This thesis investigates the mass student movements in Paris and Mexico City in 1968. Many parts of the world experienced activism of this nature in 1968, yet scholars debate whether this was coincidental or part of a genuinely global movement. Most studies of such activism have focussed either on one country or on nations that belonged to the same region and/or were at the same level of economic development. France and Mexico were on different continents and economically and culturally distinct. Exploring the student movements in their respective capitals offers the possibility of shedding light on the global phenomenon of 1968 from a fresh perspective. The thesis adopts both a comparative and a transnational approach. The comparative approach establishes what the two movements had in common, where they diverged, and why. It contrasts their internal policies and structures with how they were presented publicly, analysing the groupings, leadership structures, role of professors, participation of foreigners, flyers, posters, icons and mass marches that constituted the two activisms. It concludes that in underlying character there were many parallels between the two. Moreover, both movements faced a similar four-stage government response: confrontation, negotiation, repression and reconciliation. The thesis also examines the degree to which the two movements were transnational in terms of their collaboration and interaction. It finds that both experienced the same cycle of international, national and transnational activism. Many students in France and Mexico were politicised for the first time through their involvement in international campaigns over issues such as Vietnam. During the phase of mass activism, however, both movements focussed mainly on national concerns. With the decline of mass activism, students from both countries began to interact together on a broader scale and a transnational dimension to the student movement became apparent.

This thesis investigates the English student movement between the years of 1965 and 1973, offering the first sustained exploration of this 'case study' of a particular type of social movement, i.e. movements of students. The research looks at this movement in relation to social movement theories, as a sociological explanation for this historical movement is sought. New , social movement theory has long been viewed and accepted by some scholars as the explanatory theory for movements such as student movements that were emerging since the 1960s. However, in this thesis I challenge this assumed dominance of New Social Movement theory in relation to the English student movement, arguing that complex social movements may require more holistic explanations in order to fully understand the features and attributes that comprise these movements. The English student movement was a complex and varied movement, with its specificities often relating to location, thus any explanation of the movement needs to be able to grant flexibility to the variances as well as the commonalities present. Sociological attention has been limited in relation to the English student movement, even though the English student movement was significant within the history of our universities as well as broader English radical traditions and left wing actions. This thesis thus attempts to right that lack of attention in some small way, making use of previously unused documentary sources and documenting the voices of those involved within the English student movement before the details of the events are consigned even further to the realms of history. The thesis looks at two stories of the movement, stressing "the importance of full understanding and theorising accordingly. The use of a theoretical synthesis, fundamentally drawing upon the work of Canel (1992), is employed in order to understand the empricial exploration of this movement. This thesis offers an orginal contribution to the understanding of the English student movement, via grounding in empirical data and sustained sociological explanation.

The thesis explores the nature of pupil resistance; it investigates what constitutes it and how it can be explained. Various ethnic and national group, male and female working-class resistance if analysed in two secondary schools in Birmingham (England) and one school in Sydney (Australia). It focuses on the pupils’ experience of school. ‘Compressed ethnographies’ (Walford and Miller, 1991) were conducted in each school to examine pupil resistance. The research found that structural societal state factors, regional, community and formal, informal and physical characteristics of each school, together with the teachers and pupils characteristics and background all influence resistance. The class, gender, ethnic and national identity of each pupil shapes resistance. In all three schools that were involved with the research, girls were more likely to exhibit overt, collective forms of resistance, whereas lads were more likely to operate alone. Islander pupils in Sydney and African-Caribbean kids in Birmingham were more likely to display engaged forms of resistance. Girls tended to show more engaged forms compared to their male counterparts across all ethnic and national cultures. Resistance is complex and dynamic, the definition alters depending upon context. Dimensions of resistance are developed; including overt, covert; individual, collective; intentional, unintentional; engaged and detached forms. Resistance operates within a structure and agency framework, the pupils can shape their own schooling experience mediated within the structures of their school, community and society. Some pupils manage their resources and the structures better than others; how the pupil manages and operates within the structures influences their resistance response. Resistance is contradictory and can reinforce the status quo. To fully understand resistance, it must be contextualised.

La thèse s'attache à rendre compte des conditions pratiques et symboliques d'appropriation par les étudiants grévistes de la seconde moitié des années 2000 en France d'une forme d'organisation, l'assemblée générale (AG), qui fait partie de leur répertoire contestataire depuis les années 1960. Il s'agit ainsi de comprendre comment des formes d'action se reproduisent d'une mobilisation à l'autre, c'est-à-dire comment des acteurs en viennent à avoir recours à l'une plutôt qu'à d'autres qu'ils connaissent, comment ils en font l'apprentissage et comment ils la transforment à la marge en la pratiquant. Elle s'appuie principalement sur une enquête ethnographique menée sur les mobilisations qu'ont connu trois sites universitaires entre 2006 et 2010. Les usages des AG sont façonnés par les luttes internes aux groupes sociaux, politiques et syndicaux impliqués dans l'espace de ces mobilisations, de sorte que leur succès tient à la fois à une entreprise symbolique de justification de ces dernières au nom de la « démocratie » par des courants minoritaires, et à leur plasticité. Elles sont en effet investies de toute une palette de rôles – qui n'ont parfois rien à voir avec des normes « démocratiques ». Elles sont ainsi promues par des militants auxquelles elles permettent d'avoir le sentiment de peser sur une masse d'étudiants, et cela d'autant plus qu'ils appartiennent à de petites organisations qui sont loin de pouvoir mobiliser autant d'adhérents. / This dissertation illuminates the practical and symbolic conditions of appropriation of general assemblies (assemblées générales – AG) by striking students in the second half of the 2000s in France. This mode of organization has been part of their contentious repertoire since the 1960s. It tries to understand the recurrence of ways of action from a mobilization to another, that is, how actors come to resort to one of them instead of others they know, how they learn how to practice it and how they slightly transform it in the process. It is mostly based on an ethnographic investigation about the mobilizations of three higher education sites between 2006 and 2010. The uses of AG are shaped by internal conflicts among the social, political and union groups which are involved in the space of these mobilizations, so that their success stems from both the symbolic entreprise of justification of them in the sake of « democracy » by minority currents, and their plasticity. Indeed, they play a whole set of roles – which sometimes have nothing to do with « democratic » norms. They are promoted by activists to whom they give the feeling that they influence a mass of students, especially as they belong to organizations which are far from being able to mobilize as many members.