March 17, 2006: Social Movements #4: Recent U.S. History
In the U.S. over the past century, we've essentially had two major periods of social upheaval. The more recent was "the 60s," a diverse confluence of people's movements that began in the mid-1950s and ended somewhere in the vicinity of the mid-1970s. Before this was the long period of working-class struggle that began around WWI and lasted to WWII or maybe a short time after. Perhaps this era could also be seen as a "cleft-wave," the first half being the period of Debsian/Agrarian Socialism and the IWW, and the second, the 1930s and 40s explosion of industrial unionism.
What about the 1980s and 90s (and up to "9/11")? Of course they were not bereft of movement activity. For example, there were the anti-apartheid and Central America solidarity movements, the feminist defense of abortion rights, the rise of the Greens (and their development into the Green party), the more recent protests against the first invasion of Iraq, and then the anti-WTO/anti-capitalist movement.
However, I would find it hard to argue that these represented an upsurge. The movements in these years did not reach as deeply into the mainstream as those of the 60s, and ultimately they did not have as much political impact upon the country's social and political institutions. Instead, the right-wing religious movements, working in concert with reactionary elites, seem to have had greater influence; driving liberalism beyond the pale of acceptable mainstream politics. And while the most recent protests against Iraq II did reach broadly into the liberal mainstream, the flare-up around this issue seems to have been ephemeral. (although I may be speaking too soon on this one)
Comments
One hopeful symptom re the upsurges of the '80s and '90s is that they seemed to come out of a "permanent adversarial culture", as Zinn puts it in an excellent chapter. We saw that at the time of Gulf War I, when organizers were able to rapidly mobilize hundreds of thousands into monster demonstrations on both coasts. The experience seems to suggest two hopeful things: 1) that a wellspring of popular mistrust of government exists below the official surface of media and etc.; and 2) that an experienced and expert cadre of very capable organizers exist who are able to put important things together exceptionally quickly.
Maybe an interesting question is whether this situation is as unique as it appears to us, from our vantage point. We kind of tend to believe that "the '60s" movements came more or less out of nothing, I suppose not unlike the cosmological big bang. But, they didn't. There was always a cadre of experienced activists, often mistakenly married to one or another sectarian group, who formed the backbone of the struggles that emerged. The Berkeley FSM is maybe a good example of that, among the white folks of the period.
I think you're right that the '80s and '90s movements were short-term, and were maybe more shallow than the great sustained battles of the '30s and '60s. But anyway the thing that seems interesting is that they were able to start so effeciently. Is that a hopeful sign?
Posted by: Mark Phillips | April 29, 2006 06:24 PM