Scan barcode
heathward's review
5.0
Other reviews here have covered Ross' arguments well, so I'll just share a couple of my favourite quotes from the book.
1. “May ’68 had very little to do with the social group- students or “youth” who were its instigators. It had much more to do with the flight from social determinations, with displacements that took people outside of their location in society.” (2-3)
2. “Discourse has been produced, but its primary effect has been to liquidate… or render obscure, the history of May.” (3)
3. “I am less interested in the revisionist terms of the “official story”- whether it be the great rebellion by angry youth against the restrictions of their fathers or its corollary, the emergence of a new social category called “youth”. I am more concerned with how that particular story came to prevail, how the two contradictory methods or tendencies, the experiential and the structural, converged to formulate categories- “generation”, for example- whose effects were ultimately depoliticizing.” (6)
4. “The principal idea of May was a union of intellectual contestation with workers’ struggle. Another way of saying this is that the political subjectivity which emerged in May was a relational one, built around a polemics of equality.”
“The experience of equality, as it was lived by many in the course of the movement- neither as a goal nor a future agenda but as something occurring in the present and verified as such- constitutes an enormous challenge for subsequent representation.” (11)
5. “In May, everything happened politically- provided, of course, that we understand ‘politics’ as bearing little or no relation to… electoral politics.” (15)
1. “May ’68 had very little to do with the social group- students or “youth” who were its instigators. It had much more to do with the flight from social determinations, with displacements that took people outside of their location in society.” (2-3)
2. “Discourse has been produced, but its primary effect has been to liquidate… or render obscure, the history of May.” (3)
3. “I am less interested in the revisionist terms of the “official story”- whether it be the great rebellion by angry youth against the restrictions of their fathers or its corollary, the emergence of a new social category called “youth”. I am more concerned with how that particular story came to prevail, how the two contradictory methods or tendencies, the experiential and the structural, converged to formulate categories- “generation”, for example- whose effects were ultimately depoliticizing.” (6)
4. “The principal idea of May was a union of intellectual contestation with workers’ struggle. Another way of saying this is that the political subjectivity which emerged in May was a relational one, built around a polemics of equality.”
“The experience of equality, as it was lived by many in the course of the movement- neither as a goal nor a future agenda but as something occurring in the present and verified as such- constitutes an enormous challenge for subsequent representation.” (11)
5. “In May, everything happened politically- provided, of course, that we understand ‘politics’ as bearing little or no relation to… electoral politics.” (15)
spacestationtrustfund's review
3.0
Kristin Ross is the perfect person to write about Mai 68, by which I mean everything she writes is absolutely drowning in postmodernism and all the hallmarks of critical academic theorists. Jargon, how I adore thee!
variouslilies's review
5.0
This quickly became one of the best political/historical investigatory works I have ever read, and I suspect one of the best books I will ever read on the subject of May ’68 events. Kristin Ross doesn’t merely attempt to answer the question of “What happened?” in May ’68, but also why the events of May have been obscured and convoluted, devided between the extreme poles of “Nothing happened” and “Everything happened at the same time”. Between these two poles, adopted by politicians and historians, lies an immense sea of narratives and points of view that is almost systematically ignored, both in and outside of academia. Ross retrieves vital testimonies by workers, students, activists, philosophers and writers in order to restore the deliberately obscured dimension of May events: The radical political aspirations. Efforts to depoliticize May seems to be the major feature of most revisionist narratives surrounding it.
Gradually, by drawing from the accounts of various figures involved in the events, Ross makes the case for May events as revolutionary, as an active and splendid attempt in reaching equality, beyond time, space and social confinements. Furthermore, an intriguing aspect of her investigation is to ignite the trail of political events that lead to mass upheaval and dissent in May, in opposition to the dominant narratives that have tried (and succeeded, to a large degree) to isolate May as a single instance of cultural and philosophical outburst among students. Among the political events are the Algerian and Vietnam war, how they were perceived both by students and workers, and the phenomenal meeting that happened between these two key figures in universities, factories and the streets (‘a solidarity that was not sympathy’). As put by Dominique Lecourt,
Long after the fracas of 1958 and the sound of boots that had accompanied the return to power of General de Gaulle, the imminence of a fascist ‘coup’ kept us on alert. And the OAS bombs, in those blue nights, like the almost daily combats on the rue Saint-Jacques, mobilised the most pacifists among us.
Ross drags the revisionist spotlight from the courtyard of Sorbonne to the factories, the streets, the bookstores and more importantly, other cities besides Paris. Considering prevailing narrative of ‘individualist, hedonistic and rebellious youths making a hippie fuss’, the efforts by Ross to marshal plenty of evidence to the contrary is extremely valuable. She quotes Raymond Aron, who said youths rebel ‘like rats or other animals, when forced to live at an excessive density in a confined space’ and remarks sarcastically that this dehumanizing vocabulary had been ‘underused since the time of the Paris Commune’. Aron, despite posing as an anti-Gaullist, had nonetheless supported de Gaulle’s call to arms at the end of May and marched in solidarity with scores of colonials, neo-fascists, parachutists, and similar guardians of order.
Another interesting aspect of the book is how Ross aspires to enrich her political investigation with cultural aspects. A particularly fascinating instant of this is her writing on the verb matraquer, which had its pre-history in Algeria, entered French general usage, was used increasingly in each decade following 1968, becoming a point of connection, an axis of solidarity between the May insurrectionists. In the third chapter, Ross investigates the assimilation of the soul of May events in the hands of many philosophers and thinkers who sought to steal the ball and reshape the narratives, mostly along the lines of “nothing happened”, and doing so by seeking the media limelight. She cites Deleuze (himself active in ’68 events) writing in 1977:
the theme that was already present in the first books: the hatred of ‘68. It was about who could best spit on ‘68. It is in function of that hatred that they constructed their subject of enunciation: ‘We, as those who made ‘68 (??), we can tell you that it was stupid, and we won’t do it again.
At the end of the chapter, Ross succinctly posits:
There’s much more to say about this book. Every single page was captivating in its own way. The prose is at times a little complicated, but generally it’s not a difficult book to get through. The book flows from an introduction that seeks to clarify that “something” happened in May, to the following chapter aiming to marry the struggle of students and workers and the crisis of representation, and finally the revisionist narratives that sprang up in the following events, but these themes bleed into each other, making the entire book much more cohesive and persuasive.
During May nothing happened politically; its effects were purely cultural—so went the consensus evaluation, the story learned, authorized, imposed, celebrated publicly, and commemorated, in print and in the television shows…
Gradually, by drawing from the accounts of various figures involved in the events, Ross makes the case for May events as revolutionary, as an active and splendid attempt in reaching equality, beyond time, space and social confinements. Furthermore, an intriguing aspect of her investigation is to ignite the trail of political events that lead to mass upheaval and dissent in May, in opposition to the dominant narratives that have tried (and succeeded, to a large degree) to isolate May as a single instance of cultural and philosophical outburst among students. Among the political events are the Algerian and Vietnam war, how they were perceived both by students and workers, and the phenomenal meeting that happened between these two key figures in universities, factories and the streets (‘a solidarity that was not sympathy’). As put by Dominique Lecourt,
Long after the fracas of 1958 and the sound of boots that had accompanied the return to power of General de Gaulle, the imminence of a fascist ‘coup’ kept us on alert. And the OAS bombs, in those blue nights, like the almost daily combats on the rue Saint-Jacques, mobilised the most pacifists among us.
Ross drags the revisionist spotlight from the courtyard of Sorbonne to the factories, the streets, the bookstores and more importantly, other cities besides Paris. Considering prevailing narrative of ‘individualist, hedonistic and rebellious youths making a hippie fuss’, the efforts by Ross to marshal plenty of evidence to the contrary is extremely valuable. She quotes Raymond Aron, who said youths rebel ‘like rats or other animals, when forced to live at an excessive density in a confined space’ and remarks sarcastically that this dehumanizing vocabulary had been ‘underused since the time of the Paris Commune’. Aron, despite posing as an anti-Gaullist, had nonetheless supported de Gaulle’s call to arms at the end of May and marched in solidarity with scores of colonials, neo-fascists, parachutists, and similar guardians of order.
Another interesting aspect of the book is how Ross aspires to enrich her political investigation with cultural aspects. A particularly fascinating instant of this is her writing on the verb matraquer, which had its pre-history in Algeria, entered French general usage, was used increasingly in each decade following 1968, becoming a point of connection, an axis of solidarity between the May insurrectionists. In the third chapter, Ross investigates the assimilation of the soul of May events in the hands of many philosophers and thinkers who sought to steal the ball and reshape the narratives, mostly along the lines of “nothing happened”, and doing so by seeking the media limelight. She cites Deleuze (himself active in ’68 events) writing in 1977:
the theme that was already present in the first books: the hatred of ‘68. It was about who could best spit on ‘68. It is in function of that hatred that they constructed their subject of enunciation: ‘We, as those who made ‘68 (??), we can tell you that it was stupid, and we won’t do it again.
At the end of the chapter, Ross succinctly posits:
The attitude of critique or its very possibility – the soul of ‘68 – has at this moment been lost. The enthusiastic conversion by some ex-gauchistes to the values of the market has been successfully disguised as a ‘cultural’ or ‘spiritual’ revolution, and May, it seems, can be renarrated now as the founding moment of this trajectory.
There’s much more to say about this book. Every single page was captivating in its own way. The prose is at times a little complicated, but generally it’s not a difficult book to get through. The book flows from an introduction that seeks to clarify that “something” happened in May, to the following chapter aiming to marry the struggle of students and workers and the crisis of representation, and finally the revisionist narratives that sprang up in the following events, but these themes bleed into each other, making the entire book much more cohesive and persuasive.
jacob_wren's review
5.0
Three passages from May ’68 and Its Afterlives:
For May ’68 itself was not an artistic moment. It was an event that transpired amid very few images; French television, after all, was on strike. Drawings, political cartoons – by Siné, Willem, Cabu, and others – proliferated; photographs were taken. Only the most “immediate” of artistic techniques, it seems, could keep up with the speed of events. But to say this is already to point out how much politics was exerting a magnetic pull on culture, yanking it out of its specific and specialized realm. For what does it mean that art should suddenly see its purpose as that of keeping apace with events, with achieving a complete contemporaneity with the present and with what is happening around it?
The incommensurability or asymmetry that seems to govern the relation between culture and politics holds true for the ’68 period in France. In fact, that incommensurability is what the event is about: the failure of cultural solutions to provide an answer, the invention and deployment of political forms in direct contestation with existing cultural forms, the exigency of political practices over cultural ones. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the experience of the Beaux-Arts students who occupied their school in mid-May 1968, proclaimed it the revolutionary Atelier populaire des Beaux-Arts, and began producing, at breakneck speed, the posters supporting the strike that covered the walls of Paris during those months. The “message” of the majority of posters, stark and direct, was the certification, and at times the imperative, that whatever it was that was happening – the interruption, the strike, the “moving train” – that it simply continue: “Continuons le combat.” “La grève continue.” “Contre offensive: la grève continue.” “Chauffeurs de taxi: la lute continue.” “Maine Montparnasse: la lute continue.” Nothing, that is, in the message aspires to a level of “representing” what was occurring; the goal, rather, is to be at one with – at the same time with, contemporary with – whatever was occurring. Speed, a speedy technique, was of the essence; students learned this soon enough when they abandoned lithography early on because, at ten to fifteen printings an hour, it was far too slow to respond to the needs of a mass movement. Serigraphy, which was light and easy to use, yielded up to 250 printings an hour. Speed and flexible mediums facilitated the absolute interpenetration of art and event achieved by the posters, but speed is not the most important factor in rendering art capable of living the temporality of an event. Writing thirty years later, one of the militants active in the Atelier populaire, Gérard Fromanger, recalls the genesis of the posters in a brief memoir. His title, “Art Is What Makes Life More Interesting Than Art,” goes far in giving a sense of the dizzying opening created when the social refuses to stay “out there,” distinct from art, or when art achieves presentation, rather than representation:
May ’68 was that. Artists no longer in their studios, they no longer work, they can’t work any more because the real is more powerful than their inventions. Naturally, they become militants, me among them. We create the Atelier populaire des Beaux-Arts and we make posters. We’re there night and day making posters. The whole country is on strike and we’ve never worked harder in our lives. We’re finally necessary.
Fromanger describes in greater detail the stages in the dismantling of art and artists during May: how, as the mass demonstrations got under way in mid-May, art students first “got down off their horses to gather the flowers,” as the Maoists would say, how they left art behind as they ran from demo to demo. “We artists had been in the movement for ten days, we run into each other at the demos. We had separated from everything we had before. We don’t sleep in the studios… we live in the streets, in the occupied spaces… We no longer paint, we don’t think about it anymore.” The next phase describes a retreat to familiar spaces: “We painters say to ourselves that we have to do something at Beaux-Arts, that we can’t let the buildings be empty, closed up.” An old lithograph machine is located; the first poster, USINE-UNIVERSITE-UNION, is produced immediately. The thought at that point is for someone to run the thirty copies down to a gallery on the rue Dragon to sell them to help the movement. But it is at this point that “the real,” in the shape of the movement, literally intervenes, short-circuiting the steps that art must take to be art in bourgeois culture and hijacking it, so to speak, off that path, bringing it into the now. There is no time, it seems, for the art object to remain a commodity, even one that had been redirected in the service of the movement. On the way to the gallery, the copies are snatched out of the arms of the student carrying them and plastered immediately on the first available wall. The poster becomes a poster.
“Bourgeois culture,” reads the statement that accompanied the founding of the Atelier populaire, “separates and isolates artists from other workers by according them a privileged status. Privilege encloses the artist in an invisible prison. We have decided to transform what we are in society.”
+
On October 17, 1961, the first mass demonstration of the 1960s occurred, organized by the FLN to protest a recent curfew set by the prefect of police that prohibited Algerians in the Paris region from being on the street after 8:30 PM. Informed in advance of the demonstration, the police, along with the CRS and the mobile gendarmerie, are armed with bidules, a longer version of the matraque with greater leverage and range, capable of breaking a skull open in a single swing when adroitly applied. The police have also been virtually exonerated in advance of any “police excesses” that might occur; in the preceding weeks Papon has visited the various commissariats, imparting these messages: “Settle your affairs with the Algerian yourselves. Whatever happens, you’re covered,” and “For one blow, give then back ten.” And, to overcome the scruples of certain more hesitant members of his forces, he adds: “You don’t need to complicate things. Even if the Algerians are not armed, you should think of them always as armed.”
The Algerians – between thirty and forty-thousand men, women and children – are, in fact, unarmed, and the demonstration is peaceful. Many of the Algerians are wearing their best “Sunday” clothes, in the interest of impressing the French and the international communities with their peaceful motives. Nevertheless, police open fire almost immediately. Confrontations occur simultaneously throughout the city wherever the Algerians are concentrated. Police “combat groups” charge the crowd in the main thoroughfares and boulevards, while other police ranks stand behind in the side streets, blocking escape routes and splitting the crowd into small pockets of two or three individuals, each of whom is then surrounded by police, and men and women are methodically clubbed. Along the Seine, police lift unconscious and already dead or dying Algerians and toss them into the river. A document published soon after the massacre by a group of progressive police describes what went on in one part of the city:
At one end of the Neuilly Bridge, police troops, and on the other, CRS riot police, slowly moved toward one another. All the Algerians caught in this immense trap were struck down and systematically thrown into the Seine. At least a hundred of them underwent this treatment. The bodies of the victims floated to the surface daily and bore traces of blows and strangulation.
Some of the arrested men and women are taken to the courtyard of the prefecture of police where, as Pierre Vidal-Baquet reports, “If I believe the testimony of one policeman, gathered immediately after the event by Paul Thibaud and that I’ve often had occasion to evoke since then, Papon had several dozen Algerians beaten [matraqué] to death in front of his eyes in the courtyard of the police prefecture.” Some six thousand others are taken to several sports stadiums reserved by police for that purpose. In all of these places, people die while in custody – of wounds they had already received or of new blows administered by police “welcoming committees” arranged in a kind of gauntlet outside the entrance to the sports arenas.
On the night of October 17, the police publish a communiqué stating that the Algerians had fired on police, who were then forced to return fire. The official death count, originally two, was revised the next morning by Papon’s office to three. The almost total news blackout that surrounded the event makes it very hard to determine the exact number of Algerians – for no police were injured – who actually died. Most knowledgeable estimates put the number at around two hundred.
+
But the real question, I believe, lies elsewhere, outside the parameters of revolution, failed or not. Why did something happen rather than nothing? And what was the nature of the event that occurred? The attention given to the problematics of power has effaced another set problems at issue in May, and 1960s culture more generally, which we might begin to group under the heading of a no less political question – the question of equality. I mean equality not in any objective sense of status, income, function, or the supposedly “equal” dynamics of contracts or reforms, nor as an explicit demand or a program, but rather as something that emerges in the course of the struggle and is verified subjectively, declared and experienced in the here and now as what is, and not what should be. Such an experience lies to the side of “seizing state power;” outside of that story. The narrative of a desired or failed seizure of power, in other words, is a narrative determined by the logic of the state, the story the state tells to itself. For the state, people in the streets are people always already failing to seize state power. In 1968, “seizing state power” was not only part of the state’s narrative, it expressed the state’s informing desire to complete itself – that is, to totally assimilate the everyday to its own necessities. Limiting May ’68 to that story, to the desire or the failure to seize centralized power, has circumscribed the very definition of “the political,” crushing or effacing in the process a political dimension to the events that may in fact have constituted the true threat to the forces of order, the reason for their panic. That dimension lay in a subjectivation enabled by the synchronizing of two very different temporalities: the world of the worker and the world of the student. It lay in the central idea of May ’68: the union of intellectual contestation with workers’ struggle. It lay in the verification of equality not as any objective of action, but as something that is part and parcel of action, something that emerges in the struggle and is lived and declared as such. In the course of the struggle, practices were developed that demonstrated such a synchronization, that acted to constitute a common – though far from consensual – space and time. And those practices verified the irrelevance of the division of labour – what for Durkheim was nothing more and nothing less that that which holds a society together and guarantees the continuity of its reproduction. As such, these practices form as direct an intervention into the logic and workings of capital as any seizure of state – perhaps more so.
.
For May ’68 itself was not an artistic moment. It was an event that transpired amid very few images; French television, after all, was on strike. Drawings, political cartoons – by Siné, Willem, Cabu, and others – proliferated; photographs were taken. Only the most “immediate” of artistic techniques, it seems, could keep up with the speed of events. But to say this is already to point out how much politics was exerting a magnetic pull on culture, yanking it out of its specific and specialized realm. For what does it mean that art should suddenly see its purpose as that of keeping apace with events, with achieving a complete contemporaneity with the present and with what is happening around it?
The incommensurability or asymmetry that seems to govern the relation between culture and politics holds true for the ’68 period in France. In fact, that incommensurability is what the event is about: the failure of cultural solutions to provide an answer, the invention and deployment of political forms in direct contestation with existing cultural forms, the exigency of political practices over cultural ones. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the experience of the Beaux-Arts students who occupied their school in mid-May 1968, proclaimed it the revolutionary Atelier populaire des Beaux-Arts, and began producing, at breakneck speed, the posters supporting the strike that covered the walls of Paris during those months. The “message” of the majority of posters, stark and direct, was the certification, and at times the imperative, that whatever it was that was happening – the interruption, the strike, the “moving train” – that it simply continue: “Continuons le combat.” “La grève continue.” “Contre offensive: la grève continue.” “Chauffeurs de taxi: la lute continue.” “Maine Montparnasse: la lute continue.” Nothing, that is, in the message aspires to a level of “representing” what was occurring; the goal, rather, is to be at one with – at the same time with, contemporary with – whatever was occurring. Speed, a speedy technique, was of the essence; students learned this soon enough when they abandoned lithography early on because, at ten to fifteen printings an hour, it was far too slow to respond to the needs of a mass movement. Serigraphy, which was light and easy to use, yielded up to 250 printings an hour. Speed and flexible mediums facilitated the absolute interpenetration of art and event achieved by the posters, but speed is not the most important factor in rendering art capable of living the temporality of an event. Writing thirty years later, one of the militants active in the Atelier populaire, Gérard Fromanger, recalls the genesis of the posters in a brief memoir. His title, “Art Is What Makes Life More Interesting Than Art,” goes far in giving a sense of the dizzying opening created when the social refuses to stay “out there,” distinct from art, or when art achieves presentation, rather than representation:
May ’68 was that. Artists no longer in their studios, they no longer work, they can’t work any more because the real is more powerful than their inventions. Naturally, they become militants, me among them. We create the Atelier populaire des Beaux-Arts and we make posters. We’re there night and day making posters. The whole country is on strike and we’ve never worked harder in our lives. We’re finally necessary.
Fromanger describes in greater detail the stages in the dismantling of art and artists during May: how, as the mass demonstrations got under way in mid-May, art students first “got down off their horses to gather the flowers,” as the Maoists would say, how they left art behind as they ran from demo to demo. “We artists had been in the movement for ten days, we run into each other at the demos. We had separated from everything we had before. We don’t sleep in the studios… we live in the streets, in the occupied spaces… We no longer paint, we don’t think about it anymore.” The next phase describes a retreat to familiar spaces: “We painters say to ourselves that we have to do something at Beaux-Arts, that we can’t let the buildings be empty, closed up.” An old lithograph machine is located; the first poster, USINE-UNIVERSITE-UNION, is produced immediately. The thought at that point is for someone to run the thirty copies down to a gallery on the rue Dragon to sell them to help the movement. But it is at this point that “the real,” in the shape of the movement, literally intervenes, short-circuiting the steps that art must take to be art in bourgeois culture and hijacking it, so to speak, off that path, bringing it into the now. There is no time, it seems, for the art object to remain a commodity, even one that had been redirected in the service of the movement. On the way to the gallery, the copies are snatched out of the arms of the student carrying them and plastered immediately on the first available wall. The poster becomes a poster.
“Bourgeois culture,” reads the statement that accompanied the founding of the Atelier populaire, “separates and isolates artists from other workers by according them a privileged status. Privilege encloses the artist in an invisible prison. We have decided to transform what we are in society.”
+
On October 17, 1961, the first mass demonstration of the 1960s occurred, organized by the FLN to protest a recent curfew set by the prefect of police that prohibited Algerians in the Paris region from being on the street after 8:30 PM. Informed in advance of the demonstration, the police, along with the CRS and the mobile gendarmerie, are armed with bidules, a longer version of the matraque with greater leverage and range, capable of breaking a skull open in a single swing when adroitly applied. The police have also been virtually exonerated in advance of any “police excesses” that might occur; in the preceding weeks Papon has visited the various commissariats, imparting these messages: “Settle your affairs with the Algerian yourselves. Whatever happens, you’re covered,” and “For one blow, give then back ten.” And, to overcome the scruples of certain more hesitant members of his forces, he adds: “You don’t need to complicate things. Even if the Algerians are not armed, you should think of them always as armed.”
The Algerians – between thirty and forty-thousand men, women and children – are, in fact, unarmed, and the demonstration is peaceful. Many of the Algerians are wearing their best “Sunday” clothes, in the interest of impressing the French and the international communities with their peaceful motives. Nevertheless, police open fire almost immediately. Confrontations occur simultaneously throughout the city wherever the Algerians are concentrated. Police “combat groups” charge the crowd in the main thoroughfares and boulevards, while other police ranks stand behind in the side streets, blocking escape routes and splitting the crowd into small pockets of two or three individuals, each of whom is then surrounded by police, and men and women are methodically clubbed. Along the Seine, police lift unconscious and already dead or dying Algerians and toss them into the river. A document published soon after the massacre by a group of progressive police describes what went on in one part of the city:
At one end of the Neuilly Bridge, police troops, and on the other, CRS riot police, slowly moved toward one another. All the Algerians caught in this immense trap were struck down and systematically thrown into the Seine. At least a hundred of them underwent this treatment. The bodies of the victims floated to the surface daily and bore traces of blows and strangulation.
Some of the arrested men and women are taken to the courtyard of the prefecture of police where, as Pierre Vidal-Baquet reports, “If I believe the testimony of one policeman, gathered immediately after the event by Paul Thibaud and that I’ve often had occasion to evoke since then, Papon had several dozen Algerians beaten [matraqué] to death in front of his eyes in the courtyard of the police prefecture.” Some six thousand others are taken to several sports stadiums reserved by police for that purpose. In all of these places, people die while in custody – of wounds they had already received or of new blows administered by police “welcoming committees” arranged in a kind of gauntlet outside the entrance to the sports arenas.
On the night of October 17, the police publish a communiqué stating that the Algerians had fired on police, who were then forced to return fire. The official death count, originally two, was revised the next morning by Papon’s office to three. The almost total news blackout that surrounded the event makes it very hard to determine the exact number of Algerians – for no police were injured – who actually died. Most knowledgeable estimates put the number at around two hundred.
+
But the real question, I believe, lies elsewhere, outside the parameters of revolution, failed or not. Why did something happen rather than nothing? And what was the nature of the event that occurred? The attention given to the problematics of power has effaced another set problems at issue in May, and 1960s culture more generally, which we might begin to group under the heading of a no less political question – the question of equality. I mean equality not in any objective sense of status, income, function, or the supposedly “equal” dynamics of contracts or reforms, nor as an explicit demand or a program, but rather as something that emerges in the course of the struggle and is verified subjectively, declared and experienced in the here and now as what is, and not what should be. Such an experience lies to the side of “seizing state power;” outside of that story. The narrative of a desired or failed seizure of power, in other words, is a narrative determined by the logic of the state, the story the state tells to itself. For the state, people in the streets are people always already failing to seize state power. In 1968, “seizing state power” was not only part of the state’s narrative, it expressed the state’s informing desire to complete itself – that is, to totally assimilate the everyday to its own necessities. Limiting May ’68 to that story, to the desire or the failure to seize centralized power, has circumscribed the very definition of “the political,” crushing or effacing in the process a political dimension to the events that may in fact have constituted the true threat to the forces of order, the reason for their panic. That dimension lay in a subjectivation enabled by the synchronizing of two very different temporalities: the world of the worker and the world of the student. It lay in the central idea of May ’68: the union of intellectual contestation with workers’ struggle. It lay in the verification of equality not as any objective of action, but as something that is part and parcel of action, something that emerges in the struggle and is lived and declared as such. In the course of the struggle, practices were developed that demonstrated such a synchronization, that acted to constitute a common – though far from consensual – space and time. And those practices verified the irrelevance of the division of labour – what for Durkheim was nothing more and nothing less that that which holds a society together and guarantees the continuity of its reproduction. As such, these practices form as direct an intervention into the logic and workings of capital as any seizure of state – perhaps more so.
.
zachsw's review
5.0
Both a rescuing of the radicalism of May from its neoliberal interlocutors and a brilliant account of what the project of making May safe for consumption and celebration within the frame of the post-68 French state entails, Ross's book is also a terrific account of what was truly revolutionary about the student and worker revolts and their tactics. Really impressive work of cultural history, and wonderfully written.