View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
Several comments [in relpy to Mr. Safranski's post below]. First of all, Who is a student? and who is a student activist? Is a very critical category of analysis. Most students are in college 4-5 years, and the demographic studies of activism suggest activist careers last a little less than two years. Those who "founded" organizations such as SDS and SNCC in the very first years of the 1960's, were not the same people, by and large, who are commonly termed "radicals or radicalized" in the late 1960's. The Weather Underground participants were Junior High Students during the founding period of the late 50's and early 60's. I would suggest their "radicalization" had a good deal more to do with the sense they could not accomplish stated goals (end the Vietnam War -- totally reorient American Foreign Policy), than anything else, particularly as they compared themselves with slightly earlier generations why had successfully ended legal Jim Crow and gotten a Voting Rights Bill passed. But ending a war and changing Policy direction on anything is a little outsized as a goal for a student organization. The American Academic Calendar is a critical limitation on any student organization -- both now and in that distant past. It is in many instances incapable of sustaining both leadership and program priorities from one year to the next, because by definition leaders graduate, new leadership is elected on frequently much different program and priority platforms, and new external circumstances tend to drive the process. One reason why I totally reject an analysis of "radicalization" that depends on comparison of the CPUSSR or the NSDAP is because these were political parties intended to have multigenerational lives, to govern, and were quite independent of any sort of outside limitation, such as the academic calendar. American Student Movements and Organizations are essentially temporary, are single generational, and change their leadership, program, and membership on a nearly annual basis. They are not designed or envisioned as governing anything. In many ways, I think the charge of "radicalization" is a false one -- in part because one would necessarily have to demonstrate that early participants and founders were actually those who later became radicalized -- and I don't think that has been done, but more because ever so many founders and early participants built solid careers in fairly traditional institutions. For instance, is Robert Moses's current Algebra and Math project in Mississippi a function of radicalization? I think it is very much a function of his SNCC work in voter registration in the early 1960's in Klan dominated Mississippi -- but I find nothing about creatively teaching math particularly radical. Likewise, I find it hard to see as "radical" John Lewis's service in the House of Representatives, -- or even Tom Hayden's lengthy service in the California Legislature. What I am suggesting is that the notion of the radicalization of the founding generation is largely fiction. What actually needs to be addressed is why, gradually through the 60's, a very different sort of student power-center emerged producing I would agree, somewhat dysfunctional leaders? But I also believe that is a very small sub-set of student activists in the late 1960's. A much larger cohort moved out of the 1960's having been part of traditional politics in the McCarthy, Kennedy and later McGovern campaigns, and while I am fairly certain few of them became life long radicals, many assumed leadership and followed careers influenced by those student experiences. Safranski also raises the issue of the proper role of adult leaders in student organizations. I suspect if they are admired, and influential because of their actual work and accomplishment, in the self-limiting environment of the Academic Calendar they actually have the tools they need. I think direct systematic controls such as the old in "In loco parentis" variations on control are quite counterproductive. Sally Todd Minneapolis Sistersara@aol.com