How Did Postwar Prosperity Led To Discontent
In this essay I will be analyzing how and why postwar prosperity led to discontent in western European societies during the 1960s. The decade following WWII was surprisingly prosperous, with many nations in a state of political and economic recovery. Material wealth seemed to be growing for the middle classes of both continents. During the 1960s a new generation of baby boomers were approaching the forefront of revolution. These college students were inspired by a combination of Marxist radicalism and anti-Authoritarianism, which led them to resist the old social structure created by their parents. There was a sudden surge of student-led protests starting in 1968, composed of young people who were morally opposed to the rigid social hierarchy
…show more content…
of postwar Europe. They sought immediate political liberalization, and were in total defiance of the bourgeois values that had sacrificed social equality in exchange for postwar prosperity.
Student disaffection and radical idealism were major catalysts for the revolutions in 1968, most evident in the restless German, French, and Italian youth.
Supporters of this activism argued that the working class was corrupted by materialism and prosperity. Therefore they couldn’t rely on the middle class to engage in a class struggle, which is why younger people took it upon themselves to begin a movement. The generation of 1968 “was fired up by a potent blend of Marxist radicalism, anti-Americanism, antiestablishment rhetoric, alienation from the values of their parents, and a yearning to challenge what they viewed as a static, consumer-centered postwar society” (Hitchcock 247). In France, the need for educational reform was what caused the first demonstrations. Students in the University of Nanterre (Paris) saw their university as simply a product of bourgeois authoritarian society. There was a general sense that people were emerging without any real culture, being trained to fit into the economic system of a highly industrialized society. Although many countries experienced a “miracle” of postwar economic recovery under their parents, the younger generation was still morally opposed to the values that allowed it to
happen. Postwar prosperity led to a clash between the “New” and the “Old”, making generational conflict a major cause for discontent in every western European society. Students all blamed professors, parents, government officials, and party leaders for “the creation and perpetuation of a social system based on crass worship of wealth, on the rigid segregation of society along class and gender lines, and on a refusal to debate the profound philosophical questions about how society should be organized to bring about fairness and justice for [everyone]” (Hitchcock 248). This proves that the atmosphere of youthful rebellion emerged from a need to break down the foundations of a postwar state built through social inequality.
The German and Italian movements were significantly violent, and student protests had convinced many workers to start putting pressure on industrial elites. However, some hardcore extremists from the left began using terrorism to carry out a violent crusade against the state. The governments had to balance their postwar commitment to civil liberties and democracy with the use of extreme measures to contain the terrorism. Hitchcock accurately claims that, “These years of rebellion and terror in Italy, and in Western Europe as a whole, serve as a reminder that the postwar European miracle was never universally accepted by some segments of society” (Hitchcock 261). This supports my idea that European postwar prosperity actually caused many people to re-evaluate the inner workings of their own government. With a direct focus on government, student protests emerged to shed a spotlight on the inequalities of their own social structure. Generational differences between values of parents and their children was a major cause of discontent and revolution throughout Western Europe. The next decade was an ugly period of time, but in the end “European democracy had survived, bloodied but intact, and perhaps the better for the struggle” (Hitchcock 262).
of postwar Europe. They sought immediate political liberalization, and were in total defiance of the bourgeois values that had sacrificed social equality in exchange for postwar prosperity.
Student disaffection and radical idealism were major catalysts for the revolutions in 1968, most evident in the restless German, French, and Italian youth.
Supporters of this activism argued that the working class was corrupted by materialism and prosperity. Therefore they couldn’t rely on the middle class to engage in a class struggle, which is why younger people took it upon themselves to begin a movement. The generation of 1968 “was fired up by a potent blend of Marxist radicalism, anti-Americanism, antiestablishment rhetoric, alienation from the values of their parents, and a yearning to challenge what they viewed as a static, consumer-centered postwar society” (Hitchcock 247). In France, the need for educational reform was what caused the first demonstrations. Students in the University of Nanterre (Paris) saw their university as simply a product of bourgeois authoritarian society. There was a general sense that people were emerging without any real culture, being trained to fit into the economic system of a highly industrialized society. Although many countries experienced a “miracle” of postwar economic recovery under their parents, the younger generation was still morally opposed to the values that allowed it to
happen. Postwar prosperity led to a clash between the “New” and the “Old”, making generational conflict a major cause for discontent in every western European society. Students all blamed professors, parents, government officials, and party leaders for “the creation and perpetuation of a social system based on crass worship of wealth, on the rigid segregation of society along class and gender lines, and on a refusal to debate the profound philosophical questions about how society should be organized to bring about fairness and justice for [everyone]” (Hitchcock 248). This proves that the atmosphere of youthful rebellion emerged from a need to break down the foundations of a postwar state built through social inequality.
The German and Italian movements were significantly violent, and student protests had convinced many workers to start putting pressure on industrial elites. However, some hardcore extremists from the left began using terrorism to carry out a violent crusade against the state. The governments had to balance their postwar commitment to civil liberties and democracy with the use of extreme measures to contain the terrorism. Hitchcock accurately claims that, “These years of rebellion and terror in Italy, and in Western Europe as a whole, serve as a reminder that the postwar European miracle was never universally accepted by some segments of society” (Hitchcock 261). This supports my idea that European postwar prosperity actually caused many people to re-evaluate the inner workings of their own government. With a direct focus on government, student protests emerged to shed a spotlight on the inequalities of their own social structure. Generational differences between values of parents and their children was a major cause of discontent and revolution throughout Western Europe. The next decade was an ugly period of time, but in the end “European democracy had survived, bloodied but intact, and perhaps the better for the struggle” (Hitchcock 262).