The English Student Movement: An Evaluation of The Literature

Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1539–1552, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00138.
The English Student Movement: An Evaluation

of the Literature
Esmee Hanna*
School of Sociology and Social policy, The University of Leeds
Abstract
This article explores the state of the field of student movement research. I suggest
there could be seen to be stagnation within the field of investigation, and resultant
under-researching of some countries student movements, and I will make specific
reference to the student movement of England in the late 1960s/early 1970s as a
case in point of this. I argue that there has been unsatisfactory sole-causalities, such
as issues of youth, issues seen as ‘triggers’, and political factors, attributed to the
English student movement, and that this fails both to understand fully the significance
and individuality of the English student movement, but also assumes a fit with New
social movement (NSM) theory. I argue that we cannot automatically equate NSM’s
and student movements without thorough empirical research, and that we need
to look to a synthesis of social movement theories in order to understand fully
student movements.
The analysis of student movements can be said to be a field of enquiry now

devolved to those studying history. Whilst interest in the phenomena which
occurred in the period broadly discussed as ‘the sixties’ (The specific timeframe
for investigation within my research is 1965–1973, dates selected based solely
upon action, i.e. when protest episodes occurred.) makes sporadic appearances
within academic discussions (namely around anniversaries of ‘1968’ which
is often viewed as the pinnacle of student protest in ‘the west’) within the
field of social movements, and more generally sociology, the importance of
student movements often appears to be case closed. This view, however,
I will contend, misses both the importance of student movements and makes
a priori assumptions about social movement theories, both of which I suggest
require challenging within sociology today.
By the student movement (as an object of study), I refer to the actions
and events that took place on campuses, involved those classified by their
position within an institution of learning (i.e. students, both undergraduates
and postgraduates), and these events could also be classified under the auspices
of being a ‘social movement’. Social movements can be suggested to be
‘... a collective, organized, sustained and noninstitutional challenge to author-
ities, powerholders, or cultural beliefs and practices’ (Goodwin and Jasper
© 2008 The Author
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1540 The English Student Movement
2003, 3), and whilst there are a number of ways in which social move-
ments can, and are, defined, this is the broad definition that I shall be
referring to within the context of this paper. This paper comes out of my
current research, which specifically focuses on the English student move-
ment, although within the course of this paper, I will also be referring to
student movements as a global phenomenon, in order to assess the field
of study and the location of English student protest within this sphere. By
the English student movement, I am referring to events that occurred within
England alone. The higher education systems of Wales and Scotland are
different to those in England, and I also preclude Northern Ireland due to
the difference of the Northern Irish context (specifically civil rights), as
student unrest in Northern Ireland was often related to specificities of the
territory. Excellent analysis of the student protest in Northern Ireland is
also available in a way that is not true of England; for example, see Arthur
(1974) and Prince (2006). As Rootes’ suggests ‘... student movements are
creatures of the societies in which they occur and as such they evince, in
variable measure, all the excellences and deformities of their circumstances’
(1980, 473); thus, each counties student movement is unique to that territory,
and resultantly, the researching of a single country such as England is both
necessary and justifiable.
Student unrest was prevalent, as denoted via my timeframe for investi-
gation, during the period of 1965–1973 within England. During this time,
some twenty universities and art schools experienced student action, with
some institutions being troubled by unrest for many years, for example, at
the London school of economics. Sit-in’s ranged from a few days as in the
case of Leeds University, to a number of weeks in the case of Hornsey
College of art. The protest episodes together combined to make the
movement currently under discussion.
This paper aims to critically reflect upon the state of the field in terms
of the student movement within sociology today. I want to argue that the
ways in which the English student movement have been discussed previously
is unsatisfactory in terms of our understanding of not only the student
movement, but of social movement theories generically. The ‘fit’ that is
seen to exist between the ‘New social movement (NSM) theory’ and the
student movement is perhaps more tenuous than purported and is in definite
need of further testing in order to move forward both scholarship of student
movements and social movement theory more generally. Whilst some may
suggest that this is an ‘old’ debate, it is however an unexplored debate in
relation to the understanding of English student unrest, which is perhaps
sufficient justification for returning to the debate. Whilst contemporaneous
social movements may not be explained via NSM theory, this does not
remove the need to revisit NSM theory in order to explore the relevance
it held and perhaps still holds in explaining student movements, especially
given the correlation often presumed apriori between student movements
and NSM’s.
© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1539–1552, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00138.x
The English Student Movement 1541
Broadly, how we understand the student movement, I will argue, bears

great relevance on how we think about and use ‘NSM theory’ for analysing
social movements. I endeavour to firstly outline the connections that are seen
to exist between NSM theory and student movements, before moving to
discuss the void that exists within the field of enquiry. I will then outline
the ways in which the student movement has been discussed within the
literature, and draw specific conclusions about the shortcomings of these
explanations in terms of understanding the student movement holistically,
before outlining the ways in which the field needs to develop in order to gain
more conclusive sociological insights into student movements and social move-
ment theory more generally.
NSM theory and the student movement: Co-dependents?

Student movements have been portrayed within social movement literature
as being a watershed within movement definition in theoretical typologies
(for example, see Crossley 2002; Byrne 1997). Social movements preceding
the student movement are what some theorists now call the ‘old’ type of
movement, and they predominated pre-1960s (Della Porta and Diani 1999),
such as the workers movement. With the student movement came what
is perceived as a shift, new characteristics and actions, the novelty of which
classified the student movement (and those movements claimed to be born
from it) as the ‘new’ form of social movement action within the social world.
The student movement for example utilised new action repertoires, such
as ‘sit-ins’ and ‘teach-ins’, making use of forms of direct action that did
not feature in the repertoire of the ‘old’ movements. The impact of this
‘new’ species of movement has been seen as particularly important within
European social movement theory, whereby new theories, what we now
know as ‘NSM theory’ (characterised by the work of Habermas 1971; Melucci
1989; Touraine 1971) were developed as a response to the changing movement
climate and the apparently changing world in which the space for such
movements to emerge existed. It is suggested that, ‘Scholars of new movements
agreed that conflict among the industrial classes is of decreasing relevance,
and similarly that representation of movements as largely homogenous subjects,
is no longer feasible’ (Della Porta and Diani 1999, 11–12). There was therefore
a shift in the way in which theoretical explanations of social movements
had to fit in order to explain the new priorities within the social world,
specifically changing capitalist society and moreover the changing ‘active’
classes (i.e. middle class radicalism; see, for example, Parkin 1968). These new
features of social life led to new issues and orientations in terms of social
movements that had not been the concerns of the ‘old’ social movements,
characterised by the idea that the personal became political, and could thus
no longer be discussed via the same social movements dialogues, and as
briefly discussed in the introduction, the student movement is often held up
as a case in point of this theoretical watershed.
Student movements
In light of the importance some place upon the student movement as discussed
above, and its critical role in the development of NSM theories, it remains
surprising that there still remains no systematic study of some countries
student movements. Whilst key attention has been paid to specifically France
(perhaps given the violence, militancy and impact the student movement
managed to generate within the country), though also Germany and Italy and
the USA, this application of academic endeavour has not been forthcoming
in relation to England and its student movement. It has been suggested that
‘No year has been written about more in relation to student activism, no year
is more mythologized or brings more sighs of melancholic yearning to aging
activists, than what has come to be known as the year of the student, 1968’
(Edelman Boren 2001, 149). Edelman Boren is correct: 1968 has been glori-
fied, vilified and vigorously scrutinised, but 1 year does not make a movement
and the consensus stemming from statements such as this is that 1968 and
the analysis of it explains all. One size does not however fit all, and the events
of France are remarkably different to England. Rationally, therefore, it makes
little sense to correlate the two, and even though the English student move-
ment has been differentiated from French events through explanations of
it being ‘tokenistic’ (see Stratera 1975) or ‘echoes of the storm’ (Marwick 1998,
585), this disdain for the English events does not actually serve to separate
out the various countries movements. Claiming that English student unrest
was the poorer cousin of the USA or continental Europe’s student move-
ments (Ellis 1998) is perhaps largely an irrelevant endeavour (particularly
given the scale of the protest episodes witnessed in England) when no attempt
to explain or understand the English student movement has been forth-
coming and when the same theories are applied to explain each and every
student movement. Thus, whilst NSM’s may be based on the student move-
ment (or so some authors claim), the theory has not actually been wholly
tested. It is my contention that perhaps we overlook some key features of
not only the English student movement, but also student movements more
generally, via subscription to the unsubstantiated notion that the student
movement equates to NSM.
The lack of systematic empirical enquiry into the English student movement
in academic work is therefore demonstrated by the conjecture regarding NSM’s
equalling student movements as stated above. It could be suggested that
the English student movement has consistently been under-researched, thus
creating a void in the wider social movements field of enquiry. This intellectual
bypassing may be due to a number of features of the English movement
itself, such as the lack of violence and impact when taken in comparison to
the apparent ‘model’ of student protest, France, but also the lack of celebration
of dissidence that often appears to exist within English society. However, the
English student movement managed to mobilise a greater number of students
than ever witnessed before (Fraser 1988) and the legacies of student radicalism
are still evident within our universities today (e.g., student representation on
university committees and senates, as well as through their greater rights
within the institutions) so I purport that we can not simply dismiss the
minimalism of previous research within the field as a reason to continue to
overlook a key facet of England’s rebellious history, especially in the face of
obvious inference about the meanings of the English student movement.
Ways of explanation: Fragments of the picture

Having outlined the situation of the English student movement in terms of
the academic field, I want to now move to look at some of the explanations
that have been proffered to explain student movements (and which are often
by default suggested to be applied to the English movement even though
as discussed, there is less investigation of the movement as compared to other
countries movements) in order to outline the state of the field as I perceive
it, and so as to provide a framework in which to explain the ways in which
student movement analysis could perhaps progress.
Within the student movement literature set, I have outlined three major
explanatory themeatics that I wish to explore, and these I will call (for typology
purposes): (i) Issues of youth, (ii) Issue specifics and (iii) Political context.
Issues of youth
The student protest witnessed globally within the late 1960s and 1970s could
in a number of ways been seen to have been ‘trivialised’ by the literature.
The most common way in which this has occurred is through the notion
of ‘follies of youth’. Specifically, youth is seen as a time of rebellion and
desire to rebel is merely a symptom of a phase, which young persons will
‘grow out of ’. This argument is therefore embedded in discourses related
to youth/adulthood as well as notions of maturity versus immaturity. Some
authors have therefore argued that protest in the young is due to an excess
of energy they have due to their age or developmental stage (Rooke 1971).
Whilst this is a somewhat essentialist explanation, it does highlight the way
in which the significance and/or importance of student movements can,
and has been, explained away (which could be argued is very apt in relation
to the English student movement). It is often suggested that there is something
obvious about the relationship between young people and political rebellion,
Altbach for example suggests this through the concept of ‘flux’, ‘... the
period of adolescence is one of adjustment and change, and this cannot but
have repercussions on the educational, social, and political attitudes of the
students’ (Altbach 1967, 78). Whilst I do not intend to argue that youth as
a time of change, as the period for cementing your values and worldviews
is untrue, it alone is inadequate to explain student movements. How can
youthfulness explain the explosion of student protest during the 1960s and
1970s and its subsequent demise within the social world? Students are (not
withstanding mature students) always characterised by ‘youthfulness’; thus,

by default in the ‘youthful argument’, they should always be politically
rebellious. Yet, this does not appear to be the case: students today do not
in fact seem to highly prioritise political engagement in mainstream form,
let alone in radical form (Hanna 2005).
This issue of a default situation being disproved by reality can also be
applied to the second element of the ‘issues of youth’ I wish to touch upon.
In a related but slightly distinct stance, the student movement literature body
also propounds the idea that there is something about the university space
than engenders young people to become politically conscious. The university
is seen as the ‘site par excellence’ for critical engagement (Altbach 1967), and
this educational training combined with the university space, as a ‘critical hub’
in which intellectual currents and persons are very closely situated spatially
(Gusfield 1971), is seen as the ‘melting pot’ in which student movements can
burst forth. The university is therefore seen as the means for radicalising
young people (Parkin 1968); it is the magnetic force that youthful radicalism
is pulled towards. However, in terms of explaining the student movement
as a social movement, this notion contains the very same problematics as
the idea of youthful enthusiasm; why is the university not in a permanent
state of radicalism? Why did the student movement emerge within the specific
epoch? Recent work within this area to address such questions (see Crossley
2008), via the use of a model based around critical mass and networks (: 36)
has emerged, but requires more investigation to translate them into a useful
theoretical tool for explanation of student unrest.
An explanation that can perhaps address this discrepancy created by the
other ideas relating to youth is the idea of generational conflict. Generations
relate to a specific time period, thus can explain epochal specificities in a
way that continuous factors (such as youthfulness and universities) cannot.
Stating that the student movement was related to age (i.e. youth), relies on
a life cycle–based notion of a generation (i.e. young and old), the alternative
conceptualisation of the generation is based in the notion of a generational
unit, that the experiences of those persons are a result of broader societal factors
of being young at that particular time, rather than just a product of being
young. As Searle (1972) and others (e.g., see Edmunds and Turner 2002)
suggest, this notion of generations can help explain why the students of
the 1960s/1970s were more sensitive to social questions than other generations
had previously (and as we reflect now, since) been.
One of the maxims of the student movement was ‘Don’t trust anyone
over thirty’ (Siegfried 2006, 68), and this clearly highlights the distaste that
the students of the time felt for the ‘older’ generation. Social and cultural
changes during the 1950s had led to the students of the late 1960s being
brought up in a more affluent society where ideas about parenting had evolved
(Searle 1972); thus, there were new values instilled and developed by the
young as they reached maturity. This coupled with the culture of the time,
specifically ‘Counter-culture’, and the types of lifestyles that emerged in this
era (i.e. hippy and drug culture) was very much an antithesis of what had gone
before and demarcated students from the older generations in very oblique
ways (Levitt 1984). The engagement in political protest via student movements
was therefore part of the generational schism that was opening up; students
resisted, and moreover wanted to overhaul, what they saw as the outdated
values of the previous generation. It has also been claimed that this rebellion
was further provoked by the unwillingness of the ‘older generation’ to give
any validity to the student movement as a serious challenge to Western society
(McGuigan 1968); rather the older generation reverted to the ideas of it
merely being youthful high-jinks which would be ‘grown out of ’, and this
further entrenched the students opposition to the preceding generations.
Some have argued that this type of oppositional cycle leads to hardening of
the radicals and creates their own ‘generational consciousness’, which can
be likened to working class consciousness (Feuer 1969).
Whilst the issue of ‘generational conflict’ goes further in terms of explaining
the student movement, in comparison with other ‘issues of youth’ I have
discussed here, it is not without problems as an explanatory tool. It could
be argued that generational conflict is but a subset of the idea that young
people rebel by virtue of youth, which moves us no further forwards in
terms of understanding the student movement. There is also the question
of whether there can ever be a fit between notions of generational dispute
and NSM theory. Indeed, Habermas (1971), a key architect of the theory
we now know as NSM theory, suggested that the rebellion of students was
not against their parents, and that using terms such as ‘liberated generation’
were generally unhelpful in the explanation of the student movement. It
has also been suggested that actually the level of generational conflict has
been vastly overstated (Siegfried 2006), and if the older generation were
unsympathetic to student protests, that may be more a reflection of their
own age-related conservatisms than the students radicality and rebellion
from them (Spaeth 1969).
Therefore, in terms of issues of youth, the means for explaining the student
movement seems painfully full of contradictions and problems, the issue
of why the student movement arose at that juncture in the places it did and
in the form it did is somewhat overlooked, perhaps another means of writing
out of history a key trajectory in the radical past of the social world. I will
therefore move to the second theme I have identified in the student move-
ment literature to demonstrate another way in which the student movement
has been explained.
Issue specifics
One of the difficulties with analysing social movements is demarcating when
they started and why. Within the literature on student movements, there are
numerous discussions of ‘triggers’ and ‘detonators’ (New Left Review editorial
1968), and it appears that often the causalities of the initial protest actions
are translated into explanations for the broader movement (i.e. it started
because of x so that must be the ‘meaning’ of the movement), thus forgetting
that a ‘detonator’ is what starts the initial explosion, not the reason why
there is an explosion initially. Whilst there is always a need for a force to
propel persons into action, usually the ‘sacred topic’ (Searle 1972, 14) over
which persons rally is an outward symptom of a more general malaise;
however, putting this aside, I will outline the types of issues seen to catalyse
student rebellion during the student movements witnessed in the 1960s/
1970s.
An undeniably important and oft mentioned issue that appears in almost
all the student movement literature was the Vietnam War. Some argue that
Vietnam was the mobilising force behind student movements (Levitt 1984);
it was the common ground on which students of differing views and values
could converge and perhaps this external pull drew them together and from
this a movement of other issues was born. The importance of Vietnam in
relation to the student movements is widely shown in American research,
but there exists no comparable research relating to English student protest
(Blackstone and Hadley 1971), so once again perhaps, the under-researched
country (England) is being explained without substantiation on the premise
that what ‘fits’ in terms of explanations in the USA will ultimately fit in
England; thus, the notion of assumed similarity between all student movements
is displayed once more. Some authors have argued against the notion that
Vietnam can explain the European situation, suggesting that national issues
affecting the student group of each country were actually more important
within student movements (Anderson 1999–2000). The rationale for Vietnam
being less important (though by no means unimportant, vast numbers of
students were involved in the Vietnam solidarity campaign in England) to
European students was the detachment from the war via notions of personal
impact. The draft was a stark reality to American students, its importance
in their protests undoubtedly influenced by this and seen through symbolic
burning of draft cards. However, the opposition to Vietnam in England was
more on the level of anti-war, peace and the resultant moral stances; American
students were perhaps closer to the War, and this has clear resonance to the
students in America. Different countries student movements were all variant,
and this is something the literature and its means of accounting the movements
sometimes overlooks. Whilst there may be some literature (as mentioned
above) that attempts to draw apart the different movements, and suggest they
were not all reducible to the obvious, visible causes such as Vietnam, there
is still the lack of empirical engagement to detail the specific causalities and
triggers in the English movement.
Another issue that can perhaps be applied generically to English protest,
as well as that of other countries, is the issue of the media and its coverage
of the events. Although once again I would argue that this is not an account
of the reasons for a student movement but rather a factor or feature within
the student movement landscape. The media, as the global phenomenon
we know it to be today, was ‘coming of age’ in the era of student movements

(Kurlansky 2004). Some suggest that the media made the world seem smaller,
and thus the international ideal of a student movement possible (Miles 2003),
something perhaps unthinkable in a pre-global media era. Some go so far
as to claim, ‘The widespread television publicity and the glamorized television
version of student demonstrations has, I believe, been one of the main factors
in the spread, nationally and internationally, of student revolt’ (Searle 1972,
33). Thus, we appear to have returned to the notion of ‘pale imitations’ that
is often vocalised regarding the English student movement. Searle seems
to be claiming that seeing other student revolt led to others revolting. We
could therefore infer that some student movements were ‘real’ or initial ones,
and others merely copycat events of other more main events (with English
student protest being firmly situated as the latter copycat style type according
to the picture painted by the literature).
Whilst there is no doubt, the media can inspire (today’s celebrity saturated
media readily suggests that imitation sells) whether we choose to take the
more cynical stance and merely account for student movements via imitation
is a different matter; again, it seems another means in which we can just
explain away student movements, and we can perhaps justify our lack of
engagement with them on the grounds they were not all ‘real’ but imitated
events. Suggesting that the media ‘caused’ a social movement once again
appears to sidestep the issue; the media may have projected, but something
must have sparked and sustained the revolt in order for such coverage to
ever come to fruition, and thus needs to be assessed within the context
of other factors. It is other such contexts that I will now move to explore
in the last of my literature themes.
Political context
The period in which student movements emerged, and I have England
specifically in mind regarding this, was a political context that was perhaps
more conducive to a student movement than previous political times had
been. The shift from an ‘old’ to ‘new’ left can be seen as intimately connected
to the shift between old type and new, social movements. The new left
marked a new era in leftist politics, and this was a much more fashionable
left attuned to the students of the era. A shift from class-centred politics
is perhaps the base line at which we can distinguish old and new left (Caute
1988). An almost symbiotic relationship between the new left and students
can be identified, with the blurring of political and cultural often occurring
under the auspices of the new left. This was visible through the left-wing
press that emerged at the time; this cultural/political medley perhaps saw
the ‘youth’ further invigorating an already ‘new’ project (Chun 1993). The
major question, unresolved by the literature I would argue, is whether the
radicalisation of the students led them to the new left or vice-versa. There
is also some debate over how the history of the new left has been written
(e.g., see Thompson 1996), which obviously impacts upon our analysis of
events in relation to the new left.
Again, the new left ideas have been rolled out ‘en-masse’ to explain all
student movements, and even within the English experience, this does not
necessarily work. Some student unrest in England has clear links and ties to
new left politics, and is steeped in the rhetoric of this political transition
others, however are clearly not. For example, Hornsey art college had one
of the longest sit-ins in the English student movement; yet, were those
involved claimed they were resolutely un-political in their aims, with educa-
tional reform its sole raison d’etre (Staff and Students of Hornsey College of
Art 1969). Whilst it is could clearly be argued that educational reform is
itself a political aim, the students involved at Hornsey believed it not to
be, but clearly political aims by default depend upon the definition of ‘political’
being employed. In contrast however, the London School of economics is
argued to be the classic model of a new left student elite in action (Caute
1988). Variations existed even within movements, which further highlights
the importance of taking each student movement as a separate entity, a specific
subject of analysis rather than a generic whole divisible to the same explana-
tions. Other ‘political explanations’ such as Pinner’s (1971) ‘Marginal elites’
theory and Kornhauser’s (1968) ‘Mass society’ theory and, to a lesser extent,
Rootes’ (1980) notion of ‘moral strain’ suffer similar fates to the new left
explanation. They lack thorough and detailed application and testing to
the movements in question and thus create more questions than they answer.
Specifically in terms of the English situation where an under-researched event
combined with under-applied theories creates an academic situation in which
little can be conclusively deduced.
From past to future: Developing sociological insights about

the student movement
An ‘issue/causality’ that I have chosen to isolate from the literature typologies
outlined above, used often to explain European student unrest, rather then
the American student movement, is structural changes in society. This is
where we can situate NSM theory as emerging and developing from. The
fundamental premise behind this argument was that ‘... the revolt must
somehow be related to the fact that it took place in a mature industrial society
undergoing further transformation at a rapid pace’ (Brown 1974, 36–37). The
theorists behind such stances, such as Aron, Touraine, Crozier and Habermas,
all shared the belief that perhaps looking closely at student protest could
shed light on the nature of modern society (ibid). We thus once again return
to the inferred importance of the student movement that I detailed at the
outset. There is somewhat of a cyclical rationality at play here, structural
changes led to the student movements; yet, the student movement leads
us to view the structural changes in society. Therefore, if the importance
placed on the student movement by these structural change ideas, and
theories of NSM’s by proxy, is deemed to be valid and useful, we must

therefore look to better ways in which we can explain and understand the
student movements in order to fully give credit to the importance of such
movements.
The deduced notion that NSM’s equate to student movements (which
I by no mean assume is a view held by all, but often appears as such in
the literature) needs challenging, we need to separate out the two elements,
NSM theory needs testing for its success as a tool of explaining student
movements. By stating that structural changes give rise to student movements,
NSM theory firmly gives us causal explanations of student movements, but
this is only an answer to the question of ‘why does the student movement
occur’, and this is only part of the picture. In looking at the ‘why’ of social
movement emergence, the ‘how’ element is almost wholly neglected (which
is where the importance of resource mobilisation theory (RMT), which is
a social movement theory that suggests the reason some social grievances
come to fruition in terms of being translated into movements is due to the
availability of resources to the movement (Byrne 1997), can be seen to come
into its own). It is my contention that any sociological reconstruction and
analysis of a social movement needs to ensure that all component factors
of the movement are explored. ‘New Social Movement theories could be
used to provide answers as to why movements are “new” in terms of shifts
and long-term changes in the structure of society (post-industrialism) and
resource mobilisation to investigate how new social conflicts and grievances
are turned into visible and more or less organised forms’ (Sutton 2000, 19).
Sutton therefore hits upon a key factor that appears to be missing from
alternative means through which the student movement is explored within
the literature; singular factors are assumed to be the key to explanation.
Why would a complex phenomenon be reducible to a singular cause? This
premise seems to be the problem at the heart of the literature and previous
discussion of student movements; there is always a move to reduce the student
movement to the lowest common denominator, be it via using one explanatory
factor or assuming we can talk about all student movements homogenously.
The work of Canel (1992), for example, to me, displays a useful means of
how social movement analysis could progress. I share his viewpoint that social
movements themselves are ambiguous and contradictory (Canel 1992), and
due to being such complex phenomenon, they require a thorough and insight-
ful analysis. It appears almost commonsensical that studying multifarious
phenomenon may require a more complex theoretical framework from which
empirical movement analysis can begin. Such a framework, Canel (1992),
among others, suggests would involve taking elements from both NSM theory
but also from the ideas of Resource mobilisation. The idea of such a synthesis,
which could involve a multitude of contemporary social movement theories,
such as notions of contention (See the work of McAdam et al. 2001), Com-
plexity theory (See Chesters and Welsh 2006), emotions in social movements
(See Flam and King 2005), as well as the role of networks (for example Diani
and McAdam 2003), is not to refute the usefulness of NSM theory, and
that has never been my contention within this article. Rather we must be
willing to test theories, and if we find them lacking in explaining diverse
phenomenon, then we must be willing, for the sake of strengthening our
sociological understanding, to combine in our explanations all the key elements
that influence and shape a social movement.
In terms of the themes in the literature I explored above, I have shown some
of their weaknesses, and we can conclude that the problem of the causalities
found in the student movement literature stem not from the explanatory
factors themselves, but rather from the way in which they are used (i.e.
as sole causes). We must be willing to be more eclectic and look at the
interplay of the underlying features of social life of the period in which
the movement under investigation emerges, as well as at the triggers and
fuses of discontent. By creating a synthesis of explanatory factors a fuller
understanding of the English student movement could be gained, which
as previously suggested has been long overdue within sociology. Also by
making full use of a synthesis of social movement theories, we can ensure
not only that the English student movement is fully explored in terms of
both the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of the movements emergence and development,
but we can build on social movement theory, and develop a more useful
and critical framework in which useful sociology of social movements can
reach, what I believe is, its full and exciting potential.
Short Biography
Esmee Hanna is currently studying for a PhD in the School of Sociology
and Social Policy at the University of Leeds. The title of her thesis is ‘Student
Power: A social movements analysis of the student movement in English
universities between 1965–1973’ and is funded by an ESRC +3 award. Her
main research interests lie in protest, revolution and social movements.
Note
* Correspondence address: School of Sociology and Social Policy, The University of Leeds,
Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. Email: spl5esh@leeds.ac.uk
References
Altbach, P. (1967). ‘Students and Politics’. in Student Politics, edited by S. Lipset. New York,
NY: Basic books.
Anderson, T. (1999–2000). ‘1968: The End the Beginning in the United States and Western
Europe.’ South Central Review 16 (4): 1 – 15.
Arthur, P. (1974). The People’s Democracy 1968–1973. Belfast: Blackstaff Press.
Blackstone, T. and R. Hadley (1971). ‘Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons
with American Research.’ Comparative Education Review 15 (1): 1 – 38.
Brown, B. (1974). Protest in Paris: Anatomy of a Revolt. New Jersey: General Learning Press.
Byrne, P. (1997). Social Movements in Britain. London: Routledge.

Canel, E. (1992). ‘New Social Movement Theory and Resource Mobilization: The Need for
Integration.’ in Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice, edited
by W. Carroll. Toronto: Garamond Press.
Caute, D. (1988). Sixty-Eight: The Year of the Barricades. London: Hamish-Hamilton.
Chesters, G. and W. Welsh (2006). Complexity and Social Movements: Multitudes at the Edge of
Chaos. London: Routledge.
Chun, L. (1993). The British New Left. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Crossley, N. (2002). Making Sense of Social Movements. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Crossley, N. (2008). ‘Social Networks and Student Activism: On the Politicising Effect of
Campus Connections.’ The Sociological Review 56 (1): 18 – 38.
Della Porta, D. and M. Diani (1999). Social Movements: An introduction. London: Blackwell.
Diani, M. and D. McAdam (eds) (2003). Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to
Collective Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edelman Boren, M. (2001). Student Resistance: A History of the Unruly Subject. New York: Routledge.
Edmunds, J. and B. Turner (2002). Generations, Culture and Society. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Ellis, S. (1998). ‘A Demonstration of British Good Sense? British Student Protest during the
Vietnam War.’ in Student Protest: The Sixties and After, G. DeGroot. London: Longman.
Feuer, L. (1969). The Conflict of Generations: The Character and Significance of Student Movements.
New York: Basic Books.
Flam, H. and D. King (2005). Emotions and Social Movements. London: Routledge.
Fraser, R. (1988). 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt. London: Chatto and Windus.
Goodwin, J. and J. Jasper (eds) (2003). The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. London:
Blackwell.
Gusfield, J. (1971). ‘Student protest and university response.’ Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 395: 26 – 38.
Habermas, J. (1971). Toward a Rational Society. London: Heinemann.
Hanna, E. (2005). Radical or ‘apathetic’? An investigation into the nature of the student experience at
Leeds University. Unpublished MA dissertation.
Kornhauser, W. (1968). The Politics of Mass Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kurlansky, M. (2004). 1968: The Year that Rocked the World. London: Jonathan cape.
Levitt, C. (1984). Children of Privilege: Student Revolt in the Sixties. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Marwick, A. (1998). The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States
c.1958–c.1974. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McAdam, D., S. Tarrow and C. Tilly (2001). Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McGuigan, G. (1968). Student Protest. Toronto: Methuen.
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary
Society. London: Hutchinson Radius.
Miles, B. (2003). Hippie. London: Cassell.
New Left Review Editorial (1968). ‘Introduction to special issue on France May 1968.’ New
Left Review I/52. [Online] www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=1129 Accessed on
27/10/2006.
Parkin, F. (1968). Middle Class Radicalism: The Social Base of the British Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Pinner, F. (1971). ‘Students – A Marginal Elite in Politics.’ Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 395: 127– 38.
Prince, S. (2006). ‘The Global Revolt of 1968 and Northern Ireland.’ The Historical Journal
49 (3): 851– 75.
Rooke, M. (1971). Anarchy and Apathy: Student Unrest 1968–1970. London: Hamilton.
Rootes, A. (1980). ‘Student Radicalism: Politics of Moral Protest and Legitimation Problems
of the Modern Capitialist State.’ Theory and Society 9 (3): 473 – 502.
Searle, J. (1972). The Campus Wars: A Sympathetic Look at the University in Agony. Harmonds-
worth: Penguin.
Siegfried, D. (2006). Cited in Schildt, A. and D. Siegfried (eds). Between Marx and Coca-Cola:
Youth Cultures in Changing European Societies 1960 –1980. New York: Berghahn.

Spaeth, J. (1969). ‘Public Reactions to College Student Protests.’ Sociology of Education 42 (2):
199– 206.
Stratera, G. (1975). Death of a Utopia: The Development and Decline of Student Movements in
Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
Staff and Students of Hornsey College of Art (1969). The Hornsey Affair. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Sutton, P. (2000). Explaining Environmentalism: In Search of a New Social Movement. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Thompson, D. (1996). ‘On the Trail of the New Left.’ New Left Review 215: 93– 100.
Touraine, A. (1971). The Post-Industrial Society: Tomorrow’s Social History: Classes, Conflicts and
Culture in the Programmed Society. New York: Random House.


The English Student Movement: An Evaluation of The Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The English Student Movement: An Evaluation of The Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1539–1552, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00138.

The English Student Movement: An Evaluation

The analysis of student movements can be said to be a field of enquiry now

Broadly, how we understand the student movement, I will argue, bears

NSM theory and the student movement: Co-dependents?

Ways of explanation: Fragments of the picture

withstanding mature students) always characterised by ‘youthfulness’; thus,

we know it to be today, was ‘coming of age’ in the era of student movements

From past to future: Developing sociological insights about

theories of NSM’s by proxy, is deemed to be valid and useful, we must

© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1539–1552, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00138.x

© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1539–1552, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00138.x

© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1539–1552, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00138.x

You might also like