Referring to the different forms of structuralism, some spoke of a mind-set. Was there a kinship between the prevailing thinking, structuralism, and the events of May ? It is certainly true that structuralism presented itself as critical thought, and we can imagine its harmony with the protests of May , but can we be altogether certain?
Indeed, there is a flagrant paradox, for what could link a form of thinking that gives priority to the reproduction of structures and to synchronic games of formal logic with an event that completely breaks with a consumer society in full flower? Before trying to answer this question, we might usefully recall how structuralism was viewed on the eve of May in that sanctuary of university protest known as the University of Nanterre. The two personalities who dominated the ideology at Nanterre were both well known for their hostility to structuralism, although each for different reasons.
Touraine and Lefebvre, at the Antipodes of Structuralism The sociology department was a hotbed of protest. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the historical leader of the movement, was a sociology student, like a good number of the radical militants mobilized against the American war in Vietnam.
In addition to their increasingly determined protest against the bombings of the Vietnamese population, these students rejected their role as makers of tests used to recruit and.
The sociology department was popular and a veritable stronghold of student malaise since many students were sure that they would have no professional future. And it was dominated by Alain Touraine. Touraine favored action, the possibility of change, and the role of individuals as social categories in these transformations.
