SAQ
SAMPLE STUDENT 3/3 RESPONSE
A major difference between Todd Gitlin and William O’Neill is that Gitlin views the 1960s counterculture as largely positive and transformative, while O’Neill emphasizes its negative and divisive effects. Gitlin argues that the movements of the 1960s expanded political and cultural freedoms and improved life for millions, whereas O’Neill contends that the counterculture created social divisions, weakened societal standards, and increased conflict between different groups such as the “silent majority” and youth activists.
One development that challenges Gitlin’s positive interpretation is the rise of industrial capitalism during the Gilded Age. During this period, industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller accumulated vast wealth while many workers faced poor conditions and low wages. This suggests that earlier reform efforts and social movements had not significantly improved life for millions, challenging Gitlin’s implication that social movements (like those of the 1960s) were uniquely effective in expanding equality and limiting abuses of power.
One development that challenges O’Neill’s negative view is the rise of reform movements such as the Populist Party. The Populists united farmers and workers across regions to advocate for economic reforms like regulation of railroads and a more democratic political system. This demonstrates that social movements and challenges to traditional norms did not always create division or weaken society, but could instead promote unity and constructive political change, undermining O’Neill’s claim that countercultural movements are primarily harmful and divisive.
SUMMARY
a) Difference in Historical Interpretation (1 point)
To earn 1 point, the response must: Clearly identify a specific difference between the interpretations of Todd Gitlin and William O’Neill; Accurately describe each historian’s point of view
Acceptable Responses Include: Gitlin sees the 1960s as positive / expanding freedom, while
O’Neill sees it as negative / divisive; Gitlin emphasizes progress and reform, O’Neill emphasizes conflict and decline in standards
What would not earn the point: Only summarizes one author; Gives vague statements (e.g., “they disagree”); Misinterprets either author’s argument
b) Development Challenging Gitlin (1 point)
To earn 1 point, the response must: Identify ONE specific development (1865–1898); Explain how that development challenges Gitlin’s argument about the positive impact of social movements
Acceptable Evidence Includes: Gilded Age inequality; Rise of big business (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie); Labor unrest (e.g., Pullman Strike); Weakness of labor unions
Explanation must: Show that earlier movements or reforms failed to improve conditions or did not prevent abuses of power
What does not earn the point: Mentions a development with no explanation; Explains the development but does NOT connect it to Gitlin; Uses evidence outside 1865–1898
c) Development Challenging O’Neill (1 point)
To earn 1 point, the response must: Identify ONE specific development (1865–1898); Explain how that development challenges O’Neill’s argument that movements create division and harm society
Acceptable Evidence Includes: Populist Party; Labor organizing (e.g., Knights of Labor); Reform efforts that promoted unity or progress
Explanation must: Show that movements could unify people or create positive change, not just division
What does not earn the point: Gives evidence without linking to O’Neill’s argument; Repeats the same reasoning as part (b) without a new connection; Provides vague or inaccurate historical information
SAMPLE STUDENT 3/3 RESPONSE
A major difference between Todd Gitlin and William O’Neill is that Gitlin views the 1960s counterculture as largely positive and transformative, while O’Neill emphasizes its negative and divisive effects. Gitlin argues that the movements of the 1960s expanded political and cultural freedoms and improved life for millions, whereas O’Neill contends that the counterculture created social divisions, weakened societal standards, and increased conflict between different groups such as the “silent majority” and youth activists.
One development that challenges Gitlin’s positive interpretation is the rise of industrial capitalism during the Gilded Age. During this period, industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller accumulated vast wealth while many workers faced poor conditions and low wages. This suggests that earlier reform efforts and social movements had not significantly improved life for millions, challenging Gitlin’s implication that social movements (like those of the 1960s) were uniquely effective in expanding equality and limiting abuses of power.
One development that challenges O’Neill’s negative view is the rise of reform movements such as the Populist Party. The Populists united farmers and workers across regions to advocate for economic reforms like regulation of railroads and a more democratic political system. This demonstrates that social movements and challenges to traditional norms did not always create division or weaken society, but could instead promote unity and constructive political change, undermining O’Neill’s claim that countercultural movements are primarily harmful and divisive.
SUMMARY
a) Difference in Historical Interpretation (1 point)
To earn 1 point, the response must: Clearly identify a specific difference between the interpretations of Todd Gitlin and William O’Neill; Accurately describe each historian’s point of view
Acceptable Responses Include: Gitlin sees the 1960s as positive / expanding freedom, while
O’Neill sees it as negative / divisive; Gitlin emphasizes progress and reform, O’Neill emphasizes conflict and decline in standards
What would not earn the point: Only summarizes one author; Gives vague statements (e.g., “they disagree”); Misinterprets either author’s argument
b) Development Challenging Gitlin (1 point)
To earn 1 point, the response must: Identify ONE specific development (1865–1898); Explain how that development challenges Gitlin’s argument about the positive impact of social movements
Acceptable Evidence Includes: Gilded Age inequality; Rise of big business (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie); Labor unrest (e.g., Pullman Strike); Weakness of labor unions
Explanation must: Show that earlier movements or reforms failed to improve conditions or did not prevent abuses of power
What does not earn the point: Mentions a development with no explanation; Explains the development but does NOT connect it to Gitlin; Uses evidence outside 1865–1898
c) Development Challenging O’Neill (1 point)
To earn 1 point, the response must: Identify ONE specific development (1865–1898); Explain how that development challenges O’Neill’s argument that movements create division and harm society
Acceptable Evidence Includes: Populist Party; Labor organizing (e.g., Knights of Labor); Reform efforts that promoted unity or progress
Explanation must: Show that movements could unify people or create positive change, not just division
What does not earn the point: Gives evidence without linking to O’Neill’s argument; Repeats the same reasoning as part (b) without a new connection; Provides vague or inaccurate historical information
LEQ
PROMPT
Evaluate the extent to which the counter-culture and social movements of the 1960s fundamentally transformed American political and social life.
ANSWER OUTLINE
To answer this prompt effectively, you can use the conflicting viewpoints of Todd Gitlin and William O’Neill to establish a complex argument.
1. Establish Thesis
A strong response would acknowledge that while the 1960s movements were polarizing and created significant social friction, they ultimately succeeded in expanding the boundaries of American democracy and culture.
2. Argument for Transformation (The Gitlin Perspective)
You can use Gitlin’s interpretation to argue that the 1960s were a necessary disruption.
3. Argument for Social Fragmentation (The O’Neill Perspective)
To provide a counter-argument or a more nuanced view, use O’Neill’s critique of the era’s negative consequences.
4. Synthesis and Conclusion
In your conclusion, you could synthesize these views by stating that the 1960s did not just change laws; they changed the way Americans relate to authority and each other. While the "national division" O’Neill describes remains a feature of modern politics, the "political and cultural space" Gitlin identifies remains the arena where these ongoing divisions are debated.
PROMPT
Evaluate the extent to which the counter-culture and social movements of the 1960s fundamentally transformed American political and social life.
ANSWER OUTLINE
To answer this prompt effectively, you can use the conflicting viewpoints of Todd Gitlin and William O’Neill to establish a complex argument.
1. Establish Thesis
A strong response would acknowledge that while the 1960s movements were polarizing and created significant social friction, they ultimately succeeded in expanding the boundaries of American democracy and culture.
- Source Integration: You could argue that the "divine delirium" described by Gitlin opened essential "political and cultural space", even as O'Neill’s "silent majority" pushed back against these changes.
2. Argument for Transformation (The Gitlin Perspective)
You can use Gitlin’s interpretation to argue that the 1960s were a necessary disruption.
- Opening Space: Argue that the movements of the Sixties were responsible for "philosophical breakthroughs" that continue to influence society today.
- Averting Abuse: Use the claim that these movements "averted some of the worst abuses of power" to discuss how activism challenged government overreach (such as during the Vietnam War or the Watergate era) and "made life more decent for millions".
3. Argument for Social Fragmentation (The O’Neill Perspective)
To provide a counter-argument or a more nuanced view, use O’Neill’s critique of the era’s negative consequences.
- Social Hostility: Discuss how the counter-culture increased "social hostility" by creating a "generation gap" and a "class gap".
- The Silent Majority: Reference O’Neill’s point that the movement alienated "Middle America" and "working-class youngsters," leading to a "national division" that actually made it harder to solve political and social problems.
- Standards and Self-Destruction: Address O’Neill’s claim that "self-indulgence" led to "self-destruction" and that the era was "hell on standards," which can be used to discuss the conservative backlash of the 1970s and 1980s.
4. Synthesis and Conclusion
In your conclusion, you could synthesize these views by stating that the 1960s did not just change laws; they changed the way Americans relate to authority and each other. While the "national division" O’Neill describes remains a feature of modern politics, the "political and cultural space" Gitlin identifies remains the arena where these ongoing divisions are debated.