t dem onstrating, I fig u re , the
mediocre masses £ r .4 in d ic a te s he was speaking
of th e unthinking re a c tio n a rie s h e r e i n J w ill
"stand up and be counted. . 1 fm not worried in
th e le a s t about student dem onstrators—maybe
because they r e a lly d o n 't have p o l i t i c a l power
at th e i r f in g e r tip s , I d o n 't know. But I am
genuinely scared of r e a c tio n a r ie s —I am a fra id
of an easily -m an ip u lated s il e n t m a jo rity —
e s p e c ia lly when we have to r e ly on Ron Z ieg ler
to count n o se s...T h e th in g th a t r e a lly burns me
up i s t h i s : —p o litic ia n s l i e —not ju s t make mis
ta k e s , they l i e . Take Nixon—in 1968--March,
I th in k —he made a speech s p e c if ic a lly recognizing
the in te g r i ty of Cambodia's b o r d e r s ...
I am c e r ta in th a t students f e e l s t i f l e d . The
th in k i n g .. .th a t has alre ad y happened is a good
th in g . I must admit th a t w hile I am a fra id th a t
th e s tr ik e may reap a huge backlash ( f a r stro n g er
than th e i n i t i a l a c tio n ) , I am happy fo r th e
stu d en ts who have found a purpose in liv in g a
l i f e . . . f o r even a few days. Being q u ite a d o l
e sc e n t, I am c e rta in ly fa m ilia r with ambivalence...
I have lunch and ta l k fo r a l i t t l e while with A.
and B ...th e y are both p re tty good s tu d e n ts ...
we tra d e our views a l i t t l e b i t on th e e ffe c t
(of the S trik e ) on grades, then we touch on the
s t r i k e , Cambodia, Kent S ta te , the workmen demon
s tr a t in g in New York, th e Lakers, and th e way
I'm picking away p a rt of th e hamburger bun
before I e a t i t . For some reason, I lik e W .
(who runs th e hamburger p lace) a lo t b e tte r than
I lik e Nixon. I look kind of sloppy—T - s h ir t ,
I h a v e n 't shaved--and some old bag m utters "get
a shave" as she s h u ffle s p a s t. I th in k again
of Ronald Reagan fo r Governor; Nixon; Agnew; and
what a h e l l of a lo t of people are going to do
when they see a bunch of bums—th e lu c k ie st
kids in th e world" (Nixon) who should be g r a te f u l
th e y 'r e a t u n iv e r s i tie s —r i o t i n ' (to use th e
P re s id e n t's t e r minology) and k lc k ln ' up a f u s s . . .
^56
I walk back to my apartm ent, th in k in g about how
I have to work fo r Brown or somebody to be tru e
to my c o n v ic tio n sj I th in k some q u iet work is
necessary supporting people who w ill re sp e c t
stu d en ts because they a re people, who w ill
re sp e c t liv in g ...w a r is simply th e g re a te s t
a b s u rd ity , (I have to ) work fo r people who w ill
re sp e c t and enhance th e q u a lity of l i f e . Nixon
h ard ly seems a liv e to me. M y g ir lf r ie n d is
a liv e . M y piano te a c h e r is a liv e . Senator
Proxmire is a l iv e . Ralph Nader is a l i v e . . .
Nixon i s n 't l i f e . . . I love L. ( g i r l f r i e n d , com
p a t r i o t , p a rtn e r in c r i m e ...) ; I love my fam ily,
my piano te a c h e r, my fr ie n d s , music—and I
want to l i v e —and I d o n 't want them t o d ie .
I don’t want them to d ie . Nixon d o e s n 't have
any r ig h t to ta k e th a t from me. But he c a n ...
I h av e n 't been sle ep in g too w e ll. I r e a lly
d o n 't know w h y ...I ju s t knew th a t I ju s t c o u ld n 't
go on w ritin g th a t s h i t t y term paper during
a l l t h i s ...T h i s a fte rn o o n , I played a l i t t l e
b a s k e tb a ll a t th e Hoover playground to t r y to
r e s t my head and get some e x e r c i s e . . . I ended
up w ith a sprained an k le, which i s probably a
ju s t reward under th e circu m stan ces. . .th e re
are tim es of g re a t u n easin ess—s o rt of a "sp rin g
time of our d is c o n te n t." I wonder how I w ill
f e e l when they jab a needle in to a vein as I
tak e my p h y s ic a l.. .sometim es, only sometimes,
I'm not q u ite sure (about th in g s) but I am
always sure th a t th a t w ill be w rong...
The d e c isio n of th is young man was made w ith a g re a t
d eal of p erso n al weighing of v a lu e s. In the end of the
paper, he s ta te d th a t he had worked out what he must do
via th e pap er, but he never r e a lly to ld us what he has
decided. One In fe rs from th e t o t a l statem ent th a t he
decided to p a r tic ip a t e . One d ecid es, a ls o , in reviewing
h is sta tem en t, t h a t , although i t Is c le a r ly th a t of an
I n d iv id u a lis tic and independent-thinking young man, h is
decision-m aking process was n o t, by any means, fre e of
457
the in flu en ce of o th e rs. W e have mentioned, in th is
excerpted v ersio n , only a few of th e conversations or
people he mentioned h earin g , or a c tiv e ly seeking out in
th e process of making h is d e c isio n . Yet, d e sp ite th e
fa c t th a t he was very much in touch w ith o th ers and w ith
t h e i r opinions, in comparison w ith o th er s tu d e n ts, h is
statem ent does not show (or does not a t t e s t to th e f a c t)
th a t h is u ltim a te d e c isio n was because of th e in flu en ce
of o th e rs,
I w ill now present some statem ents which are much
more c le a r ly re p re s e n ta tiv e of the e f f e c ts of group
pressu re or of the behavior of s ig n ific a n t o th e rs. Notice
th a t in many of th e s e , th e speaker is making mention of
th e fa c t th a t p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y is a b so lu te ly new fo r
him or fo r her. This was tr u e in th e m ajority of th e
papers of the students in my sample and was a ls o tr u e of
th e v ast m ajo rity of the stu d en ts sampled in th e Myerhoff
study mentioned e a r l i e r . These are, th e re fo re , c le a r exam
ples of th e process of “sudden r a d ic a liz a tio n " I alluded
to e a r l i e r .
(R.5) I f i r s t learned th e p o s s i b ilit y of a
s tr ik e on our campus Tuesday a f te rn o o n ...
th a t n ig h t, some of my f r a t e r n i t y b rothers
in th e Urban Semester were wearing red
armbands. This kind of made th e s t r i k e
a r e a l i s t i c p o s s i b ilit y and my response
to i t was excitem ent. A s tr ik e or any
unusual a c tiv i ty on campus e x c ite s me
because I enjoy things th a t break th e
monotony and re p re se n ts some u n c e rta in ty
4 58
as to what is going to happen. Late Tuesday
n ig h t I had become sym pathetic toward th e issu e s
involved with th e s tr ik e because I connected th e
s tr ik e w ith th e a n tic ip a te d a c t i v i t i e s on campus
th e next day which I was looking forward to . As
I neared campus Wednesday morning, I could f e e l
something in th e a i r and I became ex c ite d in
th e expectancy.
(R.6) To begin w ith, I r e a lly f e l t th a t no c r i s i s had
a ris e n and r e a lly f e l t none of the s tr ik e
philosophy. But I was curious and wanted to
find out ex a ctly what th e s t r i k e was a l l a b o u t...
The meeting Thursday n ig h t s t i l l l e f t me con
fused. I t was not u n t i l Friday n ig h t when th e
stu d en t p e titio n was agreed upon th a t I really-
f e l t the fe e lin g of the movement. I t was lik e
I f e l t I was f in a ll y going to do something r e l e
vant and good fo r a change. I t was r e a l ly a
b e a u tifu l fe e lin g . People were f i n a l l y g e ttin g
to g e th e r to jo in in one body to forward the
ed u c atio n al process where everyone could do th e i r
own t h i n g . . . I have found th a t I have gone from
a g en e ra l supporter of the Vietnam war to one who
looks a t each p o l i t i c a l move which a f f e c ts oui1
war e f f o r t w ith a more s k e p tic a l e y e . . . I f e e l
th e s t r i k e is a good e f f o r t . I do not support
some a s p e c ts, such as throwing ROTC o ff campus,
but I do support the a c tio n th a t i s being taken.
(R.7) When I was ta lk in g to you [/the stu d en t herein
is r e f e r r in g to a ta l k w ith th e a u th o rJ i t was
obvious th a t you wanted me to get involved w ith
th e s tr ik e a c t i v i t i e s . I t d id n 't m atter th a t
i t w asn't d ire c te d a t me. I t was th a t someone
I respected and admirecT"wanted me to make a
d e c isio n t o , p re fe ra b ly , become involved in th e
s t r i k e 's a c t i v i t i e s . . .(.This stu d en t decided to
p a r tic ip a te l a t e r on. Had she in te rp re te d o th e rs '
involvement as she had mine, as im perative to
spark her own p a rtic ip a tio n ? H
(R.8) Since coming to th e u n iv e rs ity I have found my
s e lf tu rn in g in to a le th a rg ic c a ta to n ic mass
w ith a p e rp e tu a l blue cloud over my head. A ll
I wanted was (p o ssib ly s t i l l i s ) a com fortable
c h a ir, a good sound system , and a warehouse f u l l
of dope.
459
P o liti c s always seemed equally as p o in tle s s . I
t r i e d to get behind th e p o l i t i c a l scene but
n o th in g came of i t . Of course, my sympathies
l i e w ith th e re v o lu tio n but my p o l i t i c a l tenden
c ie s r a r e ly m otivated me to a c tio n . I don’t
want to shoot any cops, nor do I want any cops
to shoot me. M y p o s itio n may be s e l f i s h , or
a p a th e tic but when th e shooting s t a r t s th is kid
i s going th e o th er w ay ...
Two Mondays ago I was asked to accompany a frie n d
to a meeting I knew nothing about. I went and
was impressed to th e ex ten t th a t I went to th e
s tr ik e meeting th e follow ing n ig h t, p a r tic ip a tin g
f u l l force Wednesday and sleeping a t school
Wednesday n ig h t. I decided to p u ll out a l l th e
stops and decided to sle e p in th e a d m in istra tio n
b u ild in g .. .b u t was to ld to leave by the campus
cops.
L e t’s tak e a c lo s e r look a t each of th ese sta tem en ts.
In th e case of R. 5* h is f i r s t connection was through h is
f r a t e r n i t y b ro th e rs. Note th a t he sta te d he became
sym pathetic w ith th e iss u e because of th e f a c t i t would
break the mundane ro u tin e of the campus. His d ecisio n
to jo in was an abrupt one, and one which, as f a r as he
in d ic a te d , had nothing to do with h is fe e lin g s about th e
war, a t le a s t not p rim a rily . He adm its th a t he entered
mainly as a means of tu rn in g on. This same boy reported
l a t e r in h is paper th a t he sa t across th e s t r e e t from
Founder’s H all "watching" th e a c t i v i t i e s the next day,
a fra id th e re might be v io le n ce , a fra id of th e p o lice
presence, e tc . As h is te s tim o n ia l developed, he reported
what one can e a s ily see was a fading "commitment," i f
indeed one could p o ssib ly c a l l h is sudden a lle g ia n c e on
if 6o
Tuesday night any form of commitment save commitment to
being p a rt of something.
The statem ent of R. 6 i s another one obviously in d i
c a tiv e of th a t process of instantaneous " ra d ic a liz a tio n "
I spoke of e a r l i e r . Confused one n ig h t, he was moved to
"jo in in g " th e very n ex t. Why? Note h is d e s c rip tio n of
th e " fe e lin g of the movement," a group " s tir r in g " th a t
made him f e e l as though he were about to do something
re le v a n t. His in te r p r e ta tio n of what he would p a r tic ip a te
in is a ls o of s ig n ific a n c e since he mentions or s tre s s e s
th a t "people were f i n a l l y g e ttin g to g e th e r to jo in in one
body to forward th e ed u c atio n al process where everyone
could do t h e i r own th in g ." I t is tr u e t h a t , a t SC, the
"opening of th e U n iv ersity ” was a r e s u lt of th e S tr ik e ,
but i t was not the major purpose, nor was th e idea of
"doing one’s own th in g ." Richard Nixon’s Cambodian po licy
was ju s t such an example of doing o n e's own th in g and
supposedly th e S trik e as i t was o r ig in a lly intended was
a movement d ire c te d ag a in st such fla g ra n t solopslsm .
R. 6 's being c a rrie d away by the " b e a u tifu l fe e lin g " of
th e group as f a r as to immediately convert from a supporter
of th e war to a s t r i k e r a g a in st i t i s somehow, th en ,
le ss than convincing.
The statem ent of R. 7 is one which tro u b le s me
p e rso n a lly , since i t is ty p ic a l of a group of approxim ately
H6l
15 stu d en ts who spoke q u ite e x te n siv e ly about my own
involvement in th e S trik e and i t s e f f e c t on them. The
p o licy of those of us involved in th e In tro d u c to ry Psycholo
gy c la s s was to u t i l i z e t h i s in stan ce as a means of leading
stu d en ts to question th e i r own value systems and to
f a m ilia riz e them selves w ith th e n o tio n of weighing p r i o r i
t i e s . P ro s e ly tiz in g was not p a rt of our re la tio n s h ip with
our stu d e n ts. Im parting th e idea of th e p erso n a l n atu re
of each in d iv id u a l’s d e c isio n was. Y et, th e e f f e c t of the
involvement of o n e's own te ach e rs (fo r or a g a in st an issu e )
was obvious. E ith e r d ir e c tly or s u b tly , i t was perhaps
a p re ssu re , no m atter the te a c h e r 's in te n tio n s . Here is
another example, then, of th e le g itim iz in g of form erly
untenable lin e s of behavior through alre ad y e s ta b lish e d
r e la tio n s h ip s and the behavior of s ig n if ic a n t o th er
’’ a c tin g u n i t s ."
R. 8 is a young man whom Kohlberg would probably place
a t Stage 2. He is adm ittedly s e lf - o r ie n te d . P o l i t i c s ,
lik e everything e ls e , e ith e r tu rn s him on or off. In
th i s in sta n c e , he was turned on, again ab ru p tly and with
no re p o rt of any c a re fu l thought. He s ta te d , perhaps more
c le a r ly than do most s u b je c ts , th e kind of paradox behind
o v e rtly sta te d b e lie f and a c tio n when he g lib ly rep o rted
th a t of course he has always been in sympathy w ith "the
rev o lu tio n " but th ese p o l i t i c a l tendencies have r a r e ly
462
m otivated him to a c tio n . One wonders what e x a ctly were
th e p o l i t i c a l tendencies of t h i s boy previous to th e
S tr ik e . What was the meaning of "the re v o lu tio n " to him?
Was i t synonymous w ith "a com fortable c h a ir , a good sound
system , and a warehouse f u l l of dope?" Was th is th e
"rev o lu tio n " th a t had led c e r ta in a c t i v i s t s to i n i t i a t e
a c tio n across th e country post th e Cambodian announcement
of Nixon?
These are vivid and d e ta ile d statem ents of what was
rep o rted in a more g e n e ra l, le ss probing manner in analyses
of th e S trik e by th e Scranton Commission (1970), th e Urban
Research C orporation (1970), and C asale and Paskoff (1971).
I d e ta ile d th e explosive mushrooming of th e S trik e in th e
h i s t o r i c a l se c tio n and w ill not review th e s t a t i s t i c s
again h e re in . The kind of te s tim o n ia l provided by
p rev io u sly in a c tiv e stu d en ts gives us in s ig h t in to the
tr u e n atu re of th e so -c a lle d rap id r a d ic a liz a tio n process.
F u rth e r rese arch which I s h a ll d e t a i l in th is chapter would
l a t e r help f i l l out th e p ic tu re .
As I mentioned in e a r l i e r papers (1970, 1971* 1972)
and s tre s s e d in previous ch ap ters of t h i s book, I f e e l
th a t in order to analyze a p a r tic u la r in stan ce of c o lle c tiv e
behavior, i t is necessary to f e r r e t out th e process as
i t occurred in a s p e c ific s it u a ti o n a l s e ttin g . The reader
m ight, fo r in sta n c e , be saying a t th is p o in t, "C e rta in ly .
it 63
you p rese n t us w ith a campus known fo r quiescence and
conservatism ; you su re ly c a n 't expect to fin d many r e a l
r a d ic a ls t h e r e . ” I would agree w ith th e re a d e r. SC gave
no promise th a t i t s stu d e n ts would tu rn out en masse in
any p ro te s t ag a in st a co n serv ativ e government, or ag a in st
a " n a tio n a l” p o lic y . P re c is e ly th e f a c t they did do so
(or seemed to do so) makes them an id e a l focus fo r such
an e x p lo ra tio n .
Going back over th e se o ften "empassioned" statem en ts,
I now fin d various in d ic a tio n s th a t what I o r ig in a lly
in te rp re te d as p o ssib ly dem onstrative of Stage 6 -th in k in g
may in ste a d have been Stage 6 ta lk in g or "acting o u t," a
p o ssib le p a rro tin g of th e rh e to r ic of o th e rs , fo r stu d en t
a f t e r stu d en t rep o rted in stan tan eo u s "commitment," o fte n
w ith in th e space of one Town H all m eeting. One student
w rote, f o r in sta n c e :
(R.9) I have never been p o l i t i c a l l y a c tiv e , and
u n t i l t h i s year have r a r e ly ever kept up
on a l l of th e news. I have always un-
q u estio n ln g ly accepted my p aren ts 1
p o l i t i c a l views, w ithout try in g to decide
fo r m yself. When th e s tr ik e s ta r t e d , I
decided to p a r tic ip a te to see what was
going on. This way, I f e l t , I could begin
to decide fo r m yself.
The young woman goes on to w rite of her plunge in to th e
a c t i v i t i e s of the S trik e and of the f a c t th a t she had
f i n a l l y made her "own commitment, and (have) had to
defend i t in stead of rid in g along w ith th e m a jo rity ." On
464
th e whole, t h i s is a statem ent one would i n i t i a l l y find
appealing, th e " f i r s t commitment" of a form erly uncommitted
person. A c a re fu l look, however, co n fro n ts us w ith the
"plunge before th e f a c t ," commitment to something she
did not y et understand, commitment to something she, in
her s t a t e of n a iv e te , was then not committed t o .1
A re tro s p e c tiv e overview of th is sampling of USC
stu d en ts shows, in f a c t , th a t fewer than 5$ of those
p a r tic ip a n ts who subm itted statem ents had been committed
to working on th e war e f f o r t previous to Kent and th a t ,
a t le a s t a t SC, th e process of in s ta n t r a d ic a liz a tio n was
th a t re p re s e n ta tiv e of th e m a jo rity of the stu d en ts in
th e S trik e . I do n o t, as i t happens, f e e l th a t SC was
unusual in t h i s reg ard . The d ata supplied in the
h i s t o r i c a l se c tio n from th e Urban Research C orporation
survey shows th a t th e in c re d ib le wave of student support
occurred ra p id ly and immediately upon th e in c id en t a t K ent,
not Just a f t e r th e Nixon t e l e c a s t . I f you w ill r e c a l l ,
th a t study issued as one of i t s conclusions th a t one of
th e major fa c to rs involved was id e n tif ic a tio n w ith the
Kent stu d e n ts. This is supported both by th e study I
was involved w ith and by th a t of Barbara Myerhoff. Such
an element i s , in tu r n , supportive of Ju st the phenomenon
I am sugg estin g . Perhaps Lewis Feuer would term i t
"g e n e ra tio n a l consciousness," but I would go fu rth e r and
H6 5
s ta te th a t th is term is ju s t p o ssib ly an ela b o ra te one fo r
th e more accepted ad olescent phenomenon of peer group
i d e n tif ic a tio n and r e s u lta n t peer group conform ity.
I t is of f u rth e r i n t e r e s t t o me t h a t , although the
in stan ce s were r a r e , a few stu d en ts picked up on ju s t th is
f a c to r . At th e tim e, I imagine t h e i r statem en ts must
have seemed r a th e r c y n ic a l to me, e s p e c ia lly in th e lig h t
of th e excitem ent and a c t i v i t y th a t surrounded u s. Now,
many of them seem th o u g h tfu l. I only wished I had recog
nized how provocative they were a t th a t tim e. Here a re
some examples:
(The f i r s t c ite d are from n o n -p a rtic ip a n ts )
(R.10) Even though th e re are a larg e fa c tio n
of people who are s in c e re in th e ir s tr ik e
e f f o r t s , th e re a re always those who jump
to something new as an a c t i v i t y or b elieve
in an issu e ju s t because i t is the "thing
to do." There w ill always be se n sa tio n
alism along w ith a movement.. .th o se who
jo in th e band wagon because they re fu se
to tak e a d if f e r e n t sid e or because they
do not care enough to be d if f e r e n t. This
asp ect can e a s ily be seen in the way th a t
school was handled. Given th e choice of |
sta y in g in c la s s o r g e ttin g out of c la s s
many co n serv ativ es who were ag a in st t h i s
s tr ik e took th e opp o rtu n ity to "imper
sonate a s t r i k e r " by p u ttin g on a red arm
band, t e l l i n g t h e i r te a c h e rs th a t they
were going out in to th e community to
spread the b e lie fs of th e s t r i k e . . . I t makes
me sic k to th in k th a t w hile th e devoted j
s t r i k e r s a re working fo r t h e i r cau se, there
are o th ers th a t are using t h e i r tim e fo r
an extended summer v ac atio n .
2»66
( R .ll) O utside, I saw a fellow classm ate and
we began ta lk in g . He commented on th e
p resen t s ta te of the campus and said
th a t " th is i s groovy." Wearing a red
armband, he asked me why I was not
I wearing one. I to ld him I was in a
s t a t e of contem plation concerning my
j commitment and th a t I would not f e e l
! ju s t i f i e d in wearing a red band. He
sa id , "What do th e se bands mean anyhow?"
I was shocked, com pletely shocked. At
th e same time I was very angry a t him
! fo r h is s u p e r f ic ia l a c t of conform ity.
I knew th a t i t would be absurd to be
lie v e th a t he was a ty p ic a l example of
th e s tr ik in g stu d e n ts. However, th is
experience made me r e a liz e even more
th a t my commitment must be rein fo rced
by ju s t i f i e d thought.
The follow ing is a statem ent of a young man who
I o r ig in a lly was involved, then l e f t th e S tr ik e . He is
|
d e sc rib in g th e reason fo r th is a c tio n .
(R.12) . . . I quickly became d is illu s io n e d .
Some of my frie n d s th a t I have known
| fo r a long time to be q u ite conserva-
j tiv e suddenly became involved in the
s t r i k e , as w ell as some in d iv id u a ls whcj
supported th e s tr ik e because i t was a J
| good con to miss c la s s e s . I a lso no- j
I tic e d th a t many people were b lin d ly
| follow ing o th e rs and were not th inking ;
| fo r them selves. These people were, in !
my opinion, the most dangerous. They
would not h e s ita te to go along with any
proposal so long as i t sounded r e b e l-
I lious, no m atter how rid ic u lo u s or im- |
p r a c tic a l i t was. The reason th e se in-i
d iv id u a ls were caught up in th e s t r i k e ;
was th a t in many cases th is was th e ir
f i r s t r e a l opportunity to r e b e l...B e -
| cause of t h i s a t t i t u d e , I , p e rso n a lly ,
I l o s t in te r e s t in the organized s tr ik e
| a t U.S.C. I chose in ste a d to do th e ;
most I could on an in d iv id u a l le v e l
w ithout being caught up in th e masses j
who chose to tr y to use the power in
numbers to achieve th e i r o b je c tiv e . I
H6j
The follow ing i s perhaps one of the most s tr ik in g
statem en ts, sim ultaneously e x h ib itin g overt moral confu-
! sio n , a c tio n without c a re fu l or d e lib e ra te thought, and
| th e kind of "American playing to win" I described in my
! Amsterdam d isc u ssio n .
|
| (R.l^J) R ight now I am uninvolved in th e s t r i k e . As
j I see i t , the p re sid e n t i s n ’t going to change
| h is p o lic y , so I f e e l the s t r i k e as i t is
; going is r e a lly i n e f f e c t i v e . . . I t seems to me
| th a t i f we are going to be a t war, we might
as w ell wage i t a t t h i s tim e. Eon’t mis
in te r p r e t me. I am a g a in st war, but I th in k
th a t i f you are going to f ig h t, then you
should fig h t to win, however I am not sure
whether we should be fig h tin g r ig h t now,
although my in s t in c t t e l l s me we should b e ...
so f a r I have had nothing to do with the
s t r i k e , o th er than signing a few l e t t e r s ,
m ostly to be a jo in e r . I have dropped a l l of
my c la s s e s except Psych ju s t to get out of
ta k in g f in a ls and o th e r hard w o rk ...I have j
been very troubled about i t , even to th e j
p o in t of d esp isin g myself and d e s irin g bodily
harm to m yself. There are a ls o other th in g s j
tro u b lin g me now, my m orals, use of dope,
a lc o h o l, p ro fa n ity , fe e lin g s toward o th e r s ...|
I have found myself com pletely unmotivated j
t h i s year towards school. Perhaps t h i s is j
my reason fo r dropping my c la s s e s . Whatever,!
! i t ’s probably a good th in g fo r me th a t the
o p p o rtu n ity a ro se , fo r I was so f a r b e h in d ...
th a t I ’d never have caught u p .. .Whatever th e '
case may be, I fin d myself in a desperate
s i t u a t i o n . ..1 fin d myself faced w ith the
stru g g le of ju s t try in g to liv e with m yself.
I hope th a t I can achieve t h i s , so th a t I
can then take step s to involve myself with
th e g re a te r problems of the w o rld ... j
C e rta in ly , the statem ent of the l a s t boy i s one that!
|
has impact on most of us. In touch with the fa c t he i s
468
posing as a " j o i n e r ,” he d e t a il s fo r us h is "desperate
s i t u a t i o n ." The in te n s ity of g u i l t , d e s p a ir, and th e need
both to apologize and to r a tio n a liz e found in h is s t a t e -
!
ment made i t a s in g u la r one, but, looking ag ain , perhaps
i t s uniqueness was only in i t s having made overt what was
p o ssib ly a c o v e rt, but pow erful, c u rre n t in many stu d en ts
in 1970. S urely we see in many of the above re p o rts th e
in d ic a tio n th a t what was "being joined" was something
o th e r than ju s t an "anti-w ar" e f f o r t and, as was re p o rte d ,
Cambodia soon became su b o rd in ate to dozens of o th er
a c t i v i t i e s and f e e lin g s . The f u l l ex ten t of th is re v e la
tio n would be f a c i l i t a t e d by r e tro s p e c tiv e ex p lo ra tio n s
th a t L ez lie Kaplan, Debi B ass, and I pursued during the
two years follow ing th e N atio n al Student S tr ik e .
You w ill remember th a t one of the young men w rote,
w ith both puzzlement and y earning, t h a t , fo r him, "some
th in g was m issin g ." Couldn’t i t have been th a t he was
sensing in him self and in o th ers th e r a t t l i n g f e e lin g of
d esp air th a t p o ssib ly follow s th e f i r s t high f e l t from
sudden commitment to something? Like D ionysius on the
morning a f t e r th e n ig h t b efore, one r is e s w ith a hangover,
not sure what one has drunk, not sure how much one has
drunk, and not sure whether or not one has mixed h is
d rin k s.
469
I f e e l th a t t h e i 970 a r t i c l e was a c cu rate in th a t i t
described th e i n t r i c a t e and c r u c ia l n atu re of th e d e c isio n
making process and in th a t i t presented th e N atio n al
Student s t r i k e as an " e x is te n tia l moment of t r u th fo r
American yo u th ." What I f a ile d to see a t th a t tim e, how
ev e r, was the almost p a th e tic lack of impedimenta w ith
which most stu d en ts approached such a moment, th a t few of
them had in fa c t ever had to t e s t t h e i r own powers of moral
judgment.
A few had. A unique group involved on th e campuses
were th e black stu d e n ts. Every one of them who w rote
statem ents fo r me mentioned th a t they had a l l of t h e i r
liv e s w itnessed in ju s tic e and oppression. Most of them
ex h ib ited a w ell-developed code of e th ic s and, most
s ig n if ic a n tly , they were in touch w ith t h e i r own p r i o r i t i e s .
For th is reason, they were sin g u la r in th e la ck of confu
sio n and in d iv id u a lity they demonstrated in making t h e i r
d ec isio n on p a r tic ip a tio n in th e S tr ik e . For t h i s reaso n ,
i t is of i n t e r e s t to look a t some ty p ic a l statem ents and
to compare them w ith those we read p re v io u sly .
I
(R.15) One th in g I have been tr y in g to fig u re
out i s , why is i t ju s t now th a t people
are beginning to show th is enormous amount
of concern and f i n a l l y deciding to do
som ething...1 am a person who wants very
much th a t American tro o p s be withdrawn
from Cambodia and Vietnam, but I fin d i t
im possible fo r me to respond and get in
volved (as) I f e e l th a t th e re are too
______________ many p ro b lems s t a r i ng m e in th e face f o r ___
470
me to get so involved in solving another
problem t h a t doesn’t a f f e c t me as an
in d iv id u a l. The problems e x is t fo r th e
sim ple fa c t th a t I am black. I am more
concerned about why th e government f a i l s
to do something about th e p lig h t of the
black man. Black people as a whole can
sympathize w ith people who are being
deprived of th e p u rs u it of Happiness,
because they have them selves been deprived
so long. Oppression of b la c k s ...h a s
e x iste d fo r many, many y ea rs. I f e e l th a t
t h i s is of more importance than something
happening across th e sea.
(R .l6) I c a n ’t affo rd to give a damn (about th e
s tr ik e ) I ’ve got to fig h t on my own
t u r f , on my own term s. I liv e fo r my
son. I su rv iv e—e x i s t —i f you w ill, to
make a p lace in l i f e fo r him so th a t he
can b e tte r p ro te c t h im self. I see
America as a ju n g le , a jungle th a t can
d e stro y , a tem ptress my son w ill be p re
pared to defend him self ag a in st w ith as
much love or violence as i t ta k e s .
The o r ig in a l plan of stu d e n ts and fa c u lty members at our
school had been th a t th e momentum of e a rly May be p ro jected
in to the summer months. The SC stu d e n ts had been h ig h ly
in stru m e n ta l in th e campaigns and canvassing fo r Tunney
and Brown. The concept was th a t they could continue both
an ti-w a r work and a c t i v i t i e s involving community a c tio n .
What happened?
W ithin two weeks of the S tr ik e , the campus began
q u ie tin g . The music from the A lic e 's R estaurant tru c k —
V iv ald i and Ja n is J o p lin , Bach and Steppenwolf—had ceased
save fo r memory's echoes. Diminished, a ls o , were th e
numbers of stu d e n ts. Booths had been manned by many fo r
*7 1
many causes. Now pamphlets blew about and were stamped on,
unheeded.
Yes, many of us had to sadly admit by th e end of
! „
May th a t perhaps some of th e stu d en ts had gone to th e
b each.”
Teaching summer school and d riv in g th e s tr e e ts near
campus, I w itnessed l i t t l e "community a c tio n ." Yet I
served as an ad v iso r to th e communes s ta rte d Ju st a f t e r
th e S tr ik e , and people th e re seemed to be try in g hard to
"m aintain" what had been c re a te d . I tr ie d hard myself to
b elieve i t was a l l co n tin u in g , ju s t in "another form ."
In th e P a l l , everyone came back to c la s s . In th e
communes, a lo t of music was playing and grass was shared
f r e e ly , but in our weekly groups, we were dealing w ith
"heavy" problems. R ip -o ffs were re g u la r—everything from
tape-decks to T -s h ir ts to g ir lf rie n d s - -a n d people were
confused by th e anger they f e l t , tr ie d to deny th e pain
they f e l t . They were having to face they ju s t r e a lly
d id n ’t want to share ev ery thing.
I became more and more obsessed w ith th e f r u s t r a tio n s
and c o n f lic ts iss u in g out of such s itu a tio n s as th a t in th e
communes. I t stru c k me th a t many of th e stu d en ts were
tro u b led because they had read and heard so much dialogue
on how they should be fe e lin g and liv in g as "part of the
R evolution" th a t when re sid u e of th e "Old World" remained
w ith them, or when they ju s t p la in didn *t f e e l as they were
supposed to , they were almost paralyzed w ith g u i l t .
L ezlie Kaplan had been one of my f i r s t stu d e n ts a t
SC. During th e S tr ik e , we’d canvassed to g e th e r in I n g le
wood and Hawthorne and Lawndale. Previous to th e S tr ik e ,
L e z lie had planned on tr a n s f e r r in g to a school back E a st,
plagued by th e apathy a t SC. The S trik e led to her changing
her mind. She d id n ’t liv e in th e communes, but was one
of th e non-commune encounter-group p a r tic ip a n ts . During
th e P a ll and th e W inter, the two of us began to t a l k about
what had happened. W e had a couple of "brushes" with one
another over such su b je c ts as whether you can be a s o c ia l
i s t and use your p a r e n ts ' money to get you through school,
buy your records and your g rass fo r you, e tc . One th in g
we did agree upon was th e d e -a c tiv a tio n of th e campus.
We a ls o agreed i t had nothing to do with th e war in South
e a st Asia sin ce th e S trik e had not stopped th e war. Was
i t because some of th e major stu d e n t-le a d e rs had graduated?
What was going on? |
A R e tro sp ec tiv e Study of th e N atio n al Student S trik e j
The two of us designed a study to salve our c u r io s ity .
I t s basic th r u s t was to d iscover how stu d e n ts f e l t about
th e S trik e one year a f t e r th e f a c t . Why had they p a r t i c i
p ated , or why hadn’t they? Would they p a r tic ip a te again?
I f they hadn’t , would they now? In a d d itio n , we were
473
in te re s te d in tra p p in g th e value p r i o r i t i e s of th e SC
stu d e n t. What m attered to him? And, what did he p ro je c t
fo r him self in th e fu tu re ?
The f u l l q u estio n n aire is presented in th e Appendix
of th is d is s e r ta tio n , along w ith some of th e basic findings]
Although I w ill not d iscu ss th e e n tir e study, I th in k th a t
th e re are c e r ta in c e n tr a l asp ects which should be emphasizes
as re le v a n t to our present d isc u ssio n . B a s ic a lly , they
revolve around fa c to rs of m otivation and of v a lu e s.
When I presented some of the r e s u lts of t h i s study
in Wurzburg, Germany (1971)* I s tre s s e d th e follow ing
f a c t s : An SC student sample cannot n e c e s s a r ily be con
sid ered as re p re s e n ta tiv e of the g en eral stu d en t population
of the United S ta te s . In f a c t , one of our in te r e s ts in
focusing on SC was i t s a p o l i t i c a l atmosphere previous to
th e S trik e of 1970. Furtherm ore, I understand th a t items
which involve re tro s p e c tiv e analyses of su b je c ts and
attem pt to re c a p tu re t h e i r fe e lin g s a t a l a t e r date a r e ,
by d e f in itio n , su b je c t to th e passage of tim e, th e f r a i l t y
of memory, and th e e f f e c t of those events which have
occurred during th e tim e gap. T h is, to o , however, can be
an a s s e t as w ell as a li a b i l i t y , fo r in attem pting to assess
th e n atu re of p erso n al commitment, a c r u c ia l v a ria b le is
i t s con sisten cy over tim e. T herefore, th e concept or
event of flu c tu a tio n of commitment over tim e is only
observable in r e tr o s p e c t.
In an attem pt to achieve some form of random ization,
we handed out some 200 of our q u e s tio n n a ire s, and decided
t o u t i l i z e th e f i r s t 50 th a t were re tu rn e d . The only
c o n tro ls we u til iz e d were t h a t a l l su b je c ts had to have
been undergrads a t th e time of th e S trik e and th a t th e
population was C aucasian. G eneral demographic inform ation
and inform ation covering th e s tu d e n ts ' p o l i t i c a l s ta tu s
and s h i f t s a re included in the Appendix (la b e lle d A llen -
Kaplan Study, S ections A, B, and C).
The Ss were 21 males and 29 fem ales, a l l of whom had
been undergraduates in th e Spring of 1970. T heir so c io
economic backgrounds were w ide-ranging. Twenty-seven (27)
had p a rtic ip a te d in th e S trik e ; 23 had n o t. Im portant,
however, is th e f a c t th a t among th e 23 n o n -p a rtic ip a n ts ,
6 rep o rted th ey were aligned w ith th e S trik e r s but did not
e n te r th e S trik e fo r one reason or an o th er. I w ill speak
of th is f a c to r in p rese n tin g my summary of th e study.
M otivation of stu d en ts fo r p a r tic ip a t io n . As I
mentioned p re v io u sly , I had chosen to emphasize those
fa c to rs seemingly in d ic a tiv e of growth m otivation in ana
ly zin g s e lf - r e p o r ts of stu d e n ts during th e previous year.
And, in f a c t , many p a r tic ip a n ts had claimed then th a t they
were a c tin g out of hum anistic m otivation and th a t fo r th is
reason they were experiencing what V iktor F ran k l ( 1963)
475
te rn s s e I f - tr a n s c endance. In r e tr o s p e c t, however, a
m ajo rity of th e p a r tic ip a n ts , i f they mentioned such
fa c to rs a t a l l , d e f in ite ly gave them secondary importance
in deference to t h e i r memory of what might be c a lle d th e
group happening. The p erso n al tu rn in g p o in t or p e rso n a lly
m eaningful event was th e re fo re dim inished In i t s impact
next to th e c o lle c tiv e "union" experienced. Furtherm ore,
fe e lin g s about th e War i t s e l f were e ith e r not mentioned
a t a l l , as th e stu d en ts discussed t h e i r m otivation in
re tr o s p e c t, o r they were fre q u e n tly minimized next t o th e
'importance of p a r tic ip a tin g as p a rt of the c o lle c tiv e in
a group event. In a d d itio n , some seemed to have entered
out of sheer boredom, or w ithout having a c le a r conception
of what they were doing (as was in d ic a te d by m a te ria ls from
th e o th er study I quo ted ). Many of th e stu d e n ts c le a r ly
s ta te d th a t t h e i r basic motives were, in f a c t , not
p o l i t i c a l a t a l l .
The stu d e n ts revealed t h e i r motives In answer to the
follow ing query:
Whether or not you p a rtic ip a te d in th e S trik e
l a s t year, can you attem pt to w rite a sh o rt
summary of your fe e lin g s a t th a t time? P lease I
in d ic a te th e ste p s th a t led t o your decisio n
reg ard in g p a r tic ip a tio n , any c o n f lic ts you might
have had, a t which point of th e week you entered
(o r l e f t ) th e S tr ik e , i f your p a r tic ip a tio n
continued to th e end of th e sem ester, your
fe e lin g s about dropping c la sse s and grades, your
fe e lin g s about y o u rse lf during th e S tr ik e , and
the fe e lin g s you u ltim a te ly had about your p a r-
___________ t ic ip a tio n or la ck o£ part i c ip a t i o n. ___________
4 76
Here are some examples of th e s tu d e n ts 1 fe e lin g s one
year a f t e r :
(S .lS ) I f e l t good because th e people g e ttin g
to g e th e r and doing was b e a u tif u l. As
th e S trik e progressed I f e l t b e tte r about
i t . Not being p o l i t i c a l l y a c tiv e I did
not ca tch on i t a t f i r s t . I was a convert
so to speak. I f e l t c lo s e r to some but
d o n 't r e c a l l fe e lin g a lie n a te d from o th e rs
any more. X did not drop out of school—
I would have missed much I f e l t v alu ab le,
yet I did p a r tic ip a te in th e S trik e as
much as I could—In other words I did not
r a d ic a lly a l t e r my l i f e - s t y l e or schedule
because of the S t r i k e . . .th e re was some
in n er c o n f lic t in p a r tic ip a tin g in a
p o l i t i c a l th in g .
(S. 14) Apathy
Confusion
D isgust
(S. 4) I entered from th e beginning because my
whole c la s s was involved (Urban Semester)
and we were concerned w ith what was
happening.
(S .49) The question was could you more e f f e c tiv e
ly work fo r a p o l i t i c a l cause you believed
in as an ed u c atio n al p ro cess, (I) entered
a t th e beginning. I continued t i l l 6ne
week a f t e r s t r i k e . I took some f i n a l s ,
anyway--but I had mostly A 's , so i t r e a lly
d id n 't m a tte r. I d o n 't know th a t I can
com pletely j u s t i f y stu d en ts "going on
s tr ik e " in th e sense th a t they are cheating
them selves. But as a w rite r I f e lt- - a n d
s t i l l f e e l —th a t what I learned in term s
of in te r-p e rs o n a l r e la tio n s h ip s would be
more valuable than c la s s a tten d a n ce.
(S .43) I t was th e f i r s t time I r e a lly f e l t proud
and good about my school. The stu d e n ts
were re sp o n sib le , communicative. The
te a c h -in was f a n t a s t i c . M y d e c isio n to
get involved in th e s tr ik e was because of
the u nbelievable apathy of many of my
____________ f r a t e r n i ty bro th e rs and t h e i r unw illingness
477
to even ju s t s i t in and l i s t e n on th e
te a c h -in a c t i v i t y . ...M y ’p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1
did not l a s t u n t i l th e end of the sem ester.
X dropped the c la s s I could— but not to
work on th e s t r i k e —i t was a p erso n al
opp o rtu n ity to p r o te s t th e grading system
in g e n e ra l—so I took my (form er) grades
and ran .
(S .34) I remember th a t J . and co. were going to
stag e th e Am. Rev. of 1776 in th e park,
s t a r t i n g the Monday when th e Kent S ta te
in c id e n t occurred. J . and I were ta lk in g
a week before and he y e lle d a t me fo r
being an onlooker. I f e l t f r u s tr a te d and
hands tie d in th e p o l i t i c a l sense, but
when I saw th e p ic tu re of one chick holding
her boyfriend as he died in her arms, my
em otional le v e l superceded my p o l i t i c a l
p ro c ra s tin a tio n . I t could have been m e ...
being th e re and g e ttin g k ille d or having
my boyfriend k i l l e d . . .(B ut) I soon got
d is illu s io n e d and re a liz e d th a t I wasn’t
going anywhere—I was s ic k . I was h a sslin g
w ith my boyfriend and th e s t r i k e was
f a l l i n g a p a r t. I had to ta k e a f i n a l so
I could pass th e c la s s and I had lo s t
my enthusiasm th a t something was r e a lly
accomplished save the f a c t th a t my F .B .I.
f i l e must be m iles long from a l l th e
p e titio n s I signed.
(S .31) I took i t fo r what i t was. I d id n 't
p a r tic ip a te to o much in th e S trik e because
I work and most of my c la s s e s were not
in te rr u p te d . I d id n 't know a t a l l what
to expect but I hoped th a t th e S trik e
would make me more aware of th in g s , would
teach me and answer some q u estions on my
m in d ...I w asn 't sure of my b e lie f in the
aims of the s t r i k e . I did ta k e advantage
of skipping f in a ls fo r th e reason th a t I
f e l t th e te a c h e rs co u ld 'v e cared le ss
whether we took them a t a l l and since th e
whole s itu a tio n was so messed up, we
m ostly ju s t took our grades and l e f t . I
f e e l th e S tr ik e was f a i r l y su c c e ssfu l
but lik e anything e ls e , i t s e f f e c t wore off
and is soon fo rg o tte n .
478
(S .32) T his q u estio n is not re le v a n t.
You w ill n o te , I'm su re , the number of stu d en ts who
adm itted one year a f t e r th a t they h a d n 't r e a l ly q u it school
com pletely, th a t, in f a c t , they were "doing i t h alf-w ay ."
Although some spoke of the elev ated fe e lin g they got from
th e ev en t, o th ers were now somewhat f l a t in a f f e c t as they
looked back. C e rta in ly they do not e x h ib it th e firm com
mitment of th e Stage 6 th in k e r th a t Kohlberg d e s c rib e s,
do they? In r e la tio n to commitment, here are th e s t a t e
ments of se v e ra l o th e r stu d e n ts who questioned th a t of
o th ers around then as they looked back.
(S. 1) ...M y in t e r e s t in th e S trik e dropped when
a l l the speakers and a c t i v i t i e s began to
re p e a t them selves. I r e a l ly found out how
a lie n a te d and blind th e m ajo rity of people
a r e —r e a lly d ep ressin g . Some would have
believed anything I s a id . Others were so !
close-minded they w ouldn't even l i s t e n . . . |
I n te r e s tin g ly enough, t h i s same student who comes o ff with]
so much discouragement reg ard in g th e S trik e and th e con
form ity and narrow-mindedness he re p o rts concludes w ith
th is dichotomous assessm ent of the S tr ik e :
i
R eally was f a n ta s tic experience—I t was
r e a l ly neat a t the beginning to see so
many people to g e th e r fo r one t h i n g . . . j
(S. 8) I did the whole s ti c k . I was tr u ly angry j
a t people who took th e ir grades and s p l i t j
fo r an e a rly v a c a t i o n ...I was however j
growing in c re a sin g ly ( d is illu s io n e d ) a t |
the S tr ik e . The town h a l l m eetings were
lik e camp r a l l i e s , no one lis te n e d to any-|
one e lse and people repeated what o th ers
had said ju s t to hear themselves t a l k . I t J
479
developed ex a ctly in to th e th in g i t was
d ia m e tric a lly opposed t o . . .
Yet, highly c r i t i c a l , t h i s stu d en t a ls o re p o rte d , as had
th e form erly quoted, the p o s itiv e e f f e c t of th e group
consciousness on him:
I loved th e fe e lin g of involvement and
oneness w ith others in th e S trik e .
Yet, fo r him, the fa c t i t "d id n ’t work" makes him, as he
re p o rts , a fan of th e concept of R e ich 's Consciousness I I I .
I'm convinced th e re is no p o l i t i c a l
e ffic a c y in dem onstrations and s tr ik e s
'cause th e government is going to do
what i t wants and th e only th in g y e llin g
out now is going to do is feed our egos.
The only p o ssib le re v o lu tio n is a p erso n a l
o n e--R eich 's Consciousness I I I . And i f
th e re is another s tr ik e I w ill do what
I thought was most a p p a llin g la s t y ea r—
tak e an e a rly v acatio n .
R eversal of f e e lin g s . Another in te r e s tin g fa c to r
which can be noted from many of the above excerpts i s th e
changed a t titu d e among both p a r tic ip a n ts and th e non
p a r tic ip a n ts . Among th e former S trik e p a r tic ip a n ts , fo r
|
in sta n c e (n = 2 7 ), 14 rep o rted they would not now p a r t i c i - j
pate in a sim ila r s tr ik e fo r th e same cause, w hile 2 said
they m ight, and 1 was unsure. This meant th a t le s s than
I
h a lf had m aintained t h e i r stan ce of a c tiv e commitment.
Ju st the opposite is tr u e of th o se who had not p a rtic ip a te d
(n = 2 3 ); 12 said they now would, with 2 who m ight, 4 who
were unsure, and only 5 who would follow th e i r previous
stan ce of n o n -p a rtic ip a tio n . Of th e s ix who had been
480
aligned w ith the s tr ik e but had not a c tu a lly p a r tic ip a te d ,
four reported they would i f they had th e chance again.
This in te r e s tin g r e v e r s a l phenomenon is one th a t would
be yet more d ram a tica lly i l l u s t r a t e d in a four-campus study
done by Kaplan, Bass, and myself the follow ing y ear. In
comparing th e o r ig in a l study and the r e tro s p e c tiv e (1971),
I had p o stu late d the fo llo w in g : (1) Although many of the
SC stu d e n ts remembered th e ir p a r tic ip a tio n fondly and
were glad they had entered th e S tr ik e , t h e i r commitment
was perhaps much lik e th a t of a tw o-year man in th e Army.
I t seemed p r o te s t had become a common phenomenon, involving
many people on many le v els in many causes. As was demon
s tra te d in th e m aterials alre ad y p resen ted , the S trik e on
our campus, as one stu d en t a c c u ra te ly put i t , "branched
o u t." Perhaps th is re in fo rc e s the concept of th e v irtu e
of r e b e llio n , a concept c le a r ly negating tru e commitment.
C e rta in ly the notion of p ro te s t per se had p o ssib ly
become as popular a one among youth as any of th e sp e c ific
is s u e s . I t is p o ssib le , th en , th a t a concept I have des
cribed in r e la tio n to t h i s data is a re le v a n t one h ere.
This is the n o tio n of serving one 's time in the R evolution.
th e concept being t h a t , in the non-tr u e - b e lie v e r , one-
event a c tiv a tio n became th is g e n e ra tio n 's version of being
d ra fte d , but fo r a popular, ra th e r than an unpopular,
cause, th a t cause being p r o t e s t . I was led to t h i s conclu-
481
sion out of th e n atu re of the re p o rts I have reviewed in
th is book, and out of th e f a c t th a t , though many claimed
!th a t in S pring, 1910, they were ag a in st th e War, no one
|who had decided not to p a r tic ip a te again gave any in d ic a -
!tio n as to how he would now dem onstrate his an ti-w a r
fe e lin g s ( i f , in f a c t , he s t i l l had them ), sin ce he did
not d e sire any longer to do so by s tr ik in g .
On th e other hand, what of the n o n p a rtic ip a n t? Most
I
reported they had not p a rtic ip a te d because of the i n a b i l i t y
to r is k dropping grades, or th e influence of p aren ts or
f rie n d s . Many of them, however, although they did not
s ta te th a t they a re now "anti-Vietnam " and th u s ly wish
|t o dem onstrate th is by s tr ik in g , re v e a l ra th e r th a t they
i i
| f e l t they "missed something" by not having p a rtic ip a te d j
i i
jth e previous year. The r e s u lt of th is is a kind of j
com bination of g u ilt and yearning. Again, however, one j
questions the source of such emotion sin c e , when th e
students do not re p o rt a change in a t titu d e about th e War
i t s e l f , one is led again to give credence to the impact of j
| p ro te s t as a group v alue, p a r tic u la r ly among co lleg e j
I I
; students a t th e end of the s ix tie s , j
Among reasons stu d en ts who had p a rtic ip a te d would not
one year l a t e r , one fin d s prevalent fa c to rs of f a ilu r e
|
(of th e s tr ik e to succeed) and f a tig u e , f r u s t r a t i o n , and j
|
f e a r . Many, however, now adm itted they were fo r th e j
482
"inner t r i p " th a t Reich favored. Some adm itted they would
not e n te r a second tim e because of "lack of time and
I energy." Others s ta te d b la ta n tly th a t " p o litic s are not
where i t ' s a t . " In most of th e statem ents of the " s h i f t e r s 1
I th e re is seen again markedly the aspect of an in a b i l i t y
jto recognize th a t antagonism toward the p olicy of the
j government so f a r as th e War is concerned is c o rre la te d
i
morally w ith the im perative to p r o te s t. Two form erly-
involved stu d e n ts wrote they would not again p a r tic ip a te
because they had "heard i t a l l before.," fo r in sta n c e .
Another wrote th a t " i t 's ju s t another symbolic g e s tu re ."
One sta te d t h a t : " th e re 's no more teaching to be done."
Another wrote t h a t : "I d o n 't f e e l i t is th e rig h t tim e.
I t w ill cause more a lie n a tio n and not help mend a n y th in g ...
i
This la s t statem ent is a good one to probe sin ce i t is
stro n g ly in d ic a tiv e of th e questions I am pursuing h erein |
i
i
about the n atu re of commitment, a t le a s t in so fa r as i t j
concerns s o c io - p o l itic a l p rin c ip le s . When is th e re not j
a "rig h t tim e" to p ro te st when a war is on? F u rth e r, as j
I
Camus in d ic a te d , the success fa c to r must be a subordinate
9 I
/ ■
one in th e co n sid e ra tio n of l'homme r e v o lte . j
This body of s e lf - r e p o r t caused in me tremendous
d esp air and p erso n al questio n in g follow ing the com pletion
of th e study. Both L ezlie Kaplan and I were studying
w ith A li B anuazizi, a c l i n i c a l psychologist who was deeply
m
committed p o l i t i c a l l y and p h ilo s o p h ic a lly to th a t concept
of hum anistic r e b e llio n I had tra c e d as th e peak of mature
rev o lu tio n ary a c tio n during th e previous year. A l l 's own
! ac tio n s were out of both c o g n itiv e and em otional bases.
He studied a s itu a tio n ; he analyzed; he a c te d . His in
fluence on me led me to attem pt to r e fin e my a n a ly sis to
|
j the re tro s p e c tiv e study so th a t I was u ltim a te ly able to
! d isc rim in a te between two m otivating fa c to rs which seemed
i
to se p arate the stu d e n ts. One was group co n scio u sn ess;
th e other in d iv id u a l conscien ce.
As a m otivating f a c to r , the f i r s t is e x te rn a l to the
in d iv id u a l, being c le a r ly based on s o c ia l reinforcem ent
as has been described p rev io u sly . A lb eit th e re i s , in
a l l of u s, a need fo r belonging, or a need fo r approbation,!
i
th is need as a prime mover in s o c io - p o l itic a l p ro te s t is |
c le a r ly d is t in c t from th a t of in d iv id u a l conscience. j
Im portant in th is c o n sid e ra tio n i s th e idea t h a t , although |
the hum anistic r e b e l a c ts fo r th e u n iv e rsa l group, he i
i does not a c t because of (in th e sense of under th e influence
I of or pressure of) any s p e c if ic re fe re n c e or membership
group.
In f u rth e r try in g to d e lin e a te th e d iffe re n c e between
consciousness and conscience as co n c ep ts, I pointed out th e
p o p u la riz a tio n of the f i r s t term a f te r i t s u t i l i z a t i o n by
Marcuse and Roszak ( 1 9 6 9). R egardless the fa c t i t
m
sometimes has the connotation of a sort of mystical vision
of the "way Life might be," consciousness is, in fact,
just another word for perception, perception of one's own
experience and that of others,
; Important to an understanding of the distinction
between these terms is that one can expand his conscious
ness through all manner of endeavor, drugs, meditation,
sexual experimentation, political knowledge. Heightened
|consciousness can include any and all of these activities,
but need not incorporate any of them specifically. Altered
!
consciousness or altered perception is an individual
matter, a state of being. It does not express the collec
tive position of all participants in a movement any more
than does the equally individual notion of conscience.
Therefore, Theodore Hoszak's apocalyptic yearning ( 1969)
and Reich's Consciousness III ( 1970) are ideological j
constructs, and, as such, are far more abstract than the !
process they portend to describe.
Following this line of thought, Riesman's related j
i
concept of other-directedness (which I have called group
consciousness) indicates the same source of motivation j
for all who are subject to this influence, but the degree
and quality of influence will differ from individual to
individual.
485
Furthermore, whereas consciousness may remain a
primitive, or possibly even psychophysiological state
embodying no verbalization or cognition, conscience bears
with it the notion of mentalistic, volitional, deliberated
operations. The highest level of consciousness or aware-
jness, if you will, need not imply principle or commitment
|to what one is perceiving or experiencing. On the other
j
ihand, a highly-developed personal conscience implies,
|
as has described Kohlberg, correlated acts of external
commitment.
Participation and motivation. Therefore, the
previously-cited statements of students are significant
in that they speak of or allude to increased awareness
in regards to one’s self and others but are startingly
I
absent of related statements of commitment on those |
j
perceptions. Rather, the retrospective study showed
that, regardless the knowledge that "War is wrong," for
instance, many students believed (like Charles Reich)
that political protest was no way of eliminating War.* I
Furthermore, in remembering the Strike, students in both j
the first and second studies emphasized two aspects: (1)
the group experience and the elation from that experience;
(2) that it helped them "straighten out their own heads." j
Both of these factors demonstrate that the socio-political
aspect was subordinate to an internal odyssey, a need for
M 8 6
in te r n a l growth o ften r e s u ltin g from sh arin g in a group
experience.
X suggested in 1971 th a t I did not f e e l th a t so c io
p o l i t i c a l re v o lu tio n can remain an in te r n a l m a tte r, did
not f e e l th a t "a high le v e l of consciousness may seep out
m agically and m y stically in to th e population and accomplish
i
fo r us broad s o c io - p o l itic a l change." This seemed to me
(and remains fo r me) tr a g ic and evasive fa n ta s iz in g . Yet
i t was ju s t th a t dream th a t was ap p aren tly held by most of
th e former s t r i k e p a rtic ip a n ts we interview ed one year
a f t e r the S tr ik e .
An im portant study by Barbara Myerhoff c o n s is tin g of
the a n a ly sis of interview s with s tr ik e lead ers a ls o resulted
in her concluding th a t the "rev o lu tio n " was, fo r many,
i
i
"a t r i p " and more of a c u l tu r a l ev en t, or an in te r n a l head j
t r i p than a su c c e ssfu l p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r (1971b). Myerhoff j
d e lin e a te s fo r us the paradoxes involved in the se rio u s
work and e la te d play of th e S tr ik e , and in th e markedly
d if fe re n t goals of th e p a r tic ip a n ts . As I described in j
| !
j th e previous c h a p te r, she d elin ea ted th e sense of drama j
and group union achieved through the use of common s ig n ,
symbol, and sc e n a rio . In her a r t i c l e , however, she does
not touch on th e notion of group com pliance, as opposed
to p riv a te acceptance and commitment, and th is i s , I f e e l ,
i
a c r u c ia l fa c e t in our c o n sid e ra tio n .
437
Myerhoff and I have both described in our previous
articles the kind of Woodstock atmosphere that the Strike
took on. She termed it a "celebration of our generation."
| I would go further and state that, given the new requisites
[
for "membership" in the college generation of the sixties,
this was a kind of rite of passage, a baptism ritual.
(
j Parsons (1951) e s ta b lish e d a t r i - p a r t i t e category of
group (and le a d e rsh ip ) fu n ctio n s which he categ o rized as:
(l) instrumental; (2) moral; and (3) expressive. The
third function, as described in Chapter 6, is one in which
a group "cathects toward" new forms of organization and
order via the use of symbolic and ritualistic acts. Myer
hoff !s conclusions and the reports I am presenting in this
I
chapter would indicate that for the USC students, the j
main function of the Strike for many of them was neither j
instrumental nor moral (albeit it was originally intended !
to be such) but expressive. Promotion of a verbal and non
verbal "language" allowed for just this manner of unified
(overtly) and mass action as occurred in the Spring of j
1970. The importance of the distribution of this common j
"vocabulary" of costume, action, symbol, and rhetoric was 1
i
"admitted to" by Abbie Hoffman in his statement on the j
use of media for such a purpose..."We were an advertisement
for revolution"( 1968, p. 13*1). I will elaborate a bit
further on this group dynamic at the conclusion of the
4 88
chapt e r .
Values of USC s tu d e n ts . In a d d itio n to the s t a t e
ments alre ad y c i te d , in s ig h t in to the value-system s of
i former S trik e r s and N o n -strik ers were afforded by an
" a c tiv ity r a tin g - s c a le " in which su b je c ts ranked a c t i v i t i e s
(each re p re s e n ta tiv e of c e r ta in value p referen ces) according
to importance and a q u estio n in which stu d en ts were asked
to p ro je c t to t h e i r f o r t i e t h year of l i f e and p re d ic t how
they are them selves in th e fu tu re .
In both segments of th e stu d y , th e im portant discovery
was th a t th e re were few d iffe re n c e s ex h ib ited between
S trik e r s and N o n -strik e rs (save in th e e x c e p tio n a l,
in d iv id u a l c a s e ). Most Ss in both groups displayed a
i
m ixture of a lle g ia n c e to th e "new ren aissan c e values of |
youth" and a c a re fu l and more co v ert lo y a lty (so f a r as j
t h e i r claim s went) to more t r a d i t i o n a l American values j
of s e c u rity and s ta tu s . |
The mean r a tin g s fo r a c t i v i t i e s of th e t o t a l group
and fo r the in d iv id u a l S tr ik e r and N o n -strik er groups
I ;
| a re presented as S ectio n D (Appendix). A rank o rd erin g !
of values is presented as S ectio n E. |
Looking c lo s e ly a t th is data we discover th a t the
two most highly ra te d a c t i v i t i e s (o r values) fo r S trik e r s
were: (1) To have clo se frie n d s (^4.81) 5 (2) To have a
personal philosophy of l i f e (4 .7 7 ). E s ta b lish in g long- j
489
term re la tio n s h ip s was a ls o lis te d as very im portant fo r
t h is group. This supports the statem ents made by S trik e r s
about th e i r p a r tic ip a tio n . The S trik e d e f in it e ly "offered"
th e f a c i l i t a t i o n of both th e se f a c to r s . I t allowed a
j ,
!clo sen ess of communication heightened by th e p u rs u it of
th e same goal or g o als, and th e passion of th e group
involvement per s e .
F u rth e r, th e need fo r a philosophy of l i f e cannot be
|
|equated w ith an a c tu a l maintenance or in te g ra tio n of a
philosophy of l i f e . As was in d ic ated by many of th e !
s e lf - r e p o r ts , th e S trik e allowed a "search" fo r a meaning-
j
f u l philosophy to take p la c e . We have seen th a t th e re
were few in stan ces wherein students a c tu a lly revealed a
cohesive and deeply-rooted value system.
Of fu rth e r I n te r e s t is the fa c t th a t S trik e r s placed
such a c t i v i t i e s as p r o te s t, dem onstration, and community j
|
|endeavor a t th e same le v e l of th e ir h ie ra rc h y of importance;
I !
|a s t r a d i t i o n a l values lik e m arriage, e n te rin g a professional
| I
jc a re e r, co n tinuing in good standing and g e ttin g good gradesj
I |
|a t school, going on to graduate school, e tc . Although j
! I
|th e y valued th ese t r a d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s le ss than did
N o n -strik e rs, the d iffe re n c e was not s ig n if ic a n t. Only
in th e case of p o l i t i c a l p ro te s t was th e re an apparent
c le a r d iffe re n c e in v alu e, but, even in t h i s ca se , both
groups ra te d th is a c tiv i ty below th e n e u tr a l le v e l in
490
importance.
Furthermore, when projecting themselves into the
future, the allegiance to traditional values showed up
|
I yet more definitively in the statements of the Strikers.
|
IWith few exceptions, they describe lives which are those
|
of middle-class America today. The importance of pro
fessionalism, material comfort, and the like is revealed
i
■ to an even greater extent than in the activities scale.
Except in rare instances wherein students report they would
like to go to a small town to live, or work in a socialized
set-up, it would be difficult to discern or distinguish
statements of Strikers from Non-strikers from these
reports. Most Strikers picture themselves as married,
j
with children, leading comfortable lives. Some even
describe situations which are clearly upper-middle class,
|including one young man who sketched a kind of "Hugh Hefner
complex" of factors.
Several d£ mention the importance of working with
! community organizations or doing community service, but
j
|their statements are not unique in that they do not show
! them working in a different socio-political context in
that arena. The telling element in these descriptions
and projections is simply that there are no essential
differences indicated in the life-styles of these students
(as projected) and in the life-styles of educated, middle-
491
c la s s America today. In essence, th e se a re not the s t a t e
ments of s o c io - p o l itic a l (or even, in most c a se s , of
c u ltu r a l) r e v o lu tio n a rie s .
The S trik e : A Two-Year R e tro sp e c tiv e
In th e Spring of 1972, student p ro te s t seemed clo se
to n o n e x iste n t. Yet th e re was a dynamic g ra ssro o ts
campaign f o r McGovern, even more su c c e s sfu l in i t s growth
and youth p a r tic ip a tio n than had been th e e a r l i e r McCarthy
campaign. Sim ultaneously, th e war in S outheast Asia
continued. In other words, the p o l i t i c a l p ic tu re of our
n a tio n was not th a t d if f e r e n t than i t had been a t th e
time of th e Cambodian in v asio n except th a t antagonism
toward th e Nixon "regime" was ta k in g place in th e shape of
a campaign ra th e r than a c t i v i s t p r o te s t. S t i l l a ffe c te d
by the r e s u lts of our one-year r e tr o s p e c tiv e , L e z lie Kaplan
and I (1972) in v ite d another undergraduate, Debi B ass, j
to jo in us in another re tr o s p e c tiv e on stu d en t a c t i v i t i e s j
and m otivations toward th e S tr i k e . W e decided to see
whether or not the sp ecies of fin d in g s we had uncovered
a t SC were supported by statem ents from stu d e n ts of other
I
campuses two years a f t e r th e S tr ik e . !
i
Kaplan and Bass interview ed 280 su b je c ts on four
C a lifo rn ia campuses (35 males and 35 females a t each s e t
ti n g ) . _ The d u ratio n of each interview was approxim ately
15-20 minutes and su b je c ts were picked com pletely a t
492
random, screened by the q u estio n : 'Vere you on campus a t
the time of th e Student S trik e of 1970?" S ubjects were
asked the follow ing q u estio n s: (1) Did you support the
S trik e?--C an you t e l l me some of th e reasons you d id , or
j
| did not? (2) Did you p a r tic ip a te in the S trik e ? What
!
j was the n atu re of your p a rtic ip a tio n ? (3) There is a rumor
th a t th e re w ill be a s tr ik e th is Spring r e la tin g to the
Vietnamese War. In th e event of such an e f f o r t , would
you p a r tic ip a te ? (4) Are you re g is te re d to vote? (5) Who
a re you supporting fo r P re sid e n t and why?
The four campuses v is ite d were UCLA, USC, U n iv ersity
of C a lifo rn ia a t Santa B arbara, and V alley S ta te (now
C a lifo rn ia S ta te U n iv ersity a t N o rth rid g e). S trik e s had i
j
been very d if fe re n t on each of th ese campuses. SC, fo r j
i
in sta n c e , had experienced broad p a r tic ip a tio n and a
t o t a l l y nonviolent atmosphere w ith a good deal of o rg an i- j
z a tio n and a c le a r lead ersh ip cadre. j
UCSB was a t th e opposite extrem e, with a disorganized |
!e f f o r t on campus, but v io le n t a c tiv i ty in the Community, j
I ;
c h a ra c te riz e d by r io tin g , lo o tin g , tra s h in g , and attem pts j
a t burning down th e Bank of America. The violence in th e j
I s l a V ista a c t i v i t y was much pub licized in n a tio n a l news
papers. F a c u lty , as a t USC, was highly in stru m en tal in
th e campus e f f o r t . F acu lty a ls o joined students in
blocking U.S. Highway 101 fo r more than a m ile. Wandering
493
bands of stu d en ts padlocked classroom s on campus. Demon
s tr a t in g stu d en ts painted w ith red co lo r to symbolize
| and griev e th e deaths of th e Kent S ta te stu d e n ts were
dragged away by the p o lic e .
U CLA also experienced a g reat d eal of v io le n t a c t i v i t y ,
jA lready, by May.5* i t was declared to be in a S ta te of
| Emergency as 250 p o lice clashed w ith hundreds of a n t i
war dem onstrators (and w ith onlookers as shown in student
film s made a t th e tim e ). There was a g re a t d ea l of damage
I
done to the q u a rte rs wherein ROTC was housed. E ig h t-
thousand five-hundred (8 5OO) people attended the an ti-w a r
r a l l y designated to form up stu d en ts to go in to the
community on May 12th. At UCLA, however, d is o rg an iz atio n
of th e e f f o r t was th e r u le .
The e f f o r t a t Cal S ta te N orthridge (form erly V alley
S ta te ) was a minor one compared to th ese other campuses.
Only 500 stu d en ts voted to jo in th e S trik e on May 6th . |
j
The S trik e remained n o n v io len t. This campus had already
gone a p o l i t i c a l as compared to former days wherein i t was ;
|
one of the f i r s t C a lifo rn ia campuses to eru p t in p r o te s t.
1
(Note: These d e sc rip tio n s were garnered from inform ation j
i
provided by newspapers and the thorough in v e s tig a tio n of
th e S trik e in a l l i t s s e ttin g s by th e Chicago Urban
Research C orporation, 1970).
494
Tables 4, 5* 6* and 7 d e t a i l inform ation from those
in te rv ie w s. Here a re th e main fa c to rs of in te r e s t to th is
d isc o u rse : ( l) The re v e r s a l noted the previous year was
again e x h ib ite d , but only in one d ir e c tio n , th a t of non-
| p a r tic ip a tio n by former p a r tic ip a n ts . Tw enty-eight per
cent (28$) of a l l the stu d en ts s ta te d firm ly th a t they
would not r e p lic a te th e ir former p a r tic ip a tio n (79 out of
280). Only 12 stu d en ts out of th e 280 changed t h e i r minds
in the d ire c tio n of p a r tic ip a tio n . D u plicating th e un
c e r ta in ty found in the o r ig in a l decision-m aking p ro cess,
however, was the fa c t th a t 34 were unsure, 19 th in k in g
they might p a r tic ip a te th is tim e (whereas they had not
p a rtic ip a te d in 1970), and 15 th in k in g they would probably
not p a r tic ip a te again. The kind of answer given by many
of th e se u n c e rta in stu d e n ts, however, only re in fo rc e s the
lack of firm commitment alluded to p rev io u sly . S everal
s ta te d sim ply: " i t d e p e n d s..." or " if th e re were good
leaders.," e tc .
Both males and females a t U CLA and USC, and males a t
V alley S ta te showed t h i s re v e rs a l in "a lle g ia n c e " dram ati
c a lly . Between 50 and 70$ of them (depending on the
group) would not again p a r tic ip a te .
495
TABLE 4
SUPPORT OP STUDENT STRIKE OP 1970 O N POUR CAMPUSES*
Supported Was Against
(Cal S tate Northridge) Males 26
9
Females
17
18
UCSB Males 20
15
Females 20
15
UCLA Males 29
6
Females
27
8
USC Males
31
4
Females 21 14
* Subjects were rep o rtin g in Spring, 1972
1
1*96
TABLE 5
ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN STRIKE O N POUR CAMPUSES*
P a rtic ip a te d Did Not
Valley S tate
(Cal S tate Northridge) Males 21 1H
Females
15
20
UCSB Males 18
17
Females
15
20
UCLA Males
27
8
Females
19
16
use Males 28
7
Fema les
19
16
* Subjects were reporting in Spring, 1972
497
TABLE 6
STUDENTS' PRESENT ATTITUDE TO W A RD
FUTURE STRIKE PARTICIPATION*
Would Would Not Unsure
Valley S tate
— (CalTSTaSe
Males
Northridge) Females
UCSB
UCLA
USC
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Fema les
6
9
12
8
13
9
14
5
2H
20
19
21
19
21
19
27
5
'6
4
6
3
5
2
3
* Subjects were rep o rtin g in Spring, 1972
4 98
TABLE 7
SHIFTS IN ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS TO W A RD STRIKING*
Would Now Would Not Again
1 -4
5
9
6
13
9
12
11
* Subjects were reporting In Spring* 1972
Uncertain students are not lis te d in th is table* nor are
students who kept th e ir former stances.
Valley S tate
(TJaT^EaTe
Northridge)
UCSB
U CLA
use
Males 1
Females 2
Males
Females 2
Males 1
Females 2
Males 0
Females 0
499
This dramatic change i s , however, fu rth e r emphasized by
the fact th a t although 50$ of subjects questioned held
th e ir former stance regarding the S trik e , 2/3 of these
were nonparticipants. This means th a t fewer than one-
th ird of the o rig in a l s tr ik e rs would s tr ik e again.
What were the reasons for such a dramatic s h if t in
a ttitu d e ? Some might muse th a t th ere might be a r e la tio n
ship between violence and subsequent tu rn -o ff. However,
looking at our data, we find th a t the campus wherein
students exhibited le a st a ttitu d e change was Santa Barbara,
p recisely the campus on which there had been the most
violence. And the campus with the most dramatic change
was SC, which had been se t fo rth as a model for organized
and nonviolent p ro te st, for facu lty help, and police and
adm inistration cooperation. Again, we were confronted !
with an inquiry as to the nature of the students ’ o rig in a l I
i
commitment. !
(2) Many (perhaps half of the students) do s ta te
I 1
th a t they p artic ip ated o rig in ally because of the War or
because of the Kent S tate incidents. A good percentage j
of students provide a wide-range of other motives, however,
and several b latan tly admitted to joining because of "peer
group pressure.," wherein others demonstrated th is by such
statements as the following: "I was going with P h ilip
then and P h ilip was in to i t , so X went along with him."
500
Many others stated they had joined because of a lack of
adequate information, again leading us to conclude as
we did in the past studies that "joining the Revolution"
can be, for many, a random kind of happening, and, for
j others, one as "meaningful" or casual as dropping by the
campus cafeteria for a cup of coffee.
What are the primary reasons that students would not
participate again? "Even to a greater extent than was true
in the TJSC retrospective of the previous year, factors
of fear* fatigue, frustration, and failure were revealed,
with the latter two being the prevalent modes. Over 75%
of the former participants who would not again participate
claimed they would not because (and these are typical
quotes): "it didn’t work"..."it wasn’t effective in
ending the war"... "The University is no place for protest, "j
A somewhat smaller number openly stated that, although
they were involved in the war effort then, they were now j
"involved in other things." Several of these students (in :
the same Spring of the mining of Hai Phong Harbor) stated j
that "War is no longer an issue." Many stated that, |
i
although they had believed in such action then, "Strikes
I
are outmoded now." Throughout these statements, one feels
again in the presence of those who have been through a
"cultural happening" which is now passe.
501
This expression is again supportive of Barbara Myer-
hoff's description of the "revolution as trip" (1971b),
and my own 1971 sketch of "serving one's time in the
I revolution" as a kind of initiation rite into this era's
1
1
; "fraternity."
This kind of personalized experience through group
j
| ritual is, beyond a doubt, meaningful to those involved
and possibly can even contribute to the growth process.
I t is dubious, however, whether it is that essential to
the true social movement which must endure over time and
space and consists of members dedicated or committed to
a common goal...the goal of group togetherness is not
intrinsically socio-political.
Discussing certain aspects of the youth subculture,
|
Myerhoff in an excellent paper (1971c) utilizes the term I
j
communitas for that species of group effort often reaching j
ecstasy which results from unstructured collective happen- |
ings. She describes this as the high obtained from certain;
early primitive rites and applies it to various "rituals"
of the youth culture like passing the weed, etc. Certainly!
it is part of the essence of all the group movements of
the last decade. In a popular article written some years
ago (1969), I tried to express much of the same feeling
in providing a picture of encounter-group "buffs":
We see then a long stream of faithful searchers
roaming from encounter through drama to encounter
502
with aggression t a c t i c s , from searches on
mountain tops to searches through gentle water.
(P. 37)
I went on in th a t a r tic le to describe the often tra g ic
nature of people sometimes blindly and cease lessly on
the move, seeking themselves through others, try in g to
touch something warm in a "frig id ify in g " society.
Surely the notion of communitas, the need for such
| ’’shared highs3" the reinforcement afforded by group
ecstasy highs is substantiated in many of the reports
offered in th is chapter. I t i s , I think, the essence
of th is excerpt from a 1970 S tr i k e r 's journal:
(R.17) Far more rewarding than any of these
a c tiv i tie s was the march to City Hall
yesterday. As one of the thousand, I
experienced something ex q u isite. For
the f i r s t time th a t I can remember I j
was in te ra c tin g with people free of any j
inside or outside pressures. Amongst
the thousand there was t o t a l unity in I
cause, in purpose, in tr u ly feelin g fo r j
one a n o th e r ...I am, I know, incapable of
adequately explaining the feelings I had |
for th at g ro u p ... j
ii i
I t is now questionable th a t there was t o t a l unity in
i
j
cause, in purpose" among the S trik e rs of 1970. But i t is j
undeniable th a t people joined th a t S trike to believe such
a feelin g might be possible. In th is way, our data is
supportive of the statements on psychology of so c ia l move
ments made by C a n tril and Hoffer. One is_ motivated to
tr u ly believe, but th is does n o t, i t seems, equate with
tru ly believing.
503
Charles Hampden-Turner (1970) in his comprehensive
and b r i l l i a n t study of radicalism has compared ra d ic a l
man to the Stage 6 thinker of Kohlberg and to Maslow's
s e lf-a c tu a liz e d human being ( 1961). Radical man is
! capable of th a t form of humanistic reb ellio n I have
repeatedly sketched. As is noted by the Hampden-Turner
delineation* in order to be capable of making mature moral
judgments* the individual has already passed through the
kind of thinking and motivation c h a ra c te ris tic of the
more prim itive stages of Kohlberg. Here is his synthesis
of Maslow and Kohlberg* describing ra d ic a l man as one:
a. Whose perception was courageous enough to
focus upon the range of the dilemmas, and
was accurate enough in gauging the needs of
the other to regard th is sp e c ific judgment j
as superior to ex istin g laws and contracts |
which co n flic ted with i t . j
i
b. Whose id e n tity was strong enough to override j
ro le expectations th ru s t upon him by the I
cu ltu re (Stage 3). j
c-d. Whose competence at authentic investing was
great enough to communicate and to act upon
the p rin cip le he saw d esp ite the likelihood
of c o n flic t and opposition,
e. Who would r i s k suspending s o c ia l contracts j
(Stage 5 ) , role-expectations (Stage 3)* 1
and r is k personal inconvenience (Stage 2)
and punishment (Stage 1) in order to express
a b etter p rin cip le than custom enshrined.
f. Who would bridge the distance created between
himself and others* consequent upon his
breaking of laws and conventions at stages
3 to 5 . i
504
g. Whose selected principle is so well chosen
and communicated that it calls forth a
confirming response in others, and trans
cends not only the communicator himself
I but previous laws, contracts, and role
| expectations (Stages 3 to 5).
|
I h. Whose selected principle is capable of
| becoming a new social contract (Stage 5)
and later a new law (Stage 4) and a role-
j model (Stage 3). He would thereby eventually
| reconcile the opposites between law and
I conscience and through a dialectic between
! the two achieve a higher synergy of justice
and universalized principles.
i. Whose experience of moral choice and action
would increase his complex integration of
the principles of conscience^ (pp'. 121-122)
I have dwelt long upon the self-reports of students.
It is now up to the reader to probe as to which ones
j
jconsidered are those of radical men or women. One idea
I have for you is looking back at the statements of the
early civil rights activists and comparing some of
these statements. These individuals also had to face the |
draining factors of fear, fatigue, frustration, and j
failure which seem to have stymied and arrested the latter-'
i j
day protestors. Many of them were jailed, beaten, starved,,
land ostracized...over a period of years. What allowed !
j |
|them to stay "in there" while later protestors did not?
I would venture to agree with Howard Zinn (19^5) that it
was commitment to a primary goal.
Surely I would not in any way mean to imply there
were no committed people in the last years of the protest
505
movement. Thomas Powers (1971) has presented the "making
of a revolutionary," the story of Diana Oughton, a classic
|as a single-case study of the development of a political
activist. One might disagree with Diana’s tactics, but
one does not question the genuine nature of her commitment
and the fact she courted Death and eventually entertained
it in the course of her dedication.
| I have experienced d ir e c tly the commitment of many,
of facu lty who risked jobs, students who le f t school to
p o litic for A1 Loewenstein in the E ast, my own cousin Jack
who (having antagonized parents and frien d s) spat in the
face of the Draft and is now one of the fading-in-memory
(are they forgotten?) thousands living in Canada. I am
sure th at for a l l the individuals I can name who have
risked and sa crificed and cried out in f ru s tra tio n and
collapsed in fatigue and got back up there again to keep
on with i t , there are hundreds of others.
I have not forgotten any of them. One doesn’t forget
his cousin Jack. One might never see him again and so one
d o esn 't fo rg e t. One doesn't forget Daniel E llsberg. One
i
!never forgets people who re a lly r is k i t .
I t is because of the committed th a t I dared to mention
the "would-be committed." Because i t is d i f f i c u l t to
commit. Because i t is d i f f i c u l t to r is k i t . I do not see
e ith e r group as being the good guys or the bad guys. I
506
see the tra g ic condition of l i f e in the Twentieth Century
and know we a l l have to fin d , or c re a te , our own survival
methods.
That is e s s e n tia lly what th is book was about, how a
great group of people, individually and c o lle c tiv e ly ,
searched for ways of saving themselves and the world in
tw entieth-century America. So many searched so hard and
so long th a t su rv iv al and p ro te st against Death became
a common part of American existence. The many forms of
p ro te st are indicated below, covering just about every
area of l i f e ; these were bumper-stickers and buttons in
the s ix tie s :
Ban the Bra
Make Love not War
Black Power
Stop—you're blowing my mind
Support our boys in Viet Nam
Don't tr u s t anyone over 30
Take a hippie to lunch
Black is b eau tifu l
This button is ju s t an attempt to communicate
God is on a t r i p
Hands off Tim Leary
Haight is Love
I am a human being; do not fo ld , spindle or
m utilate
Great Society, Abominable Snow Job
I 'v e gone to pot
E ffete snobs for power
Help, I'm having an id e n tity c r i s i s
Go naked
W e s h a ll o v e rk ill
J. Edgar Hoover sleeps with a night lig h t
Burn baby burn
Suppose they gave a war and nobody came
You fig h t and die but c a n 't drink at lS
Legalize s p i r i t u a l discovery
Turn on, tune in, drop out
507
Hippy power
Flower power
Student power
Hoffer wrote th a t the second phase of a so c ial movement
frequently brings in the em otionally-deprived, and th a t
t h i s influx can r e s u lt in the downfall of a movement i f
i t is not already approaching success. This, too, happened,
as I believe I have demonstrated, in the la te s ix tie s
when the popularity of p ro test i t s e l f led to what I
called a "movement movement," wherein p ro test became a
! value and a goal.
As I view the committed revolutionary, p ro te st is a
means, a method which w ill be quickly shed in the joy
of achieving one’s end-goal. I am with Arendt, who would j
describe the common end-goal of rev o lu tio n aries as being |
I
an u p liftin g of the human condition. In such a way did j
i
I pattern my humanistic reb el a f te r Camus’ 1 'homme rev o lte j
whose rev o lt is a n ecessity to his e th ic a l existence. j
- Je r e v o lte , done nous sommes.- (I re v o lt, th erefo re we !
a re ). j
A ll of us, i t seems, those who have acted out of i
9 i
I
conformity, compelled by the w ill(s ) of others, and those
who have acted out of commitment, compelled by the w ill
of S e lf, seek, I believe, to overcome the absurdity of
existence through our ac tio n s. W e seek to make Life j
v i t a l and living s ig n ific a n t. In such a passion for l i f e
508
and living did I come to study the individual and collec
tive movements of my sisters and brothers, experiencing
their conflict and indecision and unceasing search as my
own.
I have chosen just ice...so as to keep faith
with the earth. I continue to believe that
this world has no supernatural meaning. But
I know that something in this world has meaning
— man— because he is the only being who con
tinually demands meaning for himself. This
world at least contains the truth of man, and
our task is to justify him in the face of
destiny itself.
Albert Camus
(19^5, PP. 72-73)
POSTSCRIPT
LOOKING AHEAD WHILE LOOKING OVER M 5 T SHOULDER: 1972 *
In w riting th is book, I stated at the very beginning
my feelings about what the " s c ie n tific process" is for me.
Simply, i t is one form of the cre a tiv e process, one form
of the l i f e process. I t is a means of looking around,
attending more carefu lly when one is curious, coming to
focus on something (with, I think, a d e fin ite s e le c tiv it y ) ,
and sometimes discovering something about that something.
Oftimes, however, in the intense heat of discovery, one
can neglect c e rta in facto rs which may la te r emerge as
highly s ig n ific a n t. Just so did I describe myself, as
Candide, more than a l i t t l e naive in my i n i t i a l approach
to the campus movement and to the great movement th a t was
happening in our nation during the s ix t ie s . I also related!
j
to you my deep b elief th a t with the changing course of one's'
i
l i f e and the broadening scope of one's thought, we often j
|
come to change our minds. In such a way did my perspective!
on campus p ro test come to take on new asp ects, even though
the growing process was, frequently (p a rtic u la rly in th a t
i t involved some close friends) a pain fu l one.
509
510
Of the growth process in general: I have written
that, although campus protest seemed to rise rapidly and
decline rapidly in the sixties, there has been a lasting
effect on our culture resulting from the broad climate
| of change, all manner of change, in the society. The more
passivist youth subculture still thrives, for instance,
and although these young people may not have chosen to
act politically, they may be committed. Many of them
have had an impact, or may have such an impact in the
long-run, on our life-style, on our attitude toward Life
itself. In my own life, I have, for instance, been highly
influenced by the Eastern attitude so many of my students
have adopted, in that I have come to view the growth
process as nonlinear, nondiscrete, cyclical, and elusive.
Only last Saturday I spoke at the Memorial Service
for my dear mentor and friend, Charlotte Buhler. A
pioneer in the field of Life Study, she and I began to
i
write our Introduction to Humanistic Psychology at the
end of the sixties. We were deeply involved not only in
the emergence of humanistic psychology as a major thrust
i
|in the society, but in the greater metamorphosis we
described as moving through our entire culture (1972).
As we portrayed it, men and women were redefining their
goals and their values, were searching for more intimate
and meaningful relationships, were seeking ways to grow
511
up less absurd.
Both in th a t book and in th is one, I experienced the
complexity indigenous to the analysis of so c io c u ltu ra l
change. How is i t possible to capture the essence of
| what is r e a lly going on when we are so rooted in the
moment, and when th a t moment is re a lly an a rb itra ry sto p
gap between what has been and what w ill be?
Both Burridge and Tolman (19^5) show the complex
| re la tio n s between p o l i t i c a l and c u ltu ra l change in a
society. Both of them describe th a t , in m illenarian
a c t i v i t i e s , the tru e significance of re lig io u s p ro te st or
p o l i t i c a l p ro test cannot be seen in a short-term perspec
tiv e .
Burridge describes the search for a new type of man.
In order to build toward the Messianic, i t is often an
im p licit requirement th a t one dream the impossible,
according to th is author. He eloquently describes the
importance of the a ffe c tiv e (the ex p ressio n istic function
I have described previously) in providing members of a
|yearning culture a "relig io u s" component in th e ir s o c ia l
movement. According to Burridge, however, th is quest
for the millenium is highly re la te d to the p o lit ic a l-
economic stru c tu re of the given c u ltu re ( 1969).
Talmon ( 1965) in a b r i l l i a n t a r t i c l e , examines c e rta in
m illenarian c u lts and finds th a t they have a long-term
512
view of change, equated with s a lv a tio n . They merge
s p i r i t u a l and earth ly d e s ire s, so th at th e ir dream of a
new so c ia l order is united with th e ir yearnings fo r an
| "other-worId."
i
| I t occurs to me th a t th is t o t a l commitment to meta
morphosis and to the dream of a "new man" is what Revel
( 1970) described as " to ta l rev o lu tio n ," one which he f e l t
i
would be possible in America i f our country continued to
develop as i t had during the s ix t ie s .
What is c le a r is that--committed or conforming, b eliev:
ing or compliant—American adult and American youth in the
s ix tie s and seventies were try in g to find something in
th e ir c o lle c tiv e a c tiv ity th at had been previously lo s t
in c o lle c tiv e a c tiv ity .
Barbara Myerhoff in her ap p licatio n of the concept
communitas ( 1971c) to the youth c u ltu re has pictured th a t
need as being evidenced in unplanned group ecstasy. This
is the same a ffe c tiv e dimension seen in the m illenarian
[ c u lts alluded to previously. Charlotte Biihler and I
|
described the often tra g ic quest fo r such experience
through the most s u p e rfic ia l "encounters" in the "Deer
Park," in the Jacuzzi whirlpool, anywhere, anywhere (1972)
u n t i l one no longer cares. I alluded to th is same search
in t h i s book.
513
Both Barbara Myerhoff and I are in agreement, however,
th a t the search need not be a f r u i t l e s s one and t h i s , I
th in k , is the message of Burridge and of Talmon in th e ir
i
important works.
Things have changed. Things are changing. Major
I changes cannot a l l come to pass a t once. This we a l l
| know.
| For a l l of these reasons, Barbara Myerhoff and I both
continue to look fo r more e ffe c tiv e ways of analyzing
individuals and groups, in order th a t we may apply a
m u lti-d iscip lin ed approach to socio-psycho-cultural
a n a ly sis. This is a d i f f i c u l t and frequently f ru s tra tin g
goal. Bevereux (1961) has made some important suggestions
in th is regard, following his intensive study of motiva
tio n in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. He presents
some ideas for p sy ch o /stru ctu ral a n a ly sis. The Talmon
a r t i c l e (1965) I have mentioned is c le a rly dedicated to
the development of th is manner of approach, also .
In other words, I guess I am sharing with you the
|fa c t th a t, even a fte r the long t r i p through the f o r t i e s ,
|the f i f t i e s , the s ix t ie s , even a f te r looking back from
I
the "distance" of the sev en ties, I am facing the fa c t th a t
"I'v e only ju st begun." And I think i t ' s always lik e
th a t, and lik e to think th a t (if Science attem pts to stay
more honest than P o litic s .') , i t w ill stay lik e th a t.
514
And, as I find myself writing of future direction,
of looking ahead, I know that I am still looking back.
What saves me perhaps from an incurable schizophrenia
is the mediation-potential of the present moment, the fact
that all of us have the capacity to unite what was and
what will be in the white-hot insight of what is_. I am
no longer frightened by the fact that what is_ will, in
the least, seem to swiftly disappear. I think there is
a stream; I do not believe anything of our lives can be
erased. "All things," said the Buddha, "are constantly
changing. Work out your Salvation with diligence."
A P P E N D I X
515
The following m aterials encompass the o rig in a l
re s u lts and a summary of some of the pertinent findings
in the one-year retro sp ec tiv e on the N ational S tu d en t's
S trik e conducted by the author and Lezlie Kaplan at USC
in the Spring of 1971# This questionnaire and th is part
of the r e s u lts section are printed exactly as they were
presented to the 2nd In te rn a tio n a l I n v ita tio n a l Conference
on Humanistic Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
1 9 7 1. This material is supplementary to the discussion
in Chapters 6 and 7 and is included for those readers who
wish to study the survey in greater detail than that
given in the main test of this work. More subjective
materials were discussed in Chapters 6 and 7.
516
517
The following is the questionnaire u tiliz e d in the Allen-
Kaplan study of 1971*
Student A ttitude Survey
SECTION A: General Information
OPTIONAL:
(1) Name:
(2) Current school address:
(3) Telephone number:
Please answer all of the following:
(4) Age: (5) Sex: (6) R eligion: (7) Race:
(5) Year in school:
(9) Major in school:
(10) Cumulative grade point average:
(a) 0 - 1.0 (b) 1.0 - 2.0 (c) 2.0 - 3.0 (d) 3.0 - 4.0
(1 1) Type of living arrangements while at school (i.e.,
dorm, apt., campus; apt., commutor; family; sorority;
etc.) :
(12) Highest level of education completed by your father:
(13) Highest level of education completed by your mother:
(14) In which type of location did you live throughout most
of your childhood? (Circle answer)
(a) rural (b) urban- (c) suburban (d) small town
large city
518
A. continued:
(15) You are cu rren tly :
'a} married
b} engaged
c) divorced
d} dating one person ste ad ily
el dating several people
f) dating one person occasionally
) not dating very much
in not dating at a l l
) none of the above
(16) What area of the country are you from?
(17) F a th e r's occupation:
(13) Mother's occupation:
(19) How often do you f e e l anxious?
fa} Very frequently fc} Seldom
(b) Frequently (d) Never
(20) How often do you f e e l depressed?
(a) Very frequently fc} Seldom
(b) Frequently (d) Never
(21) How often do you f e e l a sense of well-being?
fa} Very frequently fc} Seldom
(b) Frequently (d) Never
(22) How s a tis f ie d are you with the l i f e you are living
at present?
(a) Very s a tis f ie d (c) Seldom s a tis fie d
(b) S a tis fie d (d) Not s a tis fie d at a l l
B. In one or two paragraphs, attempt to give us a pro
jected sketch of the kind of l i f e you w ill probably be
leading in your f o r tie th year. Include such items as
what kind of career you see youself in, what so rt of
liv in g s itu a tio n , e tc . (You may use the back of th is
page i f n ec essary ):
C. Importance of A ctiv itie s
The' following statements describe a number of a c tiv itie s of some importance to most
college students. You are asked to ra te how important i t is to Y O U th a t you engage
in or do not engage in each of these a c t i v i t i e s .
How important is i t to Y OU th a t you engage in th is a c tiv ity ?
C ircle the appropriate number best answering your feelings about the a c tiv ity in
quest Ton.
| p = Very important
5 = F airly important
3 = Somewhat important
| 2 = Not very important
| 1 = Not at a l l important
j 0 = Opposed; i t is important to M E th a t I D O NOT engage in th is a c tiv ity .
i
I ACTIVITIES IMPORTANCE
| not at
I How Important is i t to Y OU th at you: very f a ir ly somewhat not very a l l opposed
i
! (1
(2
(3
(*
(5
(6
continue in good standing at SC? 5 4 3 2 1 0
make high grades? 5 ^ 3 2 1 0
P a rtic ip a te In e x tra -c u rric u la r
a c tiv itie s on campus? 5 ^ 3 2 1 0
have close friends? 5 ^ 3 2 1 0
date regularly? 5 ^ 3 2 1 0
Have an intense love re la tio n - ^
ship with one person? 5 ^ 3 2 1 0 h
ACTIVITIES
How Important is it to YOU that you:
(7) have sexual relations?
(8) dress in the manner appropriate
to the current college mode?
(9) drink?
(10) smoke?
(11) take drugs?
(12) share activities with your
parents?
(13) have your own standards and
values, a philosophy of life?
(1^1) enter a professional career?
(15) go on to graduate school (or
finish grad school if already
so enrolled)?
(16) observe your religion?
(17) engage in community service
projects such as urban renewal,
tutoring kids, volunteering at
mental hospitals, etc.?
IMPORTANCE
not at
fairly somewhat not very all opposed
H
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V J 1
ro
o
ACTIVITIES
How important is it to YOU that you:
(18) engage in political activities
such as demonstrationsj sit-
ins, teach-ins, etc.?
(19) be able to obtain those po-
sessions you desire?
(20) achieve high status in a
particular occupation or
profession?
(2 1) acquire a depth of knowledge?
(22) build long-lasting relationship
(2 3) have a stab le, happy marriage?
f a ir ly
k
i|
4
k
k
k
IMPORTANCE
somewhat
3
3
3
3
3
3
not very
2
2
2
2
2
2
not at
all
1
1
1
1
1
1
opposed
0
0
0
0
0
0
521
522
D. The final section of this survey concerns your atti
tudes toward the Student Strike of May* 1970. IF you
were in residence on this campus during the strTEe of
last Spring, please answer the following questions:
j (1) PREVIOUS to the Student Strike of 1970, how would you
have rated your customary political allegiance?
(a) Far left - radical
| (b) Usually left - liberal
; fc] Moderate
| fd) Usually right - conservative
i (e) Right - very conservative
| (2) Where would you place your father politically, using
the same categories?
| (3) And where would you place your mother politically,
making use of the same categories?
(^1) Did you align yourself with the participants in the
Strike?
If not, why not?
(5) Did you actually participate in the Strike?
If not, why not?
|
(6) Utilizing the above scale, how would you rate your j
political stand DURING last year’s Strike? j
(7) How did your parents feel about the Strike? |
(8) How did they feel about your participation in the
Strike? j
(9) Whether or not you participated in the Strike last I
year, can you attempt to write a short summary of your !
feelings at that time? Please include the steps that j
led to your decision regarding participation, any con- j
flicts you might have had, at which point of the week I
you entered (or left) the Strike, if your participation
continued to the end of the semester, your feelings
about dropping classes and grades, your feelings about
yourself during the Strike, and the feelings you had
ultimately about your participation, or lack of parti
cipation? (You may use the back of this page if neces
sary. )
523
B. con tin u ed :
(10) There is to be a te ach -in th is spring in response to
our continued m ilitary involvement in Indochina. Bo
you think you w ill p a rtic ip a te in th is event? I f
n o t, why not?
(11) U tiliz in g the above ca teg o ries, how would you ra te
your current p o l i t i c a l allegiance?
(12) In which of your re la tio n s h ip s , under situ atio n s of
c o n f lic t, do you find yourself most uncomfortable?
(13) In which of your re la tio n sh ip s is the balance of
power le a s t equal? What do you f e e l your power-
p osition in th a t re la tio n sh ip is? What happens when
th ere is c o n flic t?
As a la s t consideration, we are in te re ste d in the kinds of
questions you as a student f e e l relevant at th is time.
What kind of questions would you ask a fellow student?
1970 USC Student
524
A lien-Kaplan Study (1971)
Strike - A Retrospective Investigation
SECTION A
GENERAL INFORMATION
Code: Total GP. = Total Group
S.P’s = Strike Participants
S.N.P's = Strike Non-Participants
VARIABLE TOTAL GP. S.P’S S.N.P’S
SEX
Male
21 12
9
Female 29 15
14
RELIGION
Roman Catholic 11 6
5
Protestant 14 5 9
Jewish 6 1
Agnostic
3 3
0
Other
3 3
0
None
13 5
8
AGE
--- 18 4
3
1
19 13 9
4
20 16 6 10
21
9
6 3
22
3 3
0
23*
5
0
5
YEAR IN SCHOOL
5th year 2 0 2
Senior 10
5 5
Junior 16 8 8
Sophomore 22 14 8
SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION (cont.)
VARIABLE TOTAL GP. S.P’S
525
S.N.P’S
MAJOR FIELD
Social Sciences 26
15
11
Humanities 3 4 4
Natural Sciences 0 0 0
Education 6 k 2
Other 6
3 3
Undecided H 1
3
Grade Pt. AVERAGE
3.0 - 4.0 29
17
12
2 .0 - 3 .0 21 10 11
1 .0 - 2 .0 0 0 0
PRESENT LIVING QUARTERS
Family
9 5
h
Sorority-Fraternity
15
6
9
Dormitory
< = >
2
3
Apt. - Campus
13 9
4
Apt., House - Commuter k
3
1
Married Student Housing 1 1 0
C ommune
3 1 2
AREA OF COUNTRY RAISED
West-Southwest 3S
19
East 4 k 0
South 1 1 0
Midwest 1 0 1
Mideast 1 0 1
Northwest 1 0
1 I
Northeast
3 3
0
Foreign 1 0 1
KINDS OF LOCATION RAISED
Urban 8
5 3
Suburban 38
19 19
Sma 11-town
3
2 1
Rural 1 1 0
526
SECTION A: G E N E R A L INFO R M A TIO N (cant.)
VARIABLE TOTAL GP, S.P’S S.N.P’S
DATING BEHAVIOR
Married 4
Engaged 3
Divorced 1
Dating 1 person steadily 16
Dating several people 8
Dating 1 person occasionally 4
Not dating very much 10
Not dating at all 2
None of the above 2
3
1
1
8
3
3
6
1
1
1
2
0
8
c ;
1
4
1
1
STATE OF BEING
Code 4 = very frequently
3 = frequently
2 = seldom
1 = never
VARIABLE
Scores are Means (x's) on
each item for group indicated
TOTAL GP. S.P’S S.N.P'S
How often do you feel anxious?
(n = 49* S.P = 27, S.N.P = 22) 2.83 2.7 3.0
How often do you feel depressed?
(n = 49* S.P = 27, S.N.P = 22) 2.68 2.5 2.91
How often do you feel a sense of
well-being? (n = 49* S.P = 27,
S.N.P = 22) 3.10 3.07 3.14
How satisfied are you with the
life you are leading at pre
sent? (n = 49, S.P = 27, S.N.P
= 2 2 ) 2 .8 6 2.81 2.91
SECTION B
IN FO R M A T IO N C O N C E R N IN G POLITICAL STA TU S A N D STRIKE
PRESENT AFFILIATION PREV. TO STRIKE DURING STRIKE
5TCP.'ls Affiliation S.Ip.'s S.iN.P.'s S.P. *s gjCP.
6 2 Radical 5 2 6 2
15 6 Liberal 15 - 4 16 9
4 11 Moderate 6 13 4 8
0 1 Conservative 1 3 1 1
0 1 Ult.-Conserv. 0 0 0 1
1 1 Apolitical 0 0 0 1
1 1 Unsure 0 1 0 1
SHIFT OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION DURING STRIKE
S.P. 's S.N.iP. *S
Changed right 1 step 1
Changed right 2 steps 1 1
Changed left 1 step 8 7
Changed left 2 steps 0 0
Stayed same 15 12
Unsure 0 2
SECTION B (cont.)
SHIFT OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION SINCE STRIKE
S.N.P. *s
Stayed at during-strike position 15 I1!
Changed back to previous position 4 4
Changed left one step 2 3
Changed to apolitical 1 1
Unsure 1 1
WOULD PARTICIPATE IN ANOTHER ANTI-WAR TEACH-IN?
S.P.1 s S.N.P. *s S.N.P. fs (aligned)
Yes 15 5 4
Maybe 2 2 0
Unsure 1 3 1
No 14 4 1
\j i
ro
C O
r~ -O J C M C V J lT\VO V O | H V O C V I |H
SECTION C
IN FO R M A T IO N C O N C E R N IN G PA R E N T S O F SUBJECTS
FATHER Parent’s Political MOTHER
S.P.Ts' S.N.P. »s Affiliation S.P,*7? g.N.P. !s
0 0 Radical 0 0
3 2 Liberal 5 1
11 3 Moderate 11 8
13 Conservative 10 7
2 Ultra-Conserv. 1 o
1 Deceased 0 0
2 Unsure 0 1
Parent’s Educational
_______ Level_________
9 Grad, or prof. degree 3 2
9 College degree 8 9
2 Partial college 7 3
0 Trade school 2 0
3 High school 5 9
0 Less than high school 1 0
0 Unsure 1 0
SECTION C (cant.)
INFORMATION CONCERNING PARENTS OF SUBJECTS
FATHER
S.P. *s 2TN.P. ' s
6
3
0
11
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
7
3
1
6
o
0
3
2
0
1
0
Parent’s Profession
or Occupation
Dr., Lawyer, Eng., Min., etc.
Business executive, etc.
College professor
Small business owner,
contractor, etc.
Artist, crafts, etc.
Teacher, counselor, high school
etc.
manager,
secretary,
adm.,
Sales,
Laborer
Housewife— part-time
Housewife— full-time
Retired
Deceased
Unknow n
clerk, etc.
S . P . .5
0
0
0
3
0
3
6
0
2
13
MOTHER
T.N.P.’s
0
0
1
0
2
1
4
0
1
14
V J l
U J
o
SECTION D
IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES
Question: How important is it that you engage in this activity?
Scale: 0-5 = very important; 0_= opposed.
Presentation of scores: Mean (x) score for group on each item.
VARIABLE TOTAL GP, S.P.‘s S.N.P. fs
I . Continue in good standing at SC? 3.36 3.73
3.36
I I . Make high grades? 3.42
3.37
3.48
I I I . Participate in extracurricular activities
2.54
2.48 2 .6 1
on campus?
IV. Have close friends? 4.74 4.81 4.43
V. Bate regularly? 2.93 3.07
2.86
VI. Have an intense love relationship with one
person? 4.06 4.11
4.00
V II. Have sexual relations? 3.22 3.48 2 .9 1
V III. Press in the manner appropriate to the current
1.89
1.73 college mode? 1.72
IX. Drink? 1.80 1.82 1.73
X. Smoke? 1.15 1.15 1.15
XI. Take drugs? 1.48 1.63 1.30
XII. Share activities with your parents?
2.95
3.00 2.74
X III. Have your own standards and values, a
4.74 philosophy of life? 4.76
4.77
XIV. Enter a professional career?
3.77 3.59
4.00
XV. Go on to (or finish) graduate school?
3.49 3.29
3.72
XVI. Observe your religion? 2 .9 1
2.33 3.19
XVII. Engage in community service projects such as
urban renewal, tutoring kids, volunteering
at mental hospitals, etc.? 3.22 3.30 3.13
SECTION D: IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES (cont.)
VARIABLE TOTAL GP. S.P.'s S.N.P. *s
; XVIII. Engage in political activities such as
demonstrations, sit-ins, teach-ins, etc. 2 . 4 4
XIX. Be able to obtain those possessions you
desire? 3.06
XX. Achieve high status in a particular
occupation or profession? 3 . 0 2
XXI. Acquire a depth of knowledge? 5 . 5 8
XXII. Build long-lasting relationships?
4 . 5 3
I XXIII. Have a stable, happy marriage?
4 . 3 3
2 . 9 3 1 . 8 3
3 . 0 7 3 . 0 4
3 . 1 4
2 . 8 6
4 . 5 2 4 . 7 4
4 . 6 1 4 . 4 4
4 . 1 5 4 . 6 7
SECTION E : RANK ORDERING OF IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES (Listed by Group x's)
! T O T A L G R O U P S T R I K E P A R T I C I P A N T S S T R I K E N O N - P A R T I C I P A N T S
! X I I I . 4 . 7 6 X V I . 2.91 X V . 4.81 X V I I I .
2 . 9 3
X I I I . 4 . 7 4 X I I . 2.74
X V . 4 . 7 4 I I I . 2 . 5 4 X I I I .
4 . 7 7
I I I . 2 . 4 3 X X I . 4 . 7 4 I I I . 2.61
X X I . 4 . 5 3 X V I I I . 2 . 4 4 X X I I . 4.61 X V I .
2 . 3 3
X X I I I .
4 . 6 7 X V I I I . 1.83
; X X I I .
4 . 5 3
X I X . 1.80 X X I . 4.52 V I I I .
. 1 8 9 X X I I . 4 . 4 4 V I I I . 1.78
X X I I I . 4 . 3 8 V I I I . 1.72 X X I I I .
4.15
I X . 1 . 3 2 I V .
4 . 4 3
I X . 1.78
! v i . 4 . 0 6 X I . 1 . 4 3 V T . 4 . 1 1 X I . 1 . 6 3 X I V . 4 . 0 0 X I . 1.30
1 1 .
3 . 3 6 X .
1 . 1 5
I . 3.73 X .
1 . 1 5
V I . 4 . 0 0 X .
1.15
i x r v .
3 . 7 7
X I V .
3 . 5 9 I . 3 . 8 6
! x v .
3 . 4 9
V I I . 3 . £ 3 X V . 3 . 7 2
1 11 . 3 . 4 2 I I .
3 . 3 7 I I . 3 . 4 8
! x v t i . 3 . 2 2 X V I I . 3.30 X V I .
3 . 1 9
1 V I I . 3 . 2 2 X V . 3 . 2 9 X V I I .
3 . 1 3
! x i x . 3 . 0 6 X X . 3 . 1 4 X I X . 3 . 0 4
X X . 3 . 0 2 V .
3 . 0 7 V I I . 2.91
V . 2 . 9 3 X I X .
3 . 0 7
X X . 2 . 8 6
i X I I .
2 . 9 5
X I I . 3 . 0 0 V . 2 . 8 6
V J I
U )
ro
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Adams, H. The education of Henry Adams, Boston: Massa-
chusetts Historical Society, 19l3. (Republished:
New York; Time Inc., 196^.)
Adorno, T. W., Frankel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, I). J. &
Sanford, R. M. The authoritarian personality. New
York: Harper, 195 O'.
Aldridge, J. In the country of the young. New York:
Harper's Magazine Press, 197C. (Republished: New
York; Perennial Library, Harper & Row, 1971.)
Allen, M. Nude marathons: Nibbling at forbidden fruit?
Knight, 1969* 1(H), 32.
Allen, M. Existentialism and the moment of truth for
American youth. Paper presented at the meeting of
the 1st International Invitational Congress on
Humanistic Psychology, Amsterdam, 1970. Revised
version in: International Journal of Interpersonal
Development, 1970, 1(2), 65-76.
Allen, M. & Kaplan, L. A retrospective investigation of
the 1970 USC student strike. Unpublished study,
University of Southern California, 1971.
Allen, M.j Kaplan, L. & Bass, D. A two-year retro
spective investigation of the 1970 student strike
on four California campuses. Unpublished study,
University of Southern California, 1972.
Allen, M. The humanistic, rebel in the mass movement:
Reflections on the counterculture. Paper presented
at the annual meetings of the Association of
Humanistic Psychology, Honolulu, and Squaw Valley,
California, September 1972. Charles Hampden-Turner,
respondent.
Arendt, H. On revolution. New York: The Viking Press,
1963.
534
535
Aristotle. Politics (Benjamin Jowett translation). In:
William Ebenstein (Ed.), Great political thinkers.
New York: Rinehart & Co., T95T.
Asch, S. Effects of group pressure upon the modification
and distortion of judgments. In H. Proshansky & B.
Seidenberg (Eds.), Basic studies in social psychology.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winst'on, I906.
Astin, A. W. Sc Bayer, A. E. Campus disruption during
1970-1971. (An ACE Research Report). Washington:
Office' of Research; American Council on Education,
1971.
Bauer, A. Essai sur les Revolutions, Paris: Giard Sc
Briere, I90H'.
Bayer, A. E. & Astin, A. W. Violence and disruption on
the U.S. Campus, 1968- 1969. Educational Record, 1969*
50, 337-350.
Becker, H. S. Notes on the concept of commitment. Ameri
can Journal of Sociology, i960, 62, 32-^0.
Becker, H. S. Outsiders: studies in the sociology of
deviance. New York: The free Press 'of Glencoe, I9 6 3.
Bell, B. & Kristol, I. (Eds.). Confrontation: The
student rebellion and the universities. New York:
Basic Books, 1969.
Bengtson, V. L. The generation gap: a review and
typology of social-psychological perspectives. Youth
and Society, 1970, 2(1), 7-32.
Berkeley Barb. Yippie reports on Czechago, U.S.A.
August 30-September 5, 1968, p. 1.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. Loyalty of representatives
to ingroup positions during intergroup competition.
Sociometry, 1961, 2k, 18O-I8 7.
Blumer, H. A. Collective behavior. In: R. Park (Ed.),
An outline of the principle of sociology. New York:
Barnes & iNoble, 1939.
Blumer, H. A. Collective behavior. In: A.M. Lee (Ed.),
Principles of sociology. New York: Barnes & Noble,
T9*T6. -----------------------
536
Blumer* H. A. C o lle c tiv e behavior. In J . B. G ittl e r
(E d .), Review of so c io lo g y . New York: Wiley* 1957.
Boehm, F. (E d .). May 1970? B irth of th e antiw ar u n iv e r
s i t y . New Y ork: P a th fin d e r P re ss, 1971.
! Book of Knowledge Annual. (1969 supplem ent). New York:
j th e G ro lie r Society* 1 9 6 9.
Borsch, R. F. The fa c u lty ro le in campus u n re s t. American
Council on Education (Research R ep o rt), 1969* 4 (5 ).
Bourges, H. (E d .). The French stu d e n t r e v o lt: The lead ers
speak. New York! H i l l & Wang, 1 9 6 8.
Bowen, E. (E d .). This fabulous cen tu ry . Volume VII ^ 1960-
1970. New York: Tim e-Life Books* 1970.
Btihler, C. & A llen , M . In tro d u c tio n to hum anistic
psychology. Belmont* C a lifo rn ia : Brooks/dole* 1972.
B urridge, K. New heaven, new e a r th : A study of m llle n a ri-
an a c t i v i t i e s . New York: Sc'hacten* 1 9 0 9.
B u rtt, E. A. The m etaphysical foundations of modern
p h y sical s c ie n c e . New York: boubi'eday, 1932.
I C a lifo rn ia Monthly E d ito rs . Chronology of events: Three
I months of c r i s i s . In S. L ip set and S. S. Wolin (Eds.),!
| The Berkeley student r e v o lt: F acts and in te r p r e t a
t i o n s . j
i I
Camus, A. Le m.ythe de S lsyphe. P a r is : Galimmard, 1942.
Camus, A. L e ttre s "a un ami allem and. P a ris : G allim ard,
19^5.
Camus, A. L'homme revolted P a r is : G allim ard, 1951.
jC a n tr il, A. H. & R o ll, C. W, J r . Hopes and fe a rs of the
American people. New York: Potomac A sso c iate s, 1971. !
I |
! C a n tr il, H. The psychology of s o c ia l movements. New !
! York: Wiley & Sons, ±9 6 3 .
|
Carson, R. S ile n t sp rin g . Boston: Houghton M ifflin ,
1 9 6 2.
537
C asale, 0. M . & P ask o ff, L. The Kent a f f a i r : Documents
and I n te r p r e ta t io n s . B oston: H oughtori-M ifflin, 1971.
j C h r is tie , R. & Cooke, P. A guide to published l i t e r a t u r e
i r e la tin g to the a u th o r ita r ia n p e rs o n a lity through
1956. Jo u rn al of Psychology, 1958* ^}5, 171-199*
C irin o , R. Don»t blame i t on th e people. Los Angeles:
D iv e rsity P re ss, 1971.
C lark, K. Dark g h e tto : Dilemmas of s o c ia l power. New
York: Harper & Row, 1985*
| Coleman, J . S. The ad o lesc en t s o c ie ty . New York: Free
| Press of Glencoe, 1961.
Couch, C. J . C o lle c tiv e behavior: An exam ination of some
ste re o ty p e s . S o c ia l Problem s, 1968, 15* 310-322.
Cowan, P. & Cowan, G. Three l e t t e r s home from M ississip p i.
E sq u ire, J u ly , 1968. (Republished in : Harold Hayes
(E d .), Sa i lin g through the Apocalypse. New York:
McCall, 1970.)
| Cronbach, L. J . & Meehl, P. E. C onstruct v a lid ity in
! psychological t e s t s . P sychological B u lle tin , 1955*
| 52, 281-302. |
| Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. The approval m otive. New
| York: Wiley & Sons, 196 K ~ .
t !
| Da1ly C a Ilfo rn la n . Boycott Peace Corps' r a l l y , November
! 5, P. 1.
I
j Devereux, G. Two types of modal p e rso n a lity models. In :
B. Kaplan (E d .). Studying p e rs o n a lity c r o s s - c u l tu r a l*
l y . Evanston, I l l i n o i s : P ete rso n , 19ol.
I Douglas, J . D. Youth in tu rm o il. NIM H Crime and D elin
quency Issues"! P ublic H ealth S ervices P u b lic a tio n ,
j No. 2058. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government P rin tin g
O ffic e, 1970.
i ;
| Drury, M . The drug " t r i p " —voyage to nowhere. R eader' s
D ig e st, August, 1969* 6 1 . |
i |
1 Dukes, W . F. N = 1. P sychological B u lle tin , 1 9 6 5, 64.
! 74- 79 .
E rikson, E. Childhood and s o c ie ty . New York: Norton,
1 9 5 0 . _ _ ................
533
Erikson, E. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York:
Norton, 19f o3.
Farber, J. The student as nigger. North Hollywood,
Californla: Contact teooksj 1969.
Feuer, L. The conflict of generations. New York: Basic
Books, T969»
Flacks, R. The liberated generation: An exploration
of the roots of student protest. Journal of Social
Issues. 1967, 23(3), 52-75.
Flacks, R. Social and cultural meanings of student
revolt: Some informal comparative observations.
Social Problems, 1970, 7, 3ziO-357.
Flacks, R. Youth and social change. Chicago: Markham,
1972.
Fleming, T. & Fleming, A. What kids still don't know
about sex. Reader's Digest, December, 1970, 153.
Foote, N. Identification as a basis for a theory of
motivation. American Sociological Review, 1951s 16
14 - 2 1 .
Form, ¥. H. & Loomis, C. P. The persistence and emergence
of social and cultural systems in disaster. Amerlean
Sociological Review, 1956, 21, 18O-I8 5.
Fortas, A. Concerning dissent and civil disobedience.
New York! New' American Library, 1958.
Fortune Editors. Youth in turmoil (adapted from^a special
'issue of Fortune). New York:”" Time Inc., 1969.
Frankl, V. E. Man's search for meaning. New York:
Washington Square Press, 1963.
Friedan, B. The feminine mystique. New York: Norton,
1963.
Friedenberg, E. Z. Coming of age in America. New York:
Random House, 19o5.
Friedenberg, E. Z. Current patterns of generational
conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 1969* 25(2),
23.-37. ~
539
Fromm, E. Escape from freedom* New York: R in e h a rt,
19* 11.
Furlong* W. B. The s tr a ig h ts vs. the Chicago 8. L if e ,
October 10, 1969* 28D.
G allup, G. What young Americans b elieve and why.
R eaderfs D ig e s t, September 1972, 78.
Genet, J . The members of the assembly, E sq u ire , November
1 9 6 8. (Republished in : H. Hayes (E d .), Sm iling
through th e Apocalypse. New York: McCall, 1970.)
G lazer, N. Remembering th e answ ers. New York: Basic
Books, 1970.
G o ttlie b , D. & Ramsey, C. E. The American a d o le s c e n t.
Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey P re ss, 196* 1.
Gould, L. J. The two faces of a lie n a tio n : Conformity and j
m a rg ln a lity . Journal of S o c ia l I s s u e s , 1969* £ 5 (2 ),
39-63.
G reer, G. The female eunuch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
G rinder, R. E. B is tin c tiv e n e s s and th r u s t in th e American |
youth c u ltu r e . Jo u rn al of S o c ia l Is s u e s , 19&9* 2 5 (2 ),j
7-19. j
G u sfield , J . R. P r o te s t, reform , and r e v o lt: A read e r in j
s o c ia l movements. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1970. j
Haan, N., Smith, M . B. & Block, J . Moral reasoning of
young a d u lts . Journal of P e rso n a lity and S o c ia l
Psychology, 1963/"M (3 T /T B S -sS i:
Hampden-Turner, C. R adical man. Cambridge, M assachusetts:
Schenkman, 1970.
Hampden-Turner, C. & W hitten, P. M o r a l s - l e f t and r i g h t .
Psychology Today, A p ril, 1971* 39.
H arrington, M . The o th er America. New York: The Macmil
lan C ompany, 1963.
H artshorne, H. & May, M . A. S tudies in th e n atu re of
c h a ra c te r . Volume 1. S tudies in D e c e it. Sew York: |
Macmillan, 1928.
5*»0
Hayden, T. & Haber, A. (SDS) The Port Huron S tatem en t,
New York: Student Department of the League fo r
I n d u s tr ia l Democracy, 196* 1.
Hayden, T. R ebellion in Newark. New York: Random House,
1968.
H eberle, R. Observations on the sociology of s o c ia l
movements. American S o c io lo g ic a l Review, 19^9* I***
3*16-357.
H eberle, R. S o cial movements. New York: Appleton-
C ent ury-C ro f t s , 1951•
H eisenberg, W. Physics and philosophy. London: Unwin
U niversity Books, 1959.
Herndon, V. & Penn, A. A lic e ’s r e s ta u ra n t: A screen p lay .
Garden C ity , New York: boubleday, 197^.
Hobbes, T. L e v ia th a n ./th e M atter, Forme and Power/of a
/C ommonweaIth/Eccles ia s t ic a ll/a n d /C i v i 1 1 /. London:
P rin ted fo r Andrew Cooke a t tne Green bragon in S t.
P a u l's Churchyard, 1651.
Hochhuth, R. The deputy. New York: Grove P re ss, 196*1.
H offer, E. The tru e b e lie v e r: Thoughts on the n atu re of
mass movements! ifew York: Harper & Row. 1951. {Re
published : S'ew York: Time, I n c . , 1 963.)
Hoffman, A. R evolution fo r th e h e l l of i t . New York:
The D ial P re ss, 1968.
Hospers, J . Why be moral? In W . S e lla r s & J . Hospers
(E d s.). Readings in e th ic a l th e o ry . (2nd e d itio n )
New York: A ppleton-C entury-drofts, 1970.
Jacobs, P. & Landau, S. The new r a d i c a l s . New York:
V intage, 1966.
Johnson, C. R evolutionary change. Boston: L i t t l e ,
Brown, and Co., 1966.
Kaplan, M . & W hite, R. B irth of a student movement.
L ib e ra tio n , i 96 0, 5> 13.
K atz, J . No tim e fo r youth: Growth and c o n s tra in t in
co lleg e s tu d e n ts . San F ran cisco : Jossey-B ass, 1968.
5^1
Kelley, H. H. Two functions of reference groups. In:
G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.),
Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, and Winston, 2nd edition, 1952.
Kelly, G. The psychology of personal constructs. New
York: Morton, 1955.
Kelly, G. In: B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical psychology and
personality: The selected papers of George KellyT
New York: Wiley & Sons, 1969.
Keniston, K. The uncommitted: Alienated youth in American
society. New York: Har'court, brace, & World, 1965.
Keniston, K. Why students become radicals. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Section on Mental Health, Ameri
can College Health Association, Minneapolis, 1968a.
Keniston, K. Young, radicals : Notes on committed youth.
New York: I - I a r court, Brace, & World, 1968b.
Keniston, K. Youth and dissent : The rise of a new
opposition^ New York: Harcourt, Brace & Yovanovich,
W fT .
Kerlinger, P. N. Foundations of behavioral research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, 8 c Winston, 1964.
Kiesler, C. A. & Kiesler, S. B. Conformity. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
King, C. W. Social movements in the United States. New
York: Random House, 1954.
Kluckhohn, C. & Kelly, W. The concept of culture. In:
R. Linton (Ed.), The science of man in the world j
crisis. New York: Columbia' University Press, 1945. |
Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-develop
mental approach to socialization. In: B. Goslin
(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research.
New Yorlcl Rand McMally, 1969.
Kohlberg, L. The Harvard campus protestors. Unpublished
study, Harvard, 1970.
Kohler, W. Gestalt psychology. New York: Mentor, 1959*
5^2
Life. Academic calm of centuries broken by a rampage*
April 25* 1969, 2 5.
Life. The wreck of a monstrous "family.," December 19*
1969, 2 0.
Lipset* S. M. Revolution and counter-revolution: Change
and persistence in social structures'. (Revised
edition)'. New York: Basic Books'*' 1968. (Republished
New York: Anchor Books* 1970).
Lipset* S. The activists: A profile. In: Bell* D. &
Kristol* I. (Eds.)* Confrontation: The student
rebellion and the universities. New York: Basic
Book s * 19o9.
Lipset* S. M. & A It bach* P. G. Students in revolt. Boston
Beacon Press* 1970.
Lipset* S. & Wolin* S. S. The Berkeley student revolt:
Facts and interpretations^ Garden City* New' York:
Doubleday* 19t>5.
Locke* -J. The second treatise of civil government. In:
T. I. Cook (Ed.)., Two treatises of government. New
York: Hafner Publications Co.* 19^7.
London* I. D. Psychology and Heisenberg’s principle of
indeterminacy* Psychological Review', 19^5* 32* 162-
l6S.
Los Angeles Times* March 1^1* 1965* P« 1.
Los Angeles Times. Most students agree with aims of
campus militants. May 25* 1969* P. 1*
Los Angeles Times. Savage mystic cult blamed for 5 Tate
murders* 2 others. December 2* 1969* p. 1.
Los Ang;eles Times. Girl who broke Tate case to go before
jurors today. December 5* 1969* P« 1.
Los Angeles Times. Friends ask— what changed Charles
Watson*? fce'cember 5* 1969* P. 3«
Los Angeles Times. Susan Atkins— from choir girl to hippie
December 11* 1969* p. 1.
543
Los Angeles Times. Susan Atkins' story of two nights of
murder* by Susan Atkins (Copyright: S. Atkins & L.
Schiller)., December 14, 1969* P*
| Los Angeles Times. September 12, 1971* P. 1.
Los Angeles Times, Ancient maladies plague hippies.
December 14, 1971* P. 5.
Los Angeles Times. Enrollment of college freshmen shows
drop, fcecember 16, 1971* P. 11.
Los Angeles Times. Report finds violence on campus is
pass£. -June 2 3, 1972, p. 1.
Maddi, S. R. Personality theories: A comparative analysis
Homewood, iili'nois: The borsey tress, 1965,
Madsen, K. B. Humanistic psychology and the philosophy of
science. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1971*
11(b), i - itj:
Mailer, N. The white negro. San Francisco: City Lights,
1957.
Mailer, N. Superman comes to the supermarket. Esquire,
November i9 6 0. (Republished in: H. Hayes (Ed.).
Similing through the Apocalypse. New York: McCall,
1970).
Malcolm X (with the assistance of Haley, A.). The auto
biography of Malcolm X. New York: Grove Press, I 9 6 5.
Mannheim, K. Ideology and utopia. International Library
of Psychology, Philosophy, and Scientific Method,
1936. (Republished: New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, Inc., 1966).
Mannheim, K. The problem of generations. In: K. Mannheim
(Ed.), Essays in the sociology of knowledge. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Marcuse, H. One-dimensional man, Boston: Beacon Press,
1964.
Marcuse, H., Keen, S., & Raser. J. A conversation with
Herbert Marcuse. Psychology Today, February, 1971»
35.
5 * 1 * »
Marx, K. C a p ita l, the communist m anifesto and o th er
w r itin g s . New York: Modern L ib rary , 1932.
Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of b ein g , P rin c eto n ,
New Jersey: Van N ostrand, i9 o l.
j
Matson, F, W. The broken image. New York: B r a z ille r ,
1962*. ----------------------- 6“
McLuhan, H. M . The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typo-
graphic manl Toronto: U n iv ersity of Toronto P re ss,
1952 .
McLuhan, H, M . Understanding media. New York: McGraw-
H i l l , 196*1.
McPhail, C. Student walkout: A f o rtu ito u s exam ination
of elem entary c o lle c tiv e behavior. S o c ia l Problems,
1970, 7, *J*J1-*I55.
Mead, G. H. The genesis of the s e l f and so c ia l c o n tro l.
I n te r n a tio n a l Jo u rn al of E th ic s , 192*1-1925* 35* 251-
Mead, M . The young a d u lt. In : E. Ginsberg (E d .), Values
and Id e a ls of American youth. New York: Columbia
U n iv ersity P re ss, 19fc>l.
Mehrabian, A. An a n a ly sis of p e rso n a lity th e o r ie s .
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentic e-Hall,- 1 9 6 8.
Merton, R. K. S o c ia l theory and s o c ia l s tr u c t u r e .
Glencoe, I l l i n o i s , Free P re s s , 1957* |
Methvin, E. S tudents agajjist campus v io len ce. R eader1 s |
D ig e st, January, 1971, 52. j
i
1
Meyerson, M . The ethos of th e American c o lle g e stu d e n t: j
Beyond the p r o te s ts . In : R. S. Morrison (E d .), The
contemporary u n iv e rs ity : U.S.A. Boston: Houghton
M ifflin , 19d6.
M ille t, K. Sexual p o l i t i c s . New York: Doubleday, 1970.
(R epublished: New York: Avon, 1971.)
M inneapolis S t a r . The H a rris Survey: A dults s t i l l s p l i t
down middle on the youth c u ltu r e , January 11, 1973*
P. 90.
M ischel, W. P e rso n a lity and assessm ent. New York: Wiley
& Sons, 1968".
5^5
Murray, H. Cited in Office of Strategic Services Staff,
Assessment of men. New York: Rinehart, 19^3, P. 8.
Myerhoff, B. G. New styles of humanism. Youth and
Society, 1969, 26, 151-177.
Myerhoff, B. G. USC in May: The opening of the university.
Youth and Society, 1971a, 3(3), 353-37^.
Myerhoff, B. G. The revolution as a trip: Symbol and
Paradox. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 1971b, 395j 105-116.
Myerhoff, B. G. Organization and ecstasy: The contrast
between planned and unplanned communitas. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Anthropologi
cal Association, New York City, 1971c.
Nahemow, L. & Bennet, R. Persuasibility, social isolation
and feelings of alienation among residents in the home
for the aged. Paper presented at the Annuel Meeting
of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia,
1964.
Neal, A. G. & Rettig, S. On the multidimensionality of
alienation. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32,
54-64. “
Newsweek. Case of the hyonotic hippie. December 15, 1969,
~ 3 0 .
New York Review of Books, September 22, 1966, p. 3. I
I
New York Times, November 23, 1963, P* j
|
New York Times. Students briefed on peril in South: j
Rights campaigners warned of death in Mississippi,
June 17, 1964, p. 1.
Nobile, P. (Ed.) The Con III Controversy: The Critics
look at the Greening of America. New York: Socket
Books, 1971.
Parsons, T. The social system. New York: The Free Press,
1951. (Republished: New York: The Free Press Paper
back, 1964).
5 46
Parsons, T. & Shils, E. Toward a general theory of action:
Theoretical foundations for the social sciences.
New York: Harper Torch books, 1962'.
Petersen, R. E. The student left in American higher
education. Daedalus, Winter, 1968. (Republished:
In: S. Lipset & P. A Itbach (Eds.), Students in
revolt. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970J5
Piaget, -J. Psychology of intelligence. Paterson, New
Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, 1950.
Polanyi, M. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical
philosophy. Ch'icago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1'9'5'S. (Republished: New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1964).
Powers, T. Diana: The making of a terrorist. Boston:
Houghtoin-MiffTin, l'9'71T" (feepublisKedT New York:
Bantam, 1971).
Quarantelli, E. L. The behavior of panic participants.
Sociology and Social Research, 1957* 41* 187-194.
Quarantelli, E. L. Images of withdrawal behavior in
disasters: Some basic misconceptions. Social
Problems, i960, 3, 63-79.
Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged
edition). New York: Random House, ±§bJ.
Reader's Digest (The Editors). The hippies. October, 196ja
Reader's Digest (The Editors). Trouble in hippieland.
January, 1968, 5 9,
i
Reich, C. A. The greening of America. New York: Random i
House, 1976'. |
I
Reichart, S. A greater space in which to breathe: What
art and drama tell us about alienation. Journal of
Social Issues, 1969* 2j5(2), 137-146.
Revel, J-F. Without Marx or Jesus: The new American
revolution has begun. Saturday Review, August 15,
1970, 14.
Riesman, D., Glazer, N. & Denney, R. The lonely crowd.
Hartford, Connecticut: Yale University, 1956.
547
Roberts, A. H. & Rokeach, M. Anomie, authoritarianism,
and prejudice: An application. American Journal of
Sociology, 1956, 62, 335-353.
Rosenthal, R. The effect of the experimenter on the results
of psychological research. In: B. Maher (Ed.),
Progress in experimental personality research. Vol. I
New York: Academic Press, 1964.
Roszak, T. The making of a counter culture. New York:
Doubleday^ 1969.
Sack, J. In a pig's eye. Esquire, November, 1963.
(Republished in: H. Hayes ( ’ E'd.), Smiling through
the Apocalypse. New York: McCall‘ S 1970).
Schlesinger, A. Esquire, January, i9 6 0. Cited by H.
Hayes (Ed.) ,~"Smiling through the Apocalypse. New
York: McCall, 1970^ P. xvii.
Seale, P. & McConville, M. French revolution 1968.
Middlesex: Penguin-Heinemann, 1968.
Seeman, M. On the meaning of alienation. American
Sociological Review, 1959, 24_, 733-791.
Sherif, M. The psychology of slogans. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1937, 32, ^61-472.
Shils, E. Charisma, order, and status. American Socio-
logical Review, 1965, 30(2), 199-2IT.
Shils, E. Dreams of plenitude, nightmares of scarcity.
In S. Lipset & P. A It bach (Eds.), Students in revolt.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1970.
Simmons, J. I. & Winograd, B. It's happening. Santa
Barbara, California: Marc-Laird, 1966.
Slater, P. The pursuit of loneliness. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1970.
Smelser, N. J. Theory of collective behavior. New York:
Free Press," 1963,
Solomon, F. & Fishman, J. B. Youth and peace: A psycho
social study of peace demonstrations in Washington,
D.C. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 20, 54-73.
5^3
Spender, S. The year of the young rebels. New York:
Vintage,~1969.
Srole, L. Social dysfunction, personality and social
distance attitudes. Paper read at the American
Sociological Society, 1951.
Staff Study of Campus Riots & Disorders, Committee on
Government Operations. Riots, Civil and Criminal
Disorders (October 1967-May 196 9) • J une lb -1'7 * 1969*
Part lb. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1969.
Talmon, Y. Pursuit of the milennium: The relation between
religious and social change. In ¥. A. Lessa & E. Z.
Vogt (Eds.), Reader in comparative religion: An
anthrolpological approach. (2nd edition). New York:
Harper & Row, 19&5.
Tannenbaum, A. J. Introduction. Journal of Social Issues,
1969, 2 5 (2 ), 1- 5 .
The Cox Commission, Crisis at Columbia. New York: Random
House-Vintage Ed it ion, 1$68'.
The Scranton Commission. The report of the president’s
commission on campus unrest. Washington,' D.C. :~United
Sta'ted Gove rnrnent Printing Office, 1970.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. The social psychology of i
groups. New York: Wiley, T959.
Time. The new radicals. April 28, 1967* p. 26.
Time. Why those students are protesting. May 3* 1963,
p. 2i|.
i
I
Time. Strike Harvard: Rage and reform on campus. April
18, 1969* Cover Picture.
Time. The demon of Death Valley. December 12, 1969* p. 2^.
Time. Hippies and violence. December 12, 1969* P. 2 5.
Time. New Louis Harris poll. April 6, 1970, p. 35.
Time. 1970 may just be better. January 11, 1971* P« 9*
Time. The cooling of America. February 22, 1971* P. 10.
549
Time. Were campuses really quiet? October 4, 1971, P* 56.
Turner, R. M. Collective behavior. ' in: R. E. I. Paris
(Ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology, Chicago: Rand
McNally, 196*1.
Turner, V. The ritual process: Structure and antistruc
ture. Chicago: Aldirie, 1969.
Urban Research Corporation. On strike...shut it down.
Chicago: Author, 1970.
Vernon, P. E. Personality assessment: A critical survey.
New York: Wiley &' Sons', 1964.
Village Voice. Tom Hayden: Prophet comes to Sodom,
January 20, 1966, p. 1.
Vonnegut, TC. Slaughterhouse-Five; or the Children's
Crusade, a" duty-dance with death. New York: T)e la -
corte Press', I969.
Wallace, A. F. C. Revitalization movements. American
Anthropologist, 1956, 58(4), 260-27 6.
Wallace, A. F. C. Culture and personality. New York:
Random House, TOoTT
Weber, M. The theory of social and economic organization.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Weber, M. The theory of social and economic organization.
New York': the Free Press Paperback, 1964.
Webster's New International Dictionary of the English
Language^ (3rd 'edition,- unabridged ). Springf ield :
Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam, 1956.
Weeks, R. P. (Ed.). Commonwealth vs. Sacco and Vanzetti.
Englewood Cliffs^ itfew Jersey: Pr'entice-Hall, Inc.,
1958.
Weinraub, B. The brilliancy of black. Esquire, January,
1967. (Republished in: H. Hayes (Ed . ) Smiling
through the Apocalypse. New York: McCall” i97’ d).
Westby, D. L. & Braungart, R. G. Class and politics in the
family backgrounds of student political activists.
American Sociological Review, 1966, 31, 690-6 9 2.
550
Wicker, T. Kennedy without tears, Esquire, June, 196*1.
(Republished in: H. Hayes ( E d Smiling through
the Apocalypse. New York: McCall/ I 97O).
Wolfe, T. Radical chic and mau-mauing the flak catchers.
New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1970. (Republished:
New York: Bantam, 1971).
Yablonsky, L. The hippie trip. New York: Pegasus, 1968.
Yinger, J. M. Contraculture and subculture. The American
Sociological Review, i96 0, 25, 625-6 3 5.
Yinger, J. M. Contraculture and subculture. In D. D.
Arnold, (Ed.), The sociology of subcultures. Berkeley,
California: Glend'essary Press, 1$70.
Zinn, H. SNCC: The new abolitionists. Boston: Beacon
Press, 19b>5.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Differential Effectiveness Of External Versus Self-Reinforcement On The Acquisition And Performance Of Assertive Responses

PDF

Attention, retention, and incentive processes in observational learning

PDF

Self-Sacrifice, Cooperation, And Aggression In Women Of Varying Sex-Role Orientations

PDF

The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners

PDF

Death Anxiety In Leukemic Children

PDF

Weight Reduction As A Function Of The Timing Of Reinforcement In A Covertaversive Conditioning Paradigm

PDF

Strategies Of Marital Communication

PDF

Factors Of Adaptation And Rehabilitation In Home Hemodialysis

PDF

The Development And Evaluation Of Three Therapeutic Group Interventions For Widows

PDF

Mental Imagery As A Function Of Muscular Tension And Suggestion

PDF

Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones

PDF

An Examination Of Positive And Negative Reinforcement In Classical And Operant Conditioning Paradigms In The Primary Psychopath

PDF

Modification Of Low Self-Confidence In Elementary-School Children By Reinforcement And Modeling

PDF

Stimulus and response generalization of classes of imitative and nonimitative behavior as a function of reinforcement, task, cues, and number of therapists

PDF

The Effects Of Repression-Sensitization, Race, And Levels Of Threat On Extensions Of Personal Space

PDF

Tension And Anxiety In Deconditioning

PDF

The Effect Of Personalized Emotional Stimuli On Asthmatic Reactions

PDF

A Behavioral Assessment Of The Reinforcement Contingencies Associated With The Occurrence Of Suicidal Behaviors

PDF

Dissonance and Self-Perception Analysis of "Forced Compliance": When Two Theories Make Competing Predictions

PDF

The Relationship Of Teacher Empathy And Student Personality To Academic Achievement And Course Evaluation

Asset Metadata

Creator Allen, Melanie Rhea (author)

Core Title Looking Back After Coming Down: Conformity And Commitment In Campus Protest

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, general

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wolpin, Milton (committee chair), Frankel, Andrew Steven (committee member), Marston, Albert R. (committee member), Myerhoff, Barbara G. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-847595

Unique identifier UC11356416

Identifier 7423562.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-847595 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7423562.pdf

Dmrecord 847595

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Allen, Melanie Rhea

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA