Student activism is an extremely complex phenomenon. The complexity
of this phenomenon is caused by a great variety of factors. Some
of the factors are the lack of a well-organized movement with a definite
programme of principles, a lack of a foundation and the lack of a well
defined object and a lack of a planned "modus operandi”. It is further
aggravated by a wavering and doubtful objective and by the changeability,
unpredictability and even capriciousness of behaviour. This complexity
is further emphasized by the diversity of the degree of involvement
as well as the great variety of persons involved. The problem
not only concerns the individual, it stretches out into the family, into
the school, into the university, into the church, into corporative establishments,
such as military and industrial concerns. Thus, society
as a whole becomes involved.
Tremendous difficulty in research on this subject was caused by the
volume of work done by other writers who endeavoured to approach the
subject in all its diversity from one point of view only, and described
it as such, They attempted to elucidate this very complicated
phenomenon by means of a definite hypothesis. Lewis Feuer's
method of approach is for instance the generation conflict; Theodore
Roszack's is that of the awakening contra-culture; Jean-Francais
Revel favours that of a wide and diversified revolution; Charles
Reich's is that of an awakening new or third consciousness; Zbigniew
Brzezinski believes in a contra-revolutionary power; Bruno Bettelheim's
theory is that of the frustrated, superfluous youth while Marshall
McLuhan's is that of the news-media-conditioned youth, Everyone
of these points of view possesses an element of truth, but it can
lay no claim to the whole truth. In several instances the one-sided
stress of the phenomenon is an over-simplification.
One cannot understand the student-in-revolt merely by making a psychological
analysis of his complex individual personality, neither can he
be understood by giving attention only to the environmental factors
which developed his personality such as the domestic, the social, the
cultural, the economic, the educational, the religious and the political
ones. Even the study of the institutions as well as the circumstances
against which the activists’ opposition is directed, will not
supply the answer. However, all these factors must be taken into
account.
If we take everything into consideration, it seems that sociology,
moreover, pedagogical sociology as scientific discipline, will be the
best equipped to give a full picture of student activism.
In the second place, sociology is the discipline which will be able to
analize and evaluate the subject because sociology more than any other
social, science endeavours to obtain an entire picture of human
nature. It is done empirically and it examines relationships between
persons, between connections and between structures on the basis of
factual information. However, the task of sociology does not end
there.
Sociology is also a normative science; it also has a philosophical
task, viz. the theoretical analysis of the various structural principles
underlying social relationships. Sociology even questions the fundamental
religious principles underlying a subject.
The first part of the study (chapters 2 - 6) is concerned with the
results of an empirical-sociological research,
After a general orientation with regard to the seriousness and the extent
of the phenomenon of student activism in the U.S.A., two
unique examples, that of Berkeley in 1964 and that of Columbia in
1968, are discussed,
Taking into consideration the various efforts to differentiate between
the diverse types of student activists, two different kinds can be clearly
identified: The Hippies and the activists, alternatively, the culturally
alienated and the politically involved, i.e. the "alienated and the
New Left”, Certain similarities between these two exist, such as
their personalistic tendencies, their abilities, their aloofness towards
any guidance by other people or ideologies and their permissiveness.
Yet the differences are far greater. During the sixties a definite
process of polarisation became evident.
The uprooting and alienation inherent in the Hippies are much greater
in extent and intensity than that found amongst the activists. Like=
wise, tile rejection of the existing order of things as found among
youth in general differs from that found among the activists. As a
rule the Hippie's outlook is such that he refuses to be committed about
the future or about long-term objectives or plans. Orientation for
success and vocational aims are completely lacking because there is
an inherent pessimism concerning the future, as well as a complete
lack of motivation. Furthermore, the Hippie rejects existing Christian
virtues such as a sense of responsibility, self-denial, order and
self-control, while he himself reveals certain values which have been
fabricated in the workshops of liberalism and existentialism, such as
openness, spontaniety, immediate experience and licentiousness. The
obvious attitude of adults which implies that responsibility must be
assumed and that co-operation is inevitable, is also rejected by them.
They are thus unwilling to fit into the existing order, in their family
or in the wider family unit, as well as into educational institutions and
any other social order, Most students who become drop-outs are
found among this group. The Hippies are thus undermining society
from the inside to such an extent that they are turning it into a hollow
shell, by questioning the legality of the existing order through their
way of life and by ignoring the social ethical codes which is the corner
stone of every society and by replacing it with their own contra-ethics.
The “Students for Democratic Society" took the lead in the activist movement
from 1962, Until the organisation was disbanded in 1969 the
SDS went through different phases. At first, until about the middle of
1965, it had a strong political bias, when the main issues were the
Vietnam War, civil rights for Negroes and compulsory military service.
From 1965, however, it concentrated .mainly on issues concerning the
university itself. The whole campaign centred round the theme
"student power" and obtained its "charter" in this manner, From
1968 a change of direction took place, as a result of which the organisation
became more and more revolutionary. Violence was stressed,
This resulted in the politicising and radicalising of campuses sometimes
with bloody confrontations.
Two different targets at which the activists aimed their campaigns could
be distinguished, viz. contemporary society in general and more specifically
the university itself.
An inquiry into the actual number of these rebels reveals quite a confusing
picture. It is nevertheless clear that the number of students
who were actively and constantly concerned with campus riots were
comparatively low, approximately 4% to 11%.
Various methods were used by the activists in order to reach their
goal: sit-ins, teach-ins, civil disobedience, public demonstrations,
ultimatums to university authorities, bringing the university administration
into discredit, martyrdom and even violence. Towards the
end of the sixties it became apparent that violence was receiving more
and more prominence. The only answer which the "New Left" gave
to this problem, which had to be faced, was the idea of participatory
democracy. It accentuates decentralisation of management, of communal
control, local initiative and ad hoc procedures instead of traditionally
democratic patterns of control. At the universities this
concept was applied with vigour -as a result of which students were
represented on various bodies.
The Vietnam War was given more prominence over all points of conflict
or other grievances. They maintain that the war is not a true
expression of American responsible involvement in Asian politics,
but is the result of intrigue and bungling in a situation which apparently
cannot be solved.
The activists came into conflict in the universities with the process of
de-humanising as a result of the continued measure in which the
universities assumed the character or form of a multi-university and
a service station.
Basically the activist directed his criticism against the so-called
"Establishment". By this he means the comprehensive, corporate
structure which is characteristic of the liberal-democratic America
of today: the entire tremendous complex of "big government, big
business, big unions, big debts, and big educational institutions". He
withdraws from this immensely complex system and rejects everybody
who accepts the status quo of the Establishment. Still worse, he
demonstrates against it, protests against it, writes against it, and
sets fire to their buildings if needs be.
Apart from the clearly indicated issues which characterise the phenomenon
of student activism, there is a wide spectrum of underlying
factors which must be fully considered before this phenomenon can
be fully understood and adequately evaluated. This applies to a
variety of factors on the socio-cultural, economic, political, religious,
educational and philosophical levels.
On the socio-cultural level matters such as the technological revolution,
the post-modern youth, student sub-culture, generation conflict,
the crisis with the authorities and participatory democracy hits one
in the eye.
In the economic sphere it is apparent that affluence has greatly affected
the life of the rebellious student. As far as their political awareness
is concerned, there is apparently an obvious correlation between
the activist students and their parents, while certain universities and
particular academic courses have a more stimulating effect on student
activism than others.
The religious background of the rebellious students can be distinguished
from that of other students in the sense that a stronger degree of indifferentism,
secularism and neutralism is found among them. The
discontinuation of religious teaching at public schools has definitely
stimulated these tendencies. The theology of the revolution has had
a much more subtle and indirect influence on student activism. However,
it can be stated: The death-of-God theology fits the present
American mood of the post-Kennedy era, a mood calling for activism
and social change, a get-with-it mood. There are rather a markedly
large number of Jewish students in the ranks of the activists.
With regard to the educational background, the Oedipal rebellion hypothesis,
especially as advocated by Lewis Feuer and Bruno Bettelheim,
does not offer a conclusive answer to the .problem although it does
contain an element of truth. Although the rebellious student identifies
himself with his father's radical principles and ideals, he disassociates
himself from his father because of his own passivity and complainsancy.
John Dewey as one of the most important moulders of the American
educational ideal, is the father of the full-blown child-centred school
where children are able to develop naturally through personal experience
and are able to evolve by their own initiative, to reach intellectual
enrichment as well as social suitability. Discipline and authority are
not stressed in such an educational system,
Since the forties of the twentieth century, Benjamin Spock has been
adding to the same pattern and has helped with his phenomenal influence
to rear a younger generation for whom the traditional values of self-discipline,
respect for authority and desire for conventional success
have been replaced by spontaniety, immediate self-gratification and
permissiveness. This attitude is in no small measure responsible for
the activistic tendencies of the students,
From a philosophical point of view, American political and social
thinking are the spontaneous and ultimate result of Western Humanism.
It is especially noticeable in the growing secularism, in the absolutising
of the democratic ideal, in the deterministic domination of nature
as expounded in technocracy, in pragmatism and in corporative liberalism,
All these projections of Humanism serve to a greater or lesser extent
as fuel for the fire of student activism.
After the empirical investigation as described in chapters 2 to 6,
chapter 7 gives us the second main part of this work, By employing
the methods of philosophical sociology, a structural analysis of the
university as well as a description of the ideal typical place which the
student at a university should take, is given. Questions which touch
on the university as a differentiated community are the following:
its specific character, its functions, its particular relationships,
especially its involvement and close interaction with other social
groups in contemporary society, and finally its own special composition.
All these facets can for obvious reasons, only be touched on
very briefly. Everyone should, or could, be subjected to a separate
and thorough .scientific investigation, The actual object which should
be philosophically and sociologically investigated, is the student himself,
his place at the university, the particular characteristics of the student community,
his freedoms and rights, his responsibilities and his
duties towards both the university as well as the outside world, his
attitude to other components of the university, in fact, his entire typically
student personality with the prerogatives and restraints attached thereto.
Only after this has been done, the defects of the course of the modern
American university-system can be pointed out and the rebellious
student be critically judged in his true form.
It appears then that the university is an institution "sui generis",
with its own structural principles and intrinsic task-spectrum which
must be deferred to. It is and always will be a "universitas magistrorum
et scholarium" in which the student must also take his proper
place. Because of the typical composition of the university with its
particular relationships of judicial, rational authority as well as of
academic freedom, students do not have the right to control the
university. Such an assumption is based on a false premise. The
judicial aspect of the student includes his right to raise his voice in
academic matters. A plea must be made in favour of the students
being given a greater voice at every level of the university,
The third main part of this work is given in the final two chapters.
In chapter 8, by means of an evaluation, an enquiry is made into the
deepest fundamental motives of the rebellious student as well as of
the "Establishment” against which he objects. The manner in which
the student-activists have been influenced by Marx and Marcuse is
shown to be very illuminating. Student activism is even more clearly
defined when it is considered from the point of view of the religious
fundamental principles of Humanism, viz. the antinomy between nature
and freedom. The American way of life is undeniably determined by
the pole of the control of nature by the personality of the autonomous
human being.
Humanism has degenerated into a process of dehumanization. Factors
which contributed towards this are: technique, organisation, corporative
liberalism, bureaucracy and everything appertaining thereto. The
"Establishment" dominated everything.
The reaction against this is a trend which has been active in society
for some time without being obvious. Lately, it has radically,
acutely and even revolutionary erupted into student activism. The
pendulum has therefore swayed to the other side. It has become
a search for self-identity, creativity, autonomy of the human being,
and total freedom. Plumb centre of their argument is the idea that
a person must be able to be himself in total freedom. The entire
opposition against established authority is based on this, as well as
a need for a complete reversal of the existing order, the status quo.
Their propensity towards the idea of permanent revolution is rooted
in this. Nevertheless, this concerns an attempt to realise completely
the humanist-orientated concept of freedom.
We are here still concerned with Humanism as such; even radicals
can not escape "from the humanist involvement of the antinomy between
nature and freedom. The swing of the pendulum, the shifting of the
accent, the over-accentuation of the ideal of liberty, absolutising of
liberty, offers no solution. It leaves the radical inevitably in the
quagmire of permissiveness and nihilism, which are blood-brothers
of anargism.
Although the reply of the rebellious student to the problem of his time
caused by his grievances and certain of his demands, is the implementing
of the idea of participatory democracy, this must be rejected on the
grounds of practical considerations as well as on principle,
It would therefore appear that both alternatives, that of the status
quo and that of the postulate of, the revolution are unacceptable.
In the final chapter the reforming religious fundamentals are used as
a premise and an attempt is made to furnish a guide for a third
alternative: the Christian one. Taking into account the vertical
dimension which includes all scientific studies, the university can
remain true to its structural principle and perform its intrinsic task
as well as to its human relationships. Not forgetting that the power
of sin is also busy with its destructive work in the Christian university
as well as in Christian scientific study, the Christian principles,
structures and performing of functions, offers a perspective to which
the humanists are completely deficient, In this context student
activism is a complete "Fremdkörper". / Proefskrif--PU vir CHO
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NWUBOLOKA1/oai:dspace.nwu.ac.za:10394/10964 |
| Date | January 1973 |
| Creators | Duvenage, Schalk Carel Willem |
| Publisher | Potchefstroom : PU vir CHO |
| Source Sets | North-West University |
| Language | other |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0049 seconds