Collective Identity and the Role of Music In the Berkeley FSM
The Berkeley Free Speech Movement centered around a diverse group of students who became united in order to fight against oppression denying them of their right for free speech. This matter caused students of many backgrounds to pull together and support one another as they stood up for their First Amendment rights. The students fought in hopes to gain better treatment and to change the way the campus was controlled. Collective identity can be defined as common beliefs, ideas and causes uniting different types of people. This meaning can define the collective identity on the Berkeley campus. Although music was used to an extent to spur the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, collective identity was primarily built around issues such as close proximity to one another, a desire to express feelings as a group, and shared oppression.
All of these students had one thing in common; they were attending the same school, automatically creating one form of collective identity. College students regularly feel a sense of belonging at the school that they are attending. The students at Berkeley were of many ages, from all different backgrounds and places, yet they were brought together as students of the same university. Therefore, the students found themselves united in the fight for rights that would better their lives as just that, Berkley students. Jackie Goldberg, a member of the Berkley FSM, recalls the moment every Berkeley student got the letter from the administration forbidding the use of the strip. Her and her brother immediately arranged a meeting for all political groups on campus (Goldberg 2002: 106-107). She states, “This first meeting was a historical event, to be sure. Groups that would shout at each other from card tables at Bancroft and Telegraph were potentially allies” (2002: 107). Seventeen Berkeley campus political groups participated in this meeting regarding the common land taken away from them (Goldberg 2002: 107-108). Each Sproul Hall rally had hundreds of students involved (Gale 1966:1-5). In 1964, 9,799 students were enrolled at the University of California Berkeley (Thayer 1968: CR). One Sproul Hall sit-in held over 1,000 students which was the average number of students involved in the Berkeley FSM ( Gale 1966: 1-5), but “in the fall of 1964 Mario Savio announced to a teeming crowd of 5,000 Berkeley on Sproul Plaza” about taking part in their shared oppression (Stephens 1996-2003). The common thread of being a Berkeley student amongst those involved proved to be a key element in the collective identity of the group.
Being in close proximity to one another was very important in the collective identity of the students when it came to protests. The sense of community that formed on the Berkeley campus was largely because of the fact that the students involved shared a common ground and territory. At the start of the FSM, students came together to hold meetings on a strip of land just outside of the campus boundaries, since they were not allowed to voice their political views on campus. Eventually this land was taken away from them by the school and protests were held outside Sproul Hall, the campus administration building (Heineman 2001: 106-107). This shared territory allowed the students to come together at any moment necessary to hold protests and rallies. This form of collective identity did not involve music; it was simply existent due to an ability to stand united in one place to support one reason.
Shared oppression brought upon another form of collective identity. A great deal of problems began to occur at universities and colleges when in loco parentis came about. This was the principle that college administration could take on parental roles. Students felt that they could not truly express who they were because the administration had too much control over them. This shared oppression gave students everywhere a common concern. On top of in loco parentis, students at University of California Berkeley were not allowed to express their political views. The school administration had taken away their rights to the first amendment of the constitution, the right to free speech (Johnston 1998: 12-15). This rule that affected nearly everyone on campus united more than half of the students and together they knew they could make a difference (Thayer 1968: CR).
Most social movements’ collective identity revolved around their shared oppression. The Berkeley FSM would not exist without the right of free speech taken away from a collective group. Eventually, even teaching assistants became involved in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Every person attending Berkeley in 1964 and before was forced to restrain from having his or her political voice heard and more than half of them fought to gain the right of free speech back (Gale 1966 1-5). If collective identity is one thing that many different people have in common, this shared oppression of the Berkeley students is a prime example of such an idea.
Collective identity on campus also came about as a result of a need to unite to express a collective opinion. Although one person can express his or her feelings on a certain issue, he or she does not have as much of an impact on a college campus as a group of people supporting one another in a common cause. In “Thirty Years Later”, a reflection on the Berkeley FSM published in The Free Speech Movement; Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s, Mario Savio also discusses the time the students of Berkeley received a letter from the Dean forbidding advocacy of any kind on University property including the little strip of land. Savio states that when they received this letter they went to the Dean for an explanation. He says, “We didn’t go one by one. We went together, en masse. We did that from the beginning, and we never did it any other way. It was always together” (Savio 2002: 67). This quote is a strong example of what collective identity was on the Berkeley campus. It was brought on by everyone coming together to voice a common feeling with the support of friends and peers to add strength, comfort and safety.
One important example in expressing unity on campus was rallying. The day that the Berkeley FSM was born, a huge police car rally was held. Hundreds of students held an officer at bay for 32 hours preventing the arrest of Jack Weinberg. Leaders of the Berkeley FSM such as Mario Savio took turns standing on the roof of the cop car making speeches against campus rules (Heinman 2001: 106-107). This protest was not only to make a statement, but also to stand up for a fellow student with the common belief of expressing his own political views. When students were taken to court for their protest on the cop car, other supportive students gave the board of regents an ultimatum (Gale 1966:1-5). If it had been a single person fighting, the school would have ignored it and expelled that student. However, the large group of people demanding this change forced the administration to look further into the matter. The day after the request of the students, a rally of over 800 students was held in Sproul Hall. People picketed, blocking the gates of the campus, but the school could not expel such a large portion of its student body (Gale 1966:1-5). Collectively the Berkeley students made a difference without the use of music but through other uses of voice and language.
The Berkeley Free Speech Movement was not created as a result of the music during that period, yet music was certainly a way to ensure that their voices were heard after their collective identity had already been established. Folk artists such as Malvina Reynolds and Joan Baez became involved in the movement singing songs praising the FSM. These songs, such as “We Shall Overcome”, were not songs sung by the students involved in the Berkeley FSM but rather songs used to promote the movement beyond the campus. Songs such as “Little Boxes” were used to criticize the white workers against the Berkeley Left at places such as coffee houses off the Berkeley campus (Heinmann 2001: 109). Although there are these accounts of music being used, these are the only two songs mentioned in the 618 page book The Free Speech Movement; Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s. “We Shall Overcome” was the only song sung at the thirty year reunion of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, proving that music was not an important influence in the collective identity of the Berkeley FSM (Cohen and Zelnik 2002). To promote collective identity off campus, music was used as a form of support. However, on campus, the students had already formed a sense of collective identity that had great strength on its own.
Although many social movements’ collective identity is spurred by music, the Berkeley FSM displayed collective identity simply through the sight of students standing together to fight for what they believed in. As students they shared a common ground where they could protest. They also shared the need to express their feelings. The shared oppression the students faced was another means of their collective identity. The ability to gather a united group rather than forcing individuals to fight without the support and strength of others provoked by large numbers led to a much more powerful tactic that would, in turn, make a difference. Collective identity throughout the Berkeley campus was established through the strong drive to make changes through protests and rallies. Although music did not play an essential role in these actions, it still helped to convey the important message of the Movement to outside supporters.