"Men talked of revolution in France in the spring of 1968, and students thought they had begun one." (Gurr, 1970, p347).

The events of May and June 1968 were for many in the Western world, entirely unprecedented. One of Europe's most entrenched capitalist regimes was shaken to it's foundations by its own students, bent on revolution and the overthrow of the system. Was this really the case, or merely a romantic account of the circumstances? In this essay I will objectively consider whether revolution was really on the agenda for the student movement. In order to achieve this objective from a social science perspective, I shall identify a suitable theory of revolution and apply it to the student movement to assess how revolutionary the movement was. I will also identify three crucial factors that indicate that the movement was not fundamentally revolutionary. Prior to discussing these factors, and before applying any theory, it is necessary to provide a brief chronological outline of the May-June events. Firstly though, a number of terms require definition, starting with that of a ‘movement'.

It may be argued that to talk of a student ‘movement' is somewhat misleading, since viewed from a social science perspective, did it actually constitute a social movement? Sidney Tarrow believed that there are four basic properties of social movements: collective challenge; common purpose; solidarity; and sustained collective action (Tarrow, 1994, pp4-6). He claims that it is the fourth property that distinguishes a social movement from "riots, rebellions and general turbulence" (Tarrow, 1994, p5). Although, even if the events in May and June of 1968 lacked sustained action, the sheer intensity of what did occur, involving as it did a large homogenous group of students united with a common purpose and identity, does qualify the students as a ‘movement' in the political action sense.

The term ‘revolutionary' refers in this context to wishing to cause revolution. Therefore it is necessary to define revolution, and for a simple definition I shall cite Peter Calvert,

"‘revolution' may be understood throughout as referring to events in which physical force (or the convincing threat of it) has actually been used successfully to overthrow a government or regime" (Calvert, 1970, p15).

Failed movements are termed by Calvert as rebellions, revolts, insurrections or uprisings, perhaps any of which can be applied to the occurrences of May and June rather than the actual term ‘revolution' as preferred by some (Seale & McConville, 1968; Lefebvre, 1969). It is paramount, however, not to prejudge the goals of the student movement by its eventual ineffectiveness. Instead the goals of the student movement should be considered objectively to ascertain whether or not the intention of overthrowing the regime was a factor, as laid down by Calvert. A more complex examination of what constitutes ‘revolutionary' is necessary, and in light of this, the theory I shall apply to determine the revolutionary nature of the student movement is that developed by Charles Tilly (1978).

Tilly theorises an important distinction between revolutionary situations and revolutionary outcomes. An outcome is defined simply as "the displacement of one set of power holders by another" (Tilly, 1978, p193) and this patently did not occur in France in 1968, neither by revolutionary or electoral means, that avenue need not be pursued any further. A revolutionary situation on the other hand is seen as

"the presence of more than one bloc effectively exercising control over a significant part of the state apparatus... Multiple sovereignty is then the identifying feature of revolutionary situations." (Tilly, 1978, pp190-191).

For Tilly, a revolutionary situation can only arise within the narrow confines of the state apparatus. Again, this did not occur in France 1968. However, this restrictive notion of what constitutes a revolutionary situation can be dismissed when utilising Tilly's seven-stage model. The seven stages that constitute a ‘idealized revolutionary sequence' are:

1. gradual mobilization of contenders with claims to governmental control or claims unacceptable to existing government;
2. rapid increase in support for contenders;
3. unsuccessful attempts at government suppression of contenders;
4. contenders establish control over some portion of government;
5. struggle to maintain or expand control;
6. reconstruction of single polity through victory of either government or contenders;
7. re-imposition of routine government by victorious coalition.
(from Tilly, 1978, pp216-217).

I shall apply this theory to the French student movement in order to measure its ‘revolutiuonary-ness', but first it is necessary to examine the historical circumstances.

Prior to introducing a chronological outline of the major incidents, it is necessary to view the events of May-June 1968 with respect to the wider historical climate. The ideological political mood within the developed world in 1968 can be placed in the context of the New Left, an updated and revisionist adaptation of Marxist and left-wing theory that spawned or rejuvenated a wide variety of other related ideologies such as anarchism, feminism and environmentalism. At the same time, new life was also breathed into classical Marxist theory, along with the deriviants; Maoism, Trotskyism and Leninism. The influence of these ideologies was evident in the student movement in France, if not within the established political parties, as even the French Communist Party (PCF) had long since abandoned its revolutionary manifesto. The late 1960s were also a period of significant change on a more physical level. The Civil Rights movement was strong in the USA and had spread across to Europe, gaining a stronghold in Northern Ireland. 1968 also saw in Europe the ‘Prague Spring'; an attempt to put into practice the newly revised Marxism. In France itself philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sarte and political theorists such as Louis Althusser, along with the German - American Herbert Marcuse, were seen to be the physical embodiment of libertarian New Left thinking by the enlightened students.

Within France itself, the return of Charles de Gaulle to power in 1958 as President of the Fifth republic, prompting right-wing government. The Algerian War of the early 1960s resulted in Algerian independence being granted, amidst a sea of protests in France. Similar protests against the involvement of America in Vietnam in the mid-1960s were also prevalent, even resulting in arson attacks on US banks in Paris. De Gaulle's policy on nuclear armament also came under heavy criticism, as many believed this was deflecting funds away from vital social and educational investment (Thackrah, 1993, p121).

Nowhere was this lack of funding more clearly evident than in the university sector. Between the end of World War II and the mid -1960s there was a 400% rise in the student population in France, whilst the number of lecturers and facilities, along with graduate employment prospects, remained constant (Absalom, 1971, p3). Indeed the situation became bad enough for the Education Minister at the time Peyrefitte to liken it to "organising a shipwreck to see who could swim" (cited in Hanley & Kerr, 1989, p4). In an era of intellectual enlightenment and prosperity, demands were voiced by the students for rapid and far-reaching improvements. When these did not materialize, demonstrations against the university system began at Nanterre, which was a particularly bleak university campus on the outskirts of Paris. The unrest at Nanterre initially led to an occupation of the University's administration block, staged on the 22nd March 1968 by 142 students. This was under the direction of the inspirational anarchist student Daniel Cohn-Bendit, and the ‘Mouvement du 22 Mars' was born. This movement represented the marriage of Trotskyite, Maoist and Anarchist ‘groupuscules' under one umbrella, united by the common goal of improved educational facilities. This motive was later interpreted to have developed into demands for a revolutionary overhaul of the entire political system, partly due to the ideological roots of the groups and partly due to the liberated new left political climate prevalent amongst the students.