Borrowing my title from Mark Kurlansky’s critically acclaimed historical text, 1968: The Year that Rocked the World (2004), underscores the global impact that this year has had. He introduces his text stating that “there has never been a year like 1968, and it is unlikely that there will ever be one again. At a time when nations and cultures were still separate and very different – and in 1968 Poland, France, the United States, and Mexico were far more different from one another than they are today – there occurred a spontaneous combustion of rebellious spirits around the world” (xvii). Addressing the question of examining the benefits and limitations to focusing on one year in regard to transnationalism, Kurlansky points out the similarities and differences between the various rebellions: “What was unique about 1968 was that people were rebelling over disparate issues and had in common only that desire to rebel, ideas about how do it, a sense of alienation from the established order, and a profound distaste for authoritarianism in any form” (xvii). Following this line of thought, 1968, in a way, provides a unified global front in that the societies were experiencing similar struggles, contesting their specific cultural or political concerns. In connecting the critical texts we read this week, I would like to turn my attention to the notion of social memory and how it addresses the simultaneous, yet geographically distant, revolutions.

While I believe it is highly beneficial to focus on one year like 1968 in order to create a cohesive global vision, it’s important to keep in mind how we are limited by our current environment. Elaborating the notion of a “social framework of memory” established by Maurice Halbwachs, Sarah Waters emphasizes the relationship between the present moment and a social or historical memory: “The memories we have and the form they take are strongly influenced by the present and by the social context that we inhabit. Memory is constructed in time and space but always by social groups. It is the social group to which an individual belongs that determines what is memorable and what our memory brings to mind in the present” (6). In considering the impact on transnational studies, we must keep in mind the context in which we belong and how that affects our perspective. Therefore, in order to provide more than a cursory or surface level historical account, I think courses studying a global movement like 1968 should include texts and resources that provide a comprehensive account, specifically by incorporating texts from the country or culture being studied.

In addition to establishing a transnational social memory, Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth problematize the notion of building a comparative, transnational approach based on a nationalist paradigm. They uncover its inherent contradictions:

It aims at presenting information on the history of the various national protest movements to facilitate comparative studies, on the multifaceted transnational aspects of the protest movements to gain a deeper understanding of the similarities between the various national movements, and on the common narratives and cultures of memory to further the discussion on the consequences and relevance of domestic protest in the various countries as well as Europe as a whole. (2)

Reading between the lines, I think they are successful in bringing to light that even though there are cross-cultural similarities, the specific domestic circumstances represent an always present limitation that must be addressed. However, the emergence of a global popular culture provided an avenue in establishing a toolbox for surpassing or deconstructing these limitations: “A global popular culture, inspired by new aesthetics emerging in art, music, film, architecture, graphic design, and fashion, joined with hippie ideologies and lifestyles and melted into a set of symbolic forms, which became an infinite resource of mobilization in both the East and the West” (Klimke and Scharloth 6). Returning to the title of Kurlansky’s text, 1968 was the year that literally “rocked the world” as evident with the pop culture impact. Even thinking about more recent social or political protests, we will find music and artistic symbols being used transnationally from 1968.

The aforementioned texts, along with the others that we read for this week’s class, effectively portray that basing a transnational study on a single year will encounter many limitations. However, I think they are successful in showing that countries around the globe were not only experiencing similar political and social discontent but also responding in comparable ways, which is extremely beneficial in establishing transnational connections.

Kurlansky, Mark. 1968: The Year that Rocked the World. New York: Random House, Inc., 2005. Print.