In Western democracy, the social movements of the eighties and early nineties have generally been very pragmatic in their aims, moderate in their tactics, and well connected to political authorities and policy makers – so much so that several scholars have asked whether they can still be called social movements. There are indeed many impressive differences from their counterparts of the late sixties and the seventies. Social movements have often been defined by their use of unconventional strategies and loose organizational structures, but both characteristics have changed a great deal since the sixties – especially in the use of political violence. As mentioned in the Foreword, the movements of the sixties and the seventies often “encountered” violence: they used violent tactics, and they faced violent repression. If in the mid-sixties political activists advocated nonviolent protest, by the end of the decade, in most Western democracies, several emphasized the need for “self-defense.” In the seventies, violence became more and more organized in some countries. Radical, sometimes underground, organizations emerged and engaged with the state in a military struggle that they eventually lost. Their negative example probably contributed to the tactical moderation of protest in the eighties.

From our historical point of observation, the nineties constitute the end of a cycle of protest that began in the sixties: new actors emerged, encountered severe reactions, fought back, and finally found their way into “normal” politics.