prospect, care este o revista britanica de dezbatere sociala si culturala destul de faimoasa, publica in numarul din mai, lucrarile unui simpozion care a avut ca tema faimosul an 1968, considerat a fi contribuit mai mult decat semnificativ la "minunata" dezinhibare sociala, sexuala, politica, culturala etc. a istoriei dragalasului secol XX. printre participantii la dezbatere Anthony Giddens, Edward Mortimer, Gideon Rachman, Tzvetan Todorov si foarte multi altii. merita sa aruncati un ochi
postez aici doua fragmente in loc sa ma apuc sa formulez eu insami ce cred, pt ca mi se par suficient de relevante
"In Europe, the radicals were pretty traditional. They were students on the rampage, and their radicalism didn’t dig deep. In California, if you were a radical, you had to be a radical in everything. I had an acquaintance, a straight-laced maths professor, complete with button-down shirt, clipped hair and a wholesome wife and family. He disappeared from the campus for several months. One day I was walking to my class when a Christ-like figure appeared over the brow of the hill. He had blond hair growing to below his shoulders, a long beard and was wearing a flowing robe. I didn’t recognise him until he stopped to say hello. He had given up maths, left the university, abandoned his wife and children, and moved to the desert in New Mexico where he worked as a craftsman in a commune."
"Ten years later I received a letter from the maths professor who had experienced the conversion. He was back with his wife, back with his old haircut and his preppy dress, back in his old home—and looking for a job again in the same university department. How was it that all the radicalism and the high hopes of 1968 disappeared almost as rapidly as they arose? The reasons are as diverse as the phenomenon itself. The ending of the Vietnam war took away a big reason for dissent. The Black Panthers were broken up, by fair means or foul, by the authorities. As for the hippies, many of their personal and social experiments turned sour. Sexual exploitation went on under the name of free love; drugs became a source of addiction rather than an avenue for liberation of the spirit."
sunt fragmente din articolul lui Giddens, desi nu sunt de acord cu concluzia lui asa de impaciuitoare, imi da fix senzatia ca vrea sa fie rezonabil dar nu nu este rezonabil pt ca anii 60 ne-au dat peste cap punkt. copilul postbelic s-a dat in leagan si incercand sa ajunga cat mai sus, sa ajunga in cer, unde sa fie totul perfect, si-a facut vant prea tare si s-a dat peste cap. a ajuns de unde-a plecat, dar (DAR!) cu creierii zdruncinati la maxim. anii 60 au fost ISTERIA
nu admir deloc REVOLUTIA. nu cred in radicalism, pentru ca radicalismul este ideologie, numai cu sageata intoarsa, nu cred in anarhie, pentru ca am ajuns la concluzia ca numai disciplina si constrangerea functioneaza, si nu cred ca minimul care s-a obtinut, desi numai feminismul a supravietuit (chestia cu supravietuitorii hippie e bullshit, e vba de style mai degraba sau de altceva nu stiu) si oricum feminismul a avut prea mult forme si cea din timpul revolutiei nu a fost neaparat una benefica ba dimpotriva
ma opresc aici si inchei cu ce zice foarte fain Peter Bazalgette:
"The radical student movement produced some of the finest late 20th-century capitalists. There is nothing like the zeal of the convert."
nu stiu exact ce a vrut el sa spuna, pt ca numai fraza asta e pe prospect, dar ingrosati, considerati ca e maxima ironie, ganditi-va ca nu-mi plac "the finerst late 20-th-century capitalists" si ati inteles
foto e de pe net, nu mai stiu exact de unde : P