This piece was originally featured on .
The year 2018 marked 50 years since 1968, the high point of a seismic decade in the United States and around the world. In countless museum exhibits, academic conferences, and media retrospectives,聽many drew comparisons between 1968 and today, pointing to increasing global turbulence and a widespread sense of unease.
History professor Jeremy Varon, an American historian specializing in the 1960s, co-founded聽, the first academic journal solely devoted to scholarly study of the decade, in 2008. He recently reflected on the 1968-2018 comparison and on the ways in which we study, celebrate, and remember our past, for聽.
Research Matters聽spoke with Varon about that topic and about the more personal dimensions he brings to his research. An edited transcript of the conversation follows.
Research Matters: In your work, you discuss the idea of nostalgia and of the 鈥渁nniversary glut鈥 as a double-edged sword. You open your Editor鈥檚 Statement [in The Sixties] by stating that what you want to do in the journal is not traffic in nostalgia but provide an actual professional history 鈥 provide a memorialization of the period that is more nuanced. What do you see as the pitfalls of nostalgia? And what do you think is its power or allure?
Jeremy Varon: The 1960s, and 1968 in particular, are endlessly memorialized, especially in those societies that, during that time, underwent profound transformations. Part of that memorialization is often a reliving of that past by those who shaped it, and that memorial culture can be either superficial or substantive, depending on the media. This can be a wonderful point of entry for younger people who aren鈥檛 familiar with this period and a wonderful incitement to memory for the people who lived through it. But for a discerning professional scholar, it鈥檚 a mixed bag: There鈥檚 exposure of an important era that I鈥檝e dedicated my life to studying professionally, but yet a kind of reduction of history to a set of ruling cliches.
I define nostalgia as an affection for one鈥檚 past simply because it was one鈥檚 past. Engaging the 鈥60s beyond nostalgia involves a combination of assiduous historical study that tries to understand the alchemy that produced a singularly robust era of global revolt in the history of human civilization. History never fully goes away; it is with us, and we live with it. Still, half a century later, the 鈥60s represent an epic frame of reference 鈥 partly mythological 鈥 to which people appeal when they want to champion justice, confront illegitimate power, and advance the project of human liberation. In my work and in the journal, we try to honor both: detached scholarly analysis and then ethically and existentially engaged connection with a history that I see as an unfinished project.
RM: I鈥檓 interested in the personal aspect of it for you. What are the elements of the 鈥60s to which you鈥檙e most drawn in your research?
JV: I was born in 1967. As a child, I was obsessed with the 鈥60s and wanted to participate in whatever of it was still available to me. [By college in the 1980s], my life consisted of reading philosophy and literature, playing the guitar with friends, and ceaselessly protesting while living in what was essentially a campus commune. I saw myself as in some sense trying to deeply realize the ethical vision of the 1960s' movers and shakers: Martin Luther King, Abbie Hoffman, Malcolm X 鈥 people I saw as these larger-than-life moral superheroes. When I started to study the era in a more sophisticated way, I remained inspired by the genuine heroism but also very curious about the moral and political complexities of the era.
RM: You write that your hope for聽The Sixties聽journal, which celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2018, is to sharpen and expand the terms of established debates and open up new ones. What debates about the 鈥60s were ongoing in 2008?
JV: The journal was founded during a time at which there was no such thing as 鈥1960s studies.鈥 It was explicitly meant to be a catalyst for an emerging subfield as opposed to a disciplinary reorientation. I think the journal has succeeded in being the kind of home that has helped the field evolve. The single greatest evolution has been the maturation聽of the idea of the global 鈥60s 鈥 that there were spirited revolts that were happening almost synchronically in diverse settings throughout the world and that to understand the 鈥60s deeply you had to understand that the causes of this unbelievable synchronicity far transcended coincidence. By now, the global 鈥60s as a framing concept has achieved a kind of hegemony and I think it鈥檚 increasingly understood that the grand narrative in which the revolts of the 鈥60s participated was decolonization: the "Third World" trying to liberate itself from the chains of colonialism, inspiring in the process all kinds of freedom struggles that might exist outside of an explicit colonial context.
As to where we have broken new ground, I would point to an essay about East Germany鈥檚 adoption of the paper dress, which was invented by Andy Warhol and other Western pop artists, as a kind of disposable art that made some comment on mass consumer culture. In East Germany at the time, they had a shortage of cotton and needed to produce things cheaply. So they marketed this paper dress as a kind of wearable fashion. Though it was the product of decadent, bourgeois Western modernism, East Germany also wanted their youth to participate just enough in the global youth culture so they wouldn鈥檛 feel left out and disdainful toward their elderly communist masters. That鈥檚 what I call a 鈥済lobal 鈥60s adventure story,鈥 where you have the migration and resignification of certain texts, artifacts, and impulses in disparate geographies, conditioned by geopolitical and economic conflicts.
A second landmark essay is a major rethinking of the counterculture by David Farber. He used the concept of 鈥渞ight livelihood,鈥 a Buddhist idea 鈥 that young people wanted to separate themselves from the crassly materialistic mainstream and live lives of meaning, but also had to earn enough money to have a proper livelihood. The essay provides a reinterpretation of the counterculture not simply as the enemy of white-collar, soul-deadening bureaucracy, but a movement of young people who went to work to try to build, if only in small ways, a more humane society. Farber鈥檚 essay is absolutely required reading for anybody who does anything new with the idea of the counterculture.
RM: Bill Clinton once said, 鈥淚f you look back on the 鈥60s and think there was more good than harm, you鈥檙e probably a Democrat. If you think there was more harm than good, you鈥檙e probably a Republican.鈥 I鈥檓 interested in the way that the 鈥60s, and especially the memory of this time and the way we make meaning of this era, defines political lines. How do you see that playing out?
JV: I would argue that the memory wars over the 鈥60s are ongoing. Clinton鈥檚 diagnosis more or less still holds. Many people have said that Trump鈥檚 鈥淢ake America Great Again鈥 slogan is a reference to a pre-1960s past, where white supremacy was substantially uncontested; [second-wave] feminism hadn鈥檛 yet happened; America was very much a white, Christian nation, as defined by the people at the top of social and cultural ladder. Progressive America, broadly defined, wants to deepen values of pluralism, ecological stewardship, emancipation 鈥 the hallmarks of the 鈥60s.
There are, however, twists. For example, a lot of conservatives see themselves as today鈥檚 great rebels, fighting against the politically correct, progressive Hollywood-Beltway establishment. The younger set of conservatives feel like they are the ones who are authentically fighting a new kind of liberal establishment.
RM: What are some of the ways in which you as a historian have been challenged and have challenged other people to push past that kind of easy division of the '60s between 鈥渋t was mostly good鈥 and 鈥渋t was mostly bad鈥?
JV: I would say that the single greatest example is how I present the ultraradicalism of the Weathermen. People who denounce the Weathermen think that I鈥檓 an apologist for terrorism, while people who are closer to their vision think that I represent some kind of liberal mainstream that marginalizes radicalism. I don鈥檛 think that either of these accusations is true or fair, and neither speaks to the complexity with which I try to present a morally and politically complex history.
My other intervention is to get my colleagues to recognize that our sustained interest in the 1960s isn鈥檛 simply because a lot of important stuff happened then. Its enduring appeal is the power of its political and moral world-changing vision of a more just and more free world. And more and more, as I get deeper and deeper into this identity, I鈥檓 owning that sense of wanting to sustain a legacy of contestation in how I do my scholarship and, in a deeper sense, how I live my life. And that has meant a return to that sense of awe I had as a young boy looking at this history just out of my reach, one that seemed almost infinite in its mandate to future generations to struggle in their own times and in their own terms to make a better world.