The Cold War of the communist and the capitalist countries gay way to spying worldwide, together with the political and military meddling in the inside matters of the poor countries. Some of these developments led to a negative consequence which called for much of the distrust and uncertainty towards the government that came after the cold war. Examples of these outcomes are the serious reaction of the Soviet Union towards the famous uprising against communism, which included the Hungarian Revolution of 1965, also the invasion in 1961 of the Cuban Bay of Pigs by the U.S. And the Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring in 1968. The lie of Dwight D. Eisenhower, president of the U.S. In 1960, about the extent of the U2 episode led to an even greater distrust amongst the public against the government (Eisenstadt, 1956).
The establishment in the U.S. was disintegrated into political and military framework after the partial test ban treaty. Failure in Southeast Asia (SEATO), especially in Vietnam, to reach an agreement regarding the fulfillment of the treaty together with the debate on the treatment of the rebellious attitude of the communist further led to more disagreement in the establishment. In 1963 the murder of John F. Kennedy, the president of the United States, coupled with the skeptical view of the public towards the findings of this event provided by the government gave a way to uncertainty and unreliability on the government, which was mostly little trusted by the younger crowd. Various factors have played a part in separating the movement against the authority in the preceding eras from the 1960s counterculture (Foss and Larkin, 1976; 1982).
The period after the war, which was termed as a "baby boom," saw an immense increase in the amount of young, wealthy, and most likely disaffected people. This was something that had never happened before. They helped in shaping the direction for the American society in a very different format than before. This difference or change was a result of psychoactive drugs and a series of events and issues that allowed for intellectual stimulation. The progress of the greater counterculture movement was boosted by different sociological reasons such as the great non-violent movement. This movement helped in solving the constitutional civil rights illegal issues in the U.S. The most important of which was the general racial separation, little right to vote given to the southern blacks and the prevalent separation in the North in buying or renting of houses (Jennings and Nieani, 1981).
Student activists from universities and colleges raised their voices on their right to practice their fundamental constitutional rights, most important being their freedom of assembly and speech. Those counterculture student activists who recently understood the emerging problem of the poor community together with the community organizers raised their voices in favor of helping and promoting anti-poverty projects, especially for the areas located in the inner city of the U.S. (Jennings and Nieani, 1981)
Impact of Activism in 1968
Using the generational unit theories, researches have admitted at the progression of liberalism for the previous student activists in the 1960s. Scholars, by building upon the Mannheim, reason that those different kind of experiences from the past has allowed students to go for an obvious break from their friends and parents, those who have never experienced this before (Braungart & Braungart 1990, 1991; DeMartini 1983; Fendrich 1977,1993; Fendrich & Tarleau 1973; Fendrich. & Lovoy 1988; Fendrich & Turner 1989; Jennings 1987; Whalen & Flacks 1989). The drawback of the generational unit theories is its inability to provide a way by which participation may have an impact on the person's behavior or orientations. McAdam (1989) however, argues that this movement participation coupled with persistent mingling amongst student activist could give way to a changing experience which can be explained by the alternation (Travisano 1970). Alternation refers to the embracing of the movement principles or any other values. It, however, may become a problem because of the inability to clearly figure out when a person can be categorized as "alternated." In addition to this, another problem is associated with the lack of a clear way of understanding an alternation caused by students participating in movements related to politics could be impact different areas of their lives which may include family relations, choice for a career or religion. Sewell's (1992) structuration theory, which is an improvement upon Giddens' (1984) theory, allows a better understanding of the impact of the movement participation.
Impact of social movements in 1968
Student involvement in these social movements unavoidably leads to false notions, orients activities, and affects the lives of those involved. The coming together of students in these social movements, especially that of 1968, allows for changed and reinforced ideological orientations (Snow et at. 1986). Theory of structure, provided by Sewell (1992), consists of schematic and resources and gives a helpful outline for better understanding the possible results related to social movement student participation. Firstly, intermingling of students in these social movements allow for changed informal rules or set which are usually applicable in such social setup. This is referred to schemata which consist of your preferences, conventions and assumptions that affect the agreements for the future (Sewell 1992). Also involvement with these social movements gives access to numerous resources which may include tangible resources, degree of authority in the organization, and goals of the movement in coded phrases. Tangible resources consist of socializing with other students and offices on different occasions. Positions or authority given to students would mean working as a cadre, worker, patron or a transitory activist. Goals for the movement are given in the form of speeches, books or pamphlets. These resources aid in supporting student schemata and hence shall be supported by the schematic orientation that consists of the social structure of the movements. Lastly, a student's commitment to specific schemata is likely to become instilled in him allowing his cognitive resources to be used for other explanations and decision making which in return would help in building cognitive structure (Sherkat & Ellison 1997). An example of this could be that those students participating the 1968 protest who linked themselves with liberalism so much that they made use of this cognitive resource to understand a new scenario or such as finding a rank which was persistent with already made liberal commitments.
A change in the schemata resulted in the use of resources, in the 1968 social movement particularly, coming from an organizational resource that came together with one person's schematic understandings. Also this coming together was supported by the student protest participation; it led to a cognitive codification of schematic understandings bolstered by a social movement. This helped in building a cognitive structure that aided in telling other schemata and related resource interactions. Lying emphasized on the precessual dynamics, theories that shed light on the double nature of these social structures, made the structure both limiting and progressive Giddens 1984; Sewell 1992; Stryker 1994). The presence of asymmetries of influence, however, generally made the resource more powerful in the social structure. The influence on social movement identified a specific asymmetry that protest resources helped in creating i.e. An observable impact on future schemata and resource interaction.
The significance of the schemata created in 1968 student revolts lies in the fact that they are transposable among different areas of social life (Sewell 1992). An example of this can be seen where making outlines helping in choices related to politics will overlap into choices related to religion and it could be the other way around also. This transposiability, as a result, gives a reason for analyzing political experiences impact on numerous social issues which may include religion, profession and family today. Also, resources carry more than one meaning when taken in different social environment. Because choices are made amongst different social environments, the meaning attached to it may vary; they may also help in supporting different schemata. For example the resource of carrying out a specific profession could be taken as integration of an individual into the political-economic structure or it can be interpreted as a way to alter the system by working in a way which is consistent with antisystemtic schemata or cognitive resources. This framework for understanding how social movement participation would have an impact on different social contemporary discussion of 'new social movement', infers that different understanding of resources and generalizable schemata aided in politicizing of personal issues back in 1968 student revolts and will continue to do so today (Melucci 1980, 1985). This further pushes for further pondering on how the political structures interact with and impact other structural areas for student revolutionaries, which may include family, career, and religion.
Domains of Protest Influence in 1968
Student social movement participation in 1968 allowed for alteration in resource interpretations and orienting schemas in a multiplicity of realms. Preferences gave way to varying choices over different resource options which became an implication of the transposability of schematic orientation amongst different structural arenas. Different choices included family structure,…