The 60s and 70s were turbulent years, writers Righart and Hobsbawm agree. But they don’t just agree, in fact, they differ greatly on some aspects of this cultural revolution. What are the most important contrasts and similarities between these two scientists?
Righart
Righart often brings up the most striking phenomena of the 60s . He mentions the French student protest of May 1968, the year in which everything seemed to happen everywhere at once. Where in France students clashed with the government, in the US different races clashed with each other. Righart wonders whether we can name all the characteristics we associate with the 1960s in a single movement, revolution or era.
According to Righart, the film industry played a major role in spreading the romantic-revolutionary worldview that many young people had at the time. He rejects the idea of a link between the waves of protest worldwide, because their causes differ widely everywhere, and of course they all have to be viewed in their specific national context. What is the same everywhere is radicalization.
Because all this had virtually no political consequences, we can hardly call it a political revolution. Righart prefers to call it a socio-cultural revolution, because the lives of an entire generation have changed dramatically .
To explain this further, he mentions a number of important people and phenomena that are seen as revolutionary in the socio-cultural field. The greatest similarity between many literary and artistic expressions is the criticism of modernity, sometimes accompanied by anti-rationalism.
Righart mentions the continuity of the whole as an important problem. If it is to be seen as a process of renewal, then its seeds must have been found earlier. According to Righart, the big question is why it came to the surface in the 1960s, and he wants to describe this by looking for clues in the 1950s. He mentions a number of influential movements such as the Beats, the Angry Young Men , and the Situationists. He suggests that their rise is due to the search for a new, more individual identity in a changed, post-war world.
Where these groups expressed their contempt for consumer society, they did the same in the 1960s. In the 1960s people actually built on what had started in the 1950s, and traces of all three movements can be found in the counterculture of the 1960s. What united the three was cultural criticism that was aimed against modernity and the compelling structuring of daily life.
Hobsbawm
Hobsbawm puts a different spin on the explanation of the socio-cultural revolution. He does not start his story with the political unrest, but with the changing family structure, which he seems to find most important, a subject that Righart hardly mentions. In the 1960s, the sense of connection with family gave way to individualism. In addition, homosexuality, divorce and abortion were discussed. A powerful youth culture emerged that resulted in a generational break.
Hobsbawm also mentions the political unrest, but in a somewhat condescending tone. The same people responsible for the explosive increase in LP sales are also responsible for the street disturbances of the 1960s, just because they want to make it known. He finds the well-known slogan tutto e subito that was heard in the streets of Italy in 1969 childish and shows little sense of reality. However, he also draws a line with something that already emerged in the 1950s, namely the thinking about youth as the highlight of life.
Another similarity with Righart is that Hobsbawm also writes about the development of technology and economics in the post-war years, and he sees this as an important explanation for the generational break. How could young people in the 60s and 70s empathize with a life of war and misery?
Hobsbawm asks himself whether these changes could have taken place in a different era. His answer is a short and sweet no. He asks himself another question, and it is exactly the same question that Righart asks: where are the roots of these changes and what influenced them? Where Righart comes up with the four concepts of population growth, pop music, war and media, Hobsbawm mentions market economy, internationalism, pop music and a generational break. The disappearance of the family as a frame of reference and increasing individualism have made it possible for these changes to continue.
Righthart and Hobsbawm
In summary, Righart is quite impressed by the political commotion that arose in the 1960s and, as a result, he searches for the roots of the socio-cultural changes in this era. An evaluation of the products of the new cultural expressions and the new view of life leads him to the conclusion that in the 60s and 70s there was not a political, but a socio-cultural revolution that arose from expressions in the 1950s. These changes can be explained by the changed situation after the war and the newly arising needs of young people. Hobsbawm discusses the socio-cultural changes without attaching much importance to the political events. He clearly considers the changes in the family structure more important, and speaks condescendingly about the youthful enthusiasm that was the basis for the emergence of a revolutionary atmosphere in the 1960s.
I personally have to agree more with Righart’s conclusions. It seems to me a logical order to first look at the changes in politics and then at the socio -cultural changes. But perhaps that is because of my young age, and the sentiment that emerges from Hobsbawm about the decline of the family as a pillar comes with age. Moreover, I cannot agree with Hobsbawm’s negative tone about youth culture, if only because I am part of current youth culture myself, and the revolutionaries of the 60s and especially 70s are a kind of heroes for me. Of course, Hobsbawm makes a number of points that are certainly important, but I find the tone a bit too conservative.