In May 1968, French society was shaken to its core.

What started as a student protest over educational grievances quickly transformed itself into a political crisis led by students and workers throughout all of France. (Dorothy Pickles, France in 1968: Retrospect and Prospect, The World Today 24 (Sep., 1968): 395. Students occupied universities chanting slogans such as Soyez ralistes, demandez limpossible, Sois jeune et tais-toi and Il est interdit dinterdire, while workers occupied their factories in what became the largest strike in modern times. On May 22nd 1968, ten million French workers went on strike and the country was paralyzed for weeks. (Mattei Dogan, How Civil War Was Avoided in France, International Political Science Review 5, no. 3 (1984): 247) Indeed, Mai 68 is still seen as a defining moment in French history that changed the rules of the game. As douard Balladur, former prime minister and advisor to Georges Pompidou in 1968, explains Mai 1968 a tout chang, cela a t un branlement. On peut dire dune certaine faon que la morale commune, la vie en socit telle quon la concevait au XIXe sicle a disparu partir de Mai 1968 dans les coles, dans les familles, dans la socit, dans les entreprises, dans la politique, dans les moeurs, partout. (tmoignage d douard Balladour dans Georges Pompidou et mai 1968 edited by Bernard Lachaise, Sabrina Tricaud) Yet this was a crisis without prophets; the speed and unexpectedness of the crisis was almost as shocking as its scale. Therefore, how does one explain the protests? What are the origins of Mai 68, and how did student unrest transform itself into a political crisis that swept an entire country? Finally, what assessment can one make of May 1968, what were the consequences of the crisis? Although students and workers expressed different grievances over immediate issues that impacted their daily lives, such as education and work conditions, the protests of May-June 1968 transformed themselves into protests over the state of French democracy. They stem from the alienation of the French student and worker, which rendered Frances democracy illegitimate.

For the purpose of this paper, the definition of alienation will come from prominent American sociologist Melvin Seeman. In On the Meaning of Alienation, Seeman distinguishes five different forms of alienation: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation and selfestrangement. (Melvin, Seeman, On the Meaning of Alienation, American Sociological Review 24 (Dec. 1959): 783-791.) In the context of democracy, the form of alienation that is the most important for understanding loss of legitimacy is powerlessness. Powerlessness refers to the expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own behaviour cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or reinforcements, he seeks. (Seeman, 784). In other words, see the individual understands public policy as something his behaviour (voting, voicing concerns to politicians, etc.) and political preferances cannot affect. One of the bedrock principles of democracy is equal consideration by governments of the interests and preferences of all citizens. Indeed, as Robert Dahl explains, democracies must work for all citizens if they are to be legitimate. In making decisions, they must give equal consideration to the good and interests of every person bound by those decisions. (Dahl, 65) Yet the only way for governments to give equal consideration to the good and interest of every person is if every person has an equal voice before government. While most democracies grant their citizens equality of rights through principles such as one person, one vote, free speech and freedom of association, these principles do not guarantee to every citizen an equal voice before government. Democracies cannot limit themselves to moral equality, but they must commit to collective self-determination, a principle by which all citizens voices are heard and considered in the shaping of public policy. (Robert Post, 33) Indeed, citizens, by forming public opinion, by voting and by being consulted by the state should normally be shaping governmental decisions and experience their government as their

own. However, without the opportunity to participate in a democracy, citizens will undoubtedly be deprived of the advancement and protection of their interests by those who govern. (Dahl, 75) and will eventually feel disconnected from the government that is supposed to represent them. As Robert Post explains, Democracy requires that persons identify with the state, even if they disagree with the particular decisions of the state. (Robert post, 33) However, when groups of people are consistently marginalized and subordinated by state institutions, they are unlikely to identify with the state in a manner consistent with democratic legitimacy. Indeed, unequal subordination and marginalization of entire groups of citizens leads to their alienation, and the democracy itself loses legitimacy. In France, the 1960s saw the emergence of a self-realization of alienation by students and workers. This understanding of alienation resulted in a democracy that had become illegitimate. The students participating in the May 1968 protests were products of the post Second World War society. Their lives were highlighted by a tremendous contrast between their parents generation and their own. In many respects, Frances democracy had changed, yet the institutions that represented it had not. If the French university was the target of students attacks, it is because it represented government in students lives, and as such, the alienating aspects of French democracy were present in universities throughout the country. (Alain Touraine, Le Mouvement de Mai ou Le Communisme Utopique (Paris: Du Seuil, 1968) : 18). The 1960s saw an unprecedented influx of new students into universities. In 1957-58, there were 175,000 students in French universities. Ten years later, that number had risen to 500,000. (Raymond Boudon, Sources of Student Protest in France, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 395 (May 1971), 140 (139-149).) Many of these new students came from middle-class families and were the first members of their lineage to accede

to higher education. Indeed, French higher education had traditionally been an institution for the upper classes. For example, in 1950, the children of businessmen and professionals represented 33 percent of the whole student body, while the children of shopkeepers, clerks and craftsmen represented 17.2 percent of students. By 1960, those numbers had changed to 12.5 and 31.2 percent respectively. (Boudon, Student Protest, 142) While exact figures are not available for 1968, it is fair to assume that the trend towards a higher proportion of middle-class students was maintained. Therefore by the late 1960s, the student body was significantly different than it had been previously. If the student body had changed, so too had the values with which it was raised. Children had been previously been raised with the values of obedience, politeness, and submission to the rules of etiquette. Yet, in the early 1960s, the rigidity of previous years was swiftly replaced with new norms that encouraged individuality and the blossoming of youth, changing the way children and adolescents grew up. (Antoine Prost, 1968: Mort et naissance de luniversit franaise, Vingtime Sicle. Revue d'histoire 23 (Jul. - Sep., 1989), 60 (59-70). Therefore, the students of 1968 had known both the constraints that marked their childhood and the newfound freedoms of their adolescence. Increased freedoms in their outings and personal associations, as well as more respect for their opinions and ideas characterized a new era for these young people. However, while society had changed and adapted to a new era, the French university remained stuck in the past. The French university was characterized strong vertical patterns of communication. The roles of student and professor were firmly established. The professor lectured, the student took notes. Discussions or debates between students and professors was quasi inexistent. Student requests and grievances were ignored by university administrators who were constrained by

rigid centralism that left them very little room for improvisation. (Daniel Singer, Prelude to Revolution: France in May 1968 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1970): 54) Hierarchical communication in this sense therefore crushed students and forced them into their identities as substitutes to a more powerful authority. (Daniel Bertaux, Danile Linhart, Beatrix le Wita, Mai 1968 et la formation de gnrations politiques en France, Le Mouvement social 143 (Apr. Jun., 1988), 83 (75-89).) This entire social group was also subjected to a similar pattern of communication with government. The voting age being set at twenty-years old, the government was essentially denying younger citizens a say in the policies that affected their lives. Gaullisme itself was also noted for its centralism and its authority. (Bernard E. Brown, Protest in Paris: Anatomy of a Revolt (Morristwon, NJ: General Learning Press, 1974):38.) As president, General de Gaulle repeatedly underlined the need for a strong, central state. He was a vocal critic of Frances parliamentary system, which he viewed as ineffective untrustworthy, and he was noted for his mistrust of political parties. (Douglas Johnson, The Political Principles of General de Gaulle, International Affairs 41 (October 1965): 658 (650-662). Therefore, all signals emanating from government indicated contempt for the principles through which students could have pushed for a new agenda. By maintaining itself in the domineering patterns of the 1950s, the state was undermining the emerging values of the 1960s and thus, it was perpetuating a cycle of domination of youth that effectively ensured the powerlessness of a whole group of citizens. This domination of youth from universities and government thus inevitably resulted in their alienation, but because of the social changes in France, students would no longer content themselves with a status as second-class citizens. This pattern of alienation was also a marking feature of working class citizenry. In an important 1967 study, American sociologist Melvin Seeman compared alienation between

French and American workers. The results of his study are striking. The French worker, as Seeman concludes, feels notably more powerless, more doubtful about the standards of behavior in the society, and more constrained by his work. The differences on these matters are regularly on the order of 20-25 percent more alienated in the French sample. Among the less educated, almost 80 percent express the conviction that there is not much they can do about their problems! (Melvin Seeman, The Signals of '68: Alienation in Pre-Crisis France, American Sociological Review 37 (Aug. 1972): 388 (385-402). Indeed, the results of Seemans study show that, just as the French student feels dominated by university and by government, the French worker feels dominated by industry and government. He feels unable to influence public policy, that politicians dont care for the average man, , that personal interests have little chance of being protected when they conflict with the interests of large groups, etc. (seeman, 392) As one respondent put it: Lhomme de la rue ny peut rien! (Seeman, 388) It therefore seems that by 1968, the stage was set for a political crisis. Students and workers felt alienated within their own democracy. A series of secondary events provided the flame that light the fire, but the real origins of the crisis lay in the alienation of Frances students and workers that effectively nullified the states legitimacy. While the intensity of the protests proved to be one of the most memorable features of Mai 68, it is important to understand its consequences as well. Many have argued that the movement of May proved to be a failure because it failed to produce a change in political leadership at the national level following the June 1968 elections. (Dorothy Pickles, France in 1968: Retrospect and Prospect, The World Today 24 (Sep., 1968): 397) Indeed, Charles de Gaulle won the election, and the silent majority showed its opposition to the protesters. Still,

to consider the May movement a failure because it did not produce a change of leadership is a mistake. The May Movement succeeded on other levels, most notably on a cultural level. The events of May and June 1968 pushed forward a new set of societal values and norms that released France from the conservatism of the past. The general orientation of these new values and norms promoted the recognition of student rights, as well as the weakening of social control and the acceptance of social deviations.(Daniel Bertaux, Danile Linhart, Beatrix le Wita, Mai 1968 et la formation de gnrations politiques en France, Le Mouvement social 143 (Apr. - Jun., 1988), 79) Progressively, the new values brought forth by May 68 were translated into laws. The voting age was reduced to eighteen, abortion was legalised and homosexuality was depenalized. (Daniel Bertaux, 83). While these laws stem from a change of societal values that the May Movement highlighted, there were also direct consequences coming from the protests. On November 7th 1968, five months after the crisis, the National Assembly and the Senate adopted an Orientation Act of Higher Education that remodelled the French university system. (Jacques Fomerand, Policy Formulation and Change in Gaullist France: The 1968 Orientation Act of Higher Education, Comparative Politics 8 (Oct., 1975): 59 (59-89) The Act attempted to resolve the problems generated by the rigid centralized administration of universities and the widespread demands for joint management and consultations of students in administrative decisions. Indeed, students were given many of the rights they had demanded from universities. Councils composed of elected members from within the university community, including students, professors, administrative personnel and laymen, now oversaw the operations of university. This helped resolve some of the issues of powerlessness that students faced regarding control over their education.

Yet, to some extent, these changes seem to have been merely cosmetic. In the early 1980s, Melvin Seeman returned to the subjects of his 1967 study to find out if their feelings of alienation had changed in the wake of the 1968 protests. Seeman concludes that not very much appears to have happened overall among the French in any of these powerlessness domains. (Melvin Seeman, A Legacy of Protest: The Events of May in Retrospect, Political Psychology 5 (Sep., 1984): 445(437-464) Surprisingly, Americans felt less alienated in 1984 than they did in 1967. Seeman hypothesizes that this decrease in alienation is due to the American government ceasing the war in Vietnam in response to domestic opposition from citizens. (Ibid, 448) In other words, the government responded to citizens requests and ensured that public policy would be shaped by them. In the French case though, the respondents felt as alienated as before the protests, suggesting that the small changes brought forth by new legislation were ineffective in addressing the issue of alienation. It has been suggested by political scientist Stanley Hoffmann, amongst others, that the French have a highly ambivalent attitude towards authoritarianism. On the one hand, they reject authoritarianism, as demonstrated by countless protests, manifestations, revolts and other forms of social demonstration throughout the ages, yet at the same time, this return to a pattern of authority is recurrent theme throughout French history. As Hoffmann explains, the citizens... [prefer], in every group, from the family to the state, to...entrust the solution of conflicts to higher authority. But authoritarianism has always been tempered by French individualism. (Stanley Hoffmann, The French Psychodrama: De Gaulle's Anti-Communist Coup, New Republic (31 August 1968): 15.) Hoffmann explains that France has been plagued by a permanent series of polar opposites: a rigid, often stifling set of regulations, but also the preservation of the individual's capacity to protest. (Hoffmann, French Psychodrama, 15.)

This idea of a France torn between authoritarianism and individualism helps explain the persistent alienation of French workers and allows understanding of the wave after wave of protest that has marked recent French history. It would therefore seem that the May movements most important impact was emotional. France had never, in recent memory, seen protests on such a large scale and that, coupled with the medias holistic and devoted attention to the protests, ensured that May 1968 would remain engraved in France memory for a long time. Despite the fact that its political impact was minimal, it contributed to a profound shift in values that pushed France into a new era. To conclude,