Aftermath and influence

For decades, historians in France and elsewhere debated the long-term political significance of May 1968. In the view of some, the May events were merely a blip on the political radar screen; purportedly, “nothing happened.” According to others, despite its radical veneer, the May revolt was surreptitiously a way station on France’s route to a more efficient post-Fordist stage of capitalist modernization. Both of those accounts, however, are much too cynical, reflecting the disillusionment of Marxist scholars for whom any result short of total revolution is politically unacceptable.

French society did undergo a sea change in the May revolt’s aftermath, although the changes that occurred were undoubtedly more measured and incremental than the student militants would have liked. The May revolt initiated a transformation of “everyday life”—a phrase that is crucial to understanding the cultural-political implications of 1968, both in France and elsewhere. Conceived as an approach to social criticism by the French Marxist philosopher Henri Lefebvre during the 1940s and ’50s, the critique of everyday life encouraged activists to focus their attention on a variety of qualitative issues and concerns that transcended the narrowly economic orientation of orthodox Marxism. Whereas the French communists continued to assume that the workplace remained a unique locus of class domination, the “sixty-eighters” sought to unmask new forms of ideological coercion and social control. They realized that, with the advent of consumer society, the scope of commodification had transcended the workplace and had begun to encompass almost every aspect of social life.

The discourse of everyday life allowed the sixty-eighters to address fundamental questions pertaining to the quality of lived experience in the modern world. It provided them with an interpretive lens to investigate existential questions that, from the standpoint of orthodox Marxism, remained imperceptible. It offered both an exit strategy from the authoritarian proclivities of the Jacobin and Leninist traditions as well as a window that opened onto new areas of social emancipation, including feminism, ecology, and gay rights.