Reviews
THE
NEW LEFT REVISITED. Edited by John McMillian and
Paul Buhle (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 2003).
The
New Left Revisited went to press shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center. It
is interesting to read this collection of essays knowing that
they were written before September 11. In the introduction John McMillian notes
that the political and cultural battles of the '60s are
still being fought. Since then the War on Terrorism, the Patriot
Act and the Office of Homeland Security have come into being,
giving the "culture wars" a new and more ominous dimension. Doug Rossinow's article, "Letting
Go: Revisiting the New Left's Demise," concluded that the New
Left as a movement died sometime in the 1970s but that the New
Left as a political outlook lives on. I would hesitate to call
the current movement against the Iraq war a reincarnation of
the New Left, but the presence of that political outlook is apparent.
Until
recently much of the history of the '60s has been written by movement
activists. These histories, many of which are personal memoirs,
usually do a good job of setting the context and explaining the
social reality of the times. But memoirs reflect the particular
experiences of the author and are necessarily subjective. In the
past few years a new generation of historians, too young to be '60s
activists, have been going through the records and interviewing
the activists. The two kinds of history complement each
other and taken together give a more complete picture of the personal
and the political than either could do alone. The New Left Revisited is
a collection of essays by those young historians.
As
a strong advocate of local organizing during the '60s, I was pleasantly
surprised to find that the first six essays in The New Left
Revisited, gathered under the title, "Local Studies, Local
Stories," are snapshots of different parts of the '60s movement.
These range from a history of the Southern Student Organizing Committee
(SSOC), an organization fraternal to SDS that had chapters across
the South between 1964 and 1969, to one on the counterculture in
Los Angeles. Another is a study of the civil rights movement in
Cambridge, Maryland, that shows the complexity of the racial and economic issues involved.
There is a study of two of SDS's community
organizing projects from the point of view of local people, who
are often overlooked. Taken together these create an image of the
movement as a dynamic balance of many different local movements.
The
essay by Robbie Lieberman and David Cochran is a study of the student
movement at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. So little
has been written about local action and organizing during the '60s
that each new local history is of great value. I compared what
happened at Southern Illinois with the movement in Austin, Texas,
where I was active. Of course no two campuses were the same, but
the issues and strategies are remarkably similar. These include
the importance of the civil rights action during the early '60s
and then the struggle against racism and the war in Vietnam. In
both Austin and Carbondale the boundary between the political movement and the counterculture was hard to define. Underground newspapers
on both campuses let us tell the public what we believed without
the distortion of the established press. Lieberman and Cochran
quote a member of SDS as saying that the local SDS chapter was totally autonomous and separate from the national
office-"We tried to have contact, but nobody ever wrote back." A
word of caution to historians and readers: don't over-generalize
from a limited number of informants. By 1968 someone must have
made contact with the SDS national office because the entire front
page of New Left Notes (the national SDS newspaper) for
May 20, 1968, is devoted to a confrontation in Carbondale with
the administration over in loco parentis that turned
into a confrontation over racism, weapons re- search and military
recruiters on campus.
Although
I worked with SSOC people in the White Folks Project during Mississippi
Freedom Summer in 1964 and attended several of its formative meetings,
I found the article on SSOC interesting and informative because
it filled in parts of SSOC's history that I missed. I would like to add a little
information to the discussion of SSOC's demise.
The author writes that a faction within SDS first tried to take
over SSOC and then worked to destroy it. That "faction" was the
Progressive Labor Party, an independent organization that moved
into both SDS and SSOC at about the same time in order to influence
the politics of those organizations. PL's methods were equally
destructive in both SDS and SSOC.
The
second section, "Reconsiderations," contains essays of a more theoretical
nature. These attempt to answer various
questions about how the New Left functioned.
What were the influences of the "old left" on the "New Left"? How
did the concept of participatory democracy work in the New Left
and how did it differ between SDS and SNCC? Was the treatment of
women so bad in the Draft Resistance Movement in Boston that it
really was the "point of ultimate indignity"? In the trial of the
Chicago Seven, what was the effect of the prosecution's open gay-baiting
of the defendants, their lawyers and their witnesses? When revolution
became the watchword of the movement in the late 1960s and early
1970s, what did this concept mean to its advocates? Did the New
Left end and, if so, when?
Although these essays are
specific in their focus, they point to more general truths and
give depth and subtlety to our understanding of the movement
as a whole. Taken together they create a picture of the New Left
as a complex dynamic movement where the socialization of the existing
society was challenged by new ideas of what was possible. For example,
the common wisdom is that women in the New Left were dominated
by men and relegated to menial positions. Since the draft applied
only to men, that movement was thought to have been especially
male-dominated. The essay on the Draft Resistance Movement in Boston
shows that it wasn't that simple. While
most women participants encountered sexism in this movement, many
also acknowledge that their ideas were taken seriously, that men
responded positively when they were challenged, and that many women
learned leadership skills within the movement that they could never
have learned outside. My experience is that this challenging of
gender roles was happening throughout the movement.
Paul Buhle,
the only historian in this collection who was part of the movements
of the '60s, takes on the question of why the New Left rejected
working with liberals when to do so could have helped implement
the "Liberal Agenda." He documents the sexism, homophobia, anti-Communism,
and the CIA money that influenced that agenda. For me two events
in August, 1964, showed a side of liberalism that I couldn't support.
First was the liberals' role in keeping the Mississippi Freedom
Democratic Party from being seated in place of the all-white Mississippi
delegation at the 1964 Democratic Convention. Then came the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution, overwhelmingly supported by Congressional liberals and conservatives
alike. I rejected working with liberals because they couldn't be
trusted with the basic issues of race and war. Once my eyes were
open I saw all the other issues documented by Buhle.
The
New Left Revisited isn't really a history of the New Left so much as it is a series of
questions and attempted answers. As a veteran of the '60s who
has read many of the books written on that period and interviewed
many SDS activists, I found The New Left Revisited to
be an enjoyable, thought-provoking read. If this is your first
book on the subject I would recommend that you use it as a companion
to a history of the period, such as, The War Within: America's
Battle over Vietnam by Tom Wells, The Movement and the
Sixties by Terry Anderson, or The Sixties: Years of Hope,
Days of Rage by Todd Gitlin.* If you already know the history, The New Left Revisited will
fill in details of the big picture. In the challenging times
that lie ahead, it will be important to have these young historians
probing and asking good questions.
Robert Pardun
Santa Cruz, California
*Former National Officer of SDS