Perhaps the most memorable example of the cross-pollination of ideas, however, was that of the Chinese ten-meter-tall, Styrofoam "Goddess of Democracy" in Tiananmen Square. The Chinese demonstrations openly used Western symbols and quoted Western ideologues until they were silenced by the government. As with 1789, some of the 1989 revolts were successful, some unsuccessful, but all shared certain qualities in common, according to Manning. Manning concedes that all social movements draw upon pre-existing conflicts and debates, combined with a new intensification of flaring up of such issues but both years of multiple revolutions all show a common rhetoric between nations. In 1989 the "equivalent debates included rights to self-expression, freedom from government restraint, recognition of individual rights, renunciation of racial and ethnic discrimination, and recognition of communities" and a cross-cultural language of common cause, along with a desire for great change (Manning par. 66). The common, sympathetic language was non-specific and stressed the "rights of man" or "democracy" rather than a specific grievance to self-consciously illustrate the parallels between all oppressed people (Manning par. 66-67).
An interesting question not raised by Manning is if liberalization was a facilitator of revolt against these tyrannical 1989 governments. The fall of the Berlin Wall occurred after a policy of perestroika, glasnost, and arms reduction had been allowed by the U.S.S.R., not during the time of the worst Soviet repression. Similarly, China was also liberalizing its policies in 1989, allowing a greater influx of capitalism and greater freedom than had been enjoyed by the current, younger generation than their parents. Even before the Internet revolution, in 1989, young people were exposed to far more uncontrolled and uncensored mass media, which similarly created images of the potential for change and revolt to which they could relate.
However, Manning's analysis of the 1989 revolutions' non-specificity in terms of...
Although some of the demonstrators in Eastern Europe did call for democracy, many others were far more interested in advancing their personal ethnic or regional right to self-determination. The tragic consequences of nationalism were made manifest in the former nation of Yugoslavia and other areas of the region in the 1990s. Even Manning admits that the nationalism that later broke out in 1991 in Germany was very different in spirit than the initial, idealistic rhetoric that was generated during the fall of the Berlin Wall. And even in 1989, the revolution's slogans around the world cannot be blended into one without ignoring specific differences: In China, despite the fact that the students were protesting against the oppression of a communist regime, the language used was specifically pro-U.S., pro-Western. Thomas Jefferson was frequently quoted, for example. This was not the case, however, in other protest movements in 1989, which were often pro-nationalist and regional in character in the former USSR.
Manning's belief in internationalism, that "in 1789, while communications were far slower and technology far more elementary than in 1989, patterns of inspiration, imitation, and mobilization were remarkable in the degree to which they anticipated the struggles that broke out two centuries later" and showed "alternation between local concerns and broad human identity appears, in this perspective, as a recurring pattern in human affairs" ultimately does not stand the full test of historical scrutiny. Some of his examples, such as the specific transmission of anti-slavery messages in 1789, can be traced from one region to another in their images and language. But his claim for a vaguer, more common sense of international 'revolutionary spirit' is less convincing, particularly when paralleling the very different rhetoric, experiences, and outcomes in China and Eastern Europe.
Work Cited
Manning, Patrick. "1789-1792 and 1989-1992: Global Interaction of Social Movements."…
