Where do “68ers” come from and how did their experiences prior to May ‘68 shape their activism? All the participants in this study were involved in one way or another in May ‘68; however, they were not all involved in the same way, or for the same reasons. This chapter sets out to explore the determinants of their participation in May ‘68, and to understand how their dispositions towards activism were formed in the years leading up to the events. It argues that the origins of this activism must be sought in the socialisation of these future militants (familial, educational, and religious), and that their politicisation has its roots in the structural transformations of the institutions that ensure social reproduction (such as the family, the school, the church etc.).

Based on a cross-analysis of questions asking respondents about the agents of their political socialisation and about the narratives of their youth, we observe four major matrices of involvement in May ‘68, which challenge some of the most common interpretations. Contrary to psychanalytic readings that see May ‘68 simply as young people rebelling against their parents, this study provides evidence of the importance of family transmission between generations (political for the first matrix, religious for the second). Among researchers, the dominant interpretation has long attributed May ‘68 to a crisis in opportunities for university graduates. The structural depreciation of university degrees and the threat of downward social mobility were thus seen as being the foundation for the “collective dispositions for rebellion” (Bourdieu, 1984b). These dispositions would indeed occur more frequently among students from the upper classes enrolled in the disciplines that were the most insecure in terms of their professional outlook (sociology, psychology, education sciences, and humanities). In emphasizing the relative absence of this “downward mobility” profile among the participants, this study contributes to the empirical refutation of this “schema of downward social mobility.” In fact, it sheds light on a profile that is diametrically opposed to this, which associates upward mobility with political involvement in May ‘68 – we will call this third matrix the “politicisation of first-generation intellectuals.”