AROUND 1968 – DANISH HISTORIOGRAPHY

This article is divided into three parts. The first part outlines the cultural and political leftist revolt of the 1960s and 1970s in Denmark by presenting the different periodizations linked to various aspects of the revolt and by introducing a variety of perceptions of its causes, course and impact. In the next section, apart from pointing out some of the important lacunae, I provide an overview of the genres and topics that characterise the historiography. Studies of social movements and political parties, for example, are heavily overrepresented. In the third and concluding part, I propose that the thematic and methodological distinction in the historiography between the cultural and political aspects of the revolt should be blurred and deconstructed.     

SWEDEN AND THE LONG ‘1968’: BREAK OR CONTINUITY?

The first part gives a chronological overview of the Swedish ‘1968’, in this article defined as a phenomenon with its roots in the late 1950s and it's end around 1980. Three phases are identified: a ‘liberal’ until 1965, a ‘red’ in the late 1960s and the ‘diversified’ 1970s. Underlying this time schedule are two characteristics of the Swedish ‘1968’ in its extended form: the role of the social movements and the interaction between old and new movements; and the unique role of the intellectuals. The second part discusses the (late and limited) research so far on this topic in Sweden. The academic works are still few and the critical debate little developed. One of the topics discussed is to what extent ‘1968’ was something fundamentally new and to what extent it was influenced by older social movements.     

Recent research into revivalist movements in Finland

The introductory essay contrasts the violent 1968 uprisings in Paris, Berlin, New York and other cities with the comparatively low‐key ways of the revolt or radicalization in the Scandinavian countries, brought about by the attitude of radicals and authorities alike. It is argued that whereas the level of violence was low in Scandinavia, the effects of ‘1968’ have been at least as far‐reaching as in other Western countries, where sixties radicals were less easily co‐opted into mainstream society and polity. Another distinguishing trait of the Scandinavian ‘1968’ is the role of socialism, and especially Leninism. The essay summarizes the content of the articles in the Special Issue. On the basis of the four country overviews it is noticed that there is still some way to go before the movement from memory to history is completed. The articles in this Special Issue are evidence of the progress, however, and represent a milestone on the road to maturity of research on the sixties radicalization in Scandinavia.     

GUERRILLA WARFARE IN THE PLANNING SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY?

This article extends Qviström's (2007; Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89 (3): 269–282) ideas concerning “landscapes out of order” within a re‐discovering and re‐imagining of spatial planning theory and practice. Taking the viewpoint that planners and decision‐makers order and manage space in prescribed and constrained ways, the article argues that this can hinder innovative practices which have the potential to deliver significant societal and environmental benefits. Using case studies from permaculture and guerrilla gardening, we illustrate how planning practice can be rooted in confrontation and legal challenge rather than with more positive and inclusive approaches, as is envisaged within spatial planning theory. Clearly, the ways in which such initiatives intersect with the planning system raise important questions about joined‐up policy across scales and sectors, and the ability of planning to be a proactive vehicle of environmental and social change. Our findings confirm that spatial planning theory is largely “disintegrated” (Scott et al. 2013; Progress in Planning 83: 1–52) from much contemporary planning and environmental practice and wider discourses of sustainability. This suggests an urgent re‐examination of the spirit and purpose of planning to embrace and promote the new even where they challenge established orthodoxy and planning order.     

‘1968’ IN NORWAY: PIECEMEAL,PEACEFUL AND POSTMODERN

The first part of this essay presents an outline of ‘1968’ in Norway focusing on national particularities, especially the lack of violence. Three elements are highlighted: the political left turn with the opposition to the Vietnam War and the strong Marxist‐Leninist faction as main aspects; the student revolt; and the multifarious countercultural movement. The theme of the second part is the state of Norwegian 1968 historiography. Here a distinction is drawn between actors‐cum‐historians and historians proper, or rather between writers with a desire to commemorate – predominantly but not exclusively former communists – and writers whose interest in the events is more professionally historiographic.     

Made in France? The (re-)invention of ‘Mai 68’

Abstract

Whenever young people protest, references to the French ‘Mai 68’ are quickly made. For nearly 50 years, former activists and journalists have turned events in the Latin Quarter in Paris into the main symbol for the potential of youth to pressure governments. Western European politicians and scholars easily index ‘Mai 68’ as the positive core of ‘European Memory’. French accounts during the historical moment initially emphasized, however, the global experience of student unrest. Such interpretations understood mobilization in Mexico, Poland and Nigeria as sharing one horizon of expectation and turned worldwide anti-authoritarian student unrest into an interpretive frame. With the unfolding of events in France, the French narrative shifted from a globally experienced present to a nationally framed ‘évènement’ of the past. This shift from lived experience to memory turned the student mobilization into a succession of French historical events coined ‘les évènements de mai-juin 68’. The commemoration of French events as a paradigmatic case sidelined mobilization in other European, Asian, African and Latin American countries. Meanwhile, this nationalization gave way to a pacified Franco-centred narrative which could be juxtaposed to the European memory scale whilst neglecting its internal contradictions stemming from the diverse European and global peripheries.     

"调和"与"独行":李大钊从保守到激进的逻辑依据(1914-1921)

李大钊从资产阶级民主主义者到无产阶级社会主义者转变的精神历程,是学术界多年注重的思想命题,但人们往往忽视了他前期的“调和”思想。我们认为,两者以上的调和“并立”则双美,单一则两伤。就李大钊一贯的思想脉络来看,他的民本思想不是五四时期的专利。从“散沙之自由”到“一力之独行”,李大钊的转化并不能简单理解为“中断”。     

‘Angelic Spirits of ‘68’: Memories of 60s’ Radicalism in Responses to the 2010–11 UK Student Protests

The winter of 2010–11 saw a significant upsurge of student protest in Britain. This paper analyses the numerous references to 60s’ radicalism which circulated in responses to the protests, with a focus on left-wing media. Drawing on performativity theory, the paper traces the highly polarised divisions between affirmations and repudiations of ‘1968’ in responses to the protests. This polarisation, I argue, reflects an absence of a clear-cut collective memory of the British radical 60s. More broadly, the paper sheds light on the hitherto under-explored mechanisms through which memories of ‘1968’ shape the discursive and affective landscape of contemporary radical politics.     

Richard Oastler,Toryism, Radicalism and the Limitations of Party,c.1807–46

Richard Oastler (1789–1861), the immensely popular and fiery orator who campaigned for factory reform and for the abolition of the new poor law in the 1830s and 1840s, has been relatively neglected by political historians. Few historians, however, have questioned his toryism. As this article suggests, labelling Oastler an ‘ultra‐tory’ or a ‘church and state tory’ obscures more than it reveals. There were also radical strands in Oastler's ideology. There has been a tendency among Oastler's biographers to treat him as unique. By comparing Oastler with other tories – Sadler, Southey, and the young Disraeli – as well as radicals like Cobbett, this article locates him much more securely among his contemporaries. His range of interests were much broader (and more radical) than the historiographical concentration on factory and poor law reform suggests. While there were periods when Oastler's toryism (or radicalism) was more apparent, one of the most consistent aspects of his political career was a distaste for party politics. Far from being unique or a maverick, Oastler personified the pervasive anti‐party sentiments held by the working classes, which for all the historiographical attention paid to popular radicalism and other non‐party movements still tends to get lost in narratives of the ‘rise of party’.