The above article appeared in the German Bildzeitung on October 22^nd, 1967, with the headline translating roughly to ‘Eggs against Demonstrators’. The supporting image shows the snapshot of a student protest occurring in the United States. As can be expected from any sensation-seeking tabloid, the global protest phenomenon was described as an “army of opposition… extending to the capital of the United States (Washington D.C.).” It continues to list (mostly peaceful) student demonstrations in cities such as Munich, Paris, Oslo, and Amsterdam.

I specifically chose the above article in an attempt to visually portray that both benefits and limitations can be found in viewing the events of 1968 as a transnational occurrence. After the many discussions we have had thus far on notions of transnationalism, I immediately felt a strong opposition to the thought of historicizing the events that occurred in 1968 into the scope of a single year. Starting with the stark contrast that several scholars place between transnationalism and the advent of globalization, in addition to the heated debate of the role that the past should or should not have in examining the contemporary and beyond, I have come to an understanding of the term ‘transnational’ that includes broad historical contexts and narratives that span across real and imagined borders.

In 1968 in Europe. A History of Protest and Activism, Klimke and Scharloth speak in support of situating the events of this year within the historical framework that led up to what we now collectively call 1968. Above all, they make a valid point in arguing that “The roots of many of these movements reach back to the beginning of the 1960s and the previous decade.” In their opinion, the year 1968 “thus stands as a metaphor used to capture the broad history of European protest and activism “ (Klimke and Scharloth 3). I absolutely agree with positioning these events within a broader historical context; one that shaped the imagination and agency of protestors for years prior. However, a considerable fault can be found in their focus on events that unraveled exclusively in Europe. While historical context plays a large role in understanding the transnational, the movement of ideas across borders may hold the same, if not greater, valence. Klimke and Scharloth do support a semi-transnational framework by mentioning that “Mediated exchange between student organizations from all over Europe lead to a permanent diffusion of ideas (Klimke and Scharloth 4).” However, how ‘transnational’ can such an assumption be without considering the diffusion of such ideas beyond European borders? While the introduction of the internet and rise of social media strongly facilitate imagination and collective identity across borders in the 21^st century, such an exchange is also made possible and demonstrated in 1968 through means of media such as the Bildzeitung. It is crucial to remember that ideas move back and forth between borders fluidly, creating a productive exchange. So just as the German readers of the Bildzeitung gained a sense of transnational unity from the reports of protestors across the globe, consumers of media outside of Europe gained the same sense of solidarity by their consumption of media coverage about the European movement.

While considering 1968 as a sole temporal standpoint has proved problematic as situated above, it cannot be denied that focusing solely on the year 1968 in regards to transnationalism reaps the benefit of giving agency to a collective movement of people sharing similar perspectives. While the idea of agency is not always parallel to choice, these movements and protests transcended borders by standing in a simultaneous opposition to differing oppression. The transnational reality of this movement was further enhanced by what Appadurai coined as the ‘mediascape’. In this context, the above article from the Bildzeitung demonstrates the ability of the media to transform our imagination of reality. The main actors during the 1968 movements found strength in seeing and thus the imagining of social lives and social projects across the Atlantic. Witnessing these other ‘elsewheres’ created a sense of community in protesting injustices on a transnational scale. In Revisiting the Revolution: 1968 in Transnational Cultural Memory, Klimke describes the result of this collective imagination as giving “rise to a collective identity based on political orientation, socio-cultural allegiance and the vaguely defined image of generational cohort” (Klimke 32). Through circulation of these mediascapes, we thus see the imagining and creation of an identity that stands in solidarity against oppression, an identity that transcends both borders and time.

To summarize, it becomes apparent that regarding 1968 as a temporal standpoint in a transnational framework holds both benefits and limitations. The prominence of the year 1968 cannot displace the fact that many vital events occurred prior to, and led up to, the culminating key movements. However, the focus on the events of 1968 also gives this movement an unprecedented agency by understanding how the exchange of ideas across transnational borders facilitated a collective imagination of opposition.

__________________________________________________

*For those that may be interested in German media coverage of 1968 events, Axel Springer published a searchable database that includes media coverage, comments, letters to the editor, political cartoons, reports, and interviews from 1966 to 1968. You can find it here.