Initially, the question of the “second generation” was covered from the perspective of the transmission of family memory relating to May ‘68, particularly through parental narratives of the events, books, photos, objects or even given names. However, the explicit part of this transmission process proved to be minimal compared to what had remained implicit. I therefore ultimately concentrated my focus on the central vector of this transmission: primary socialisation.

As I specified in the introduction, the material concerning the “children” of 68ers were collected from among students at two experimental schools. Through the subversion of pedagogic relations, the schools of Vitruve (Paris) and Ange-Guépin (Nantes) participated in the wider post-1968 movement criticising social relations based on domination. This particular access to the field therefore specifically selects ‘68ers who adopted and implemented their dispositions for protest and anti-institutionalism within the spheres of family and education. Their children, born between 1965 and 1980 are at the heart of this critical redefinition of educational norms (in the family and then in the school). Research over two family generations allows us to trace what became of these children, and to observe the different effects of these politicised educational practices. However, this book explores only one aspect of these family transmissions – the question of attitudes towards politics and activism. How do these children of ‘68ers appropriate their political heritage, and what place does activism have in their collective future? For those who became activists, what structures did they become involved in? Does the repertoire of action circulate from one generation to the next in spite of the transformations of the political context?

Although the question of intragenerational (dis)continuities of activism has been relatively well covered in the literature (McAdam, 1988; Whittier, 1997; RFSP, 2001), the issue of intergenerational continuities and discontinuities has not provoked the same interest. Yet our research protocol, both longitudinal and paired (parents and children) allows us to separate the question of the transmission of dispositions for protest, from that of actual engagement in militant action, and thus contribute to the reflection on the family transmission of dispositions for activism.