Basking in unexpected sunshine, France these days is bewitched and bewildered by its memories of the May 1968 student revolts that brought the country to the verge of yet anther great revolution.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has called on the French to "forget My 68", which he seems to regard as a moment of historic madness.
But what was May 68 really about? This is the question asked and endlessly debated in the media, the cafes, and even French homes. The consensus is that it was all about blazing the trail for the new century, now in its first decade.
Even before starting, the 21st century had attracted a number of labels. Some saw it as " the era of the space", predicting the establishment of the first human colonies on other planets. Others labelled the new century "the age of equity", hoping that it would see the end of the inequalities that have marked human societies throughout history.
Utopian sentiments, one cosmic, the other terrestrial, inspired both labels.
No one knows what the new century would eventually look like. This is still a new language whose grammar we have to learn as we go along, while its vocabulary is revealed through experience.
One thing, however, is clear: May 68 was about redefinitions. It wanted everything redefined: work, study, love, sex, and, of course and above all, politics.
The Aristotelian definition of politics as the art of managing the affairs of the city seemed too restrictive. The Machiavellian definition of it as "the art of the possible" was too cynical.
If politics is an art its proper domain cannot but be the provision, maintenance, and enhancement of a framework within which individuals and communities could mobilise their energies in pursuit of their goals.
That, in turn, poses the issue of power.
In most countries, that issue has been resolved, albeit not in a fully satisfactory manner, at the cultural level, through the adoption of the classical Western position that stipulates that power belongs to the sovereign people who exercise it through freely chosen representatives. Further, the exercise of power is limited by rules, laws and conventions designed to ensure the rights and interests of minorities, and making sure that decisions by the present generations do no harm to future ones.
The May 68 slogan of "All Power to The People", therefore, was a bit vague, to say the least.
Re-definition
Another area where May 68 sought re-definition concerned the body of tradition, much of it religious but a good part also tribal and cultural that provides the basic framework of our societies.
The May 68 culture asserted that tradition alone was no justification for social order or cultural values.
One more area where re-definition was required, concerned the aim of social life.
The Western world, and much of the other portions of humanity with it, have, in effect, adopted the Epicurean position defined by Lucretius: A society should aim to maximise the pleasure of its members and minimise their pain. May 68 wanted the individual to be the judge of how, when and where he or she seeks that pleasure.
Such a position would not have scandalised most Muslims in the heyday of the Islamic civilisation. Islam rejects asceticism and regards the masochistic practices of some other religions as sinful. Today, however, the suggestion that Muslims should pursue pleasure and seek to avoid pain may outrage some self-styled radicals who believe that even smiling is sinful.
A re-definition effort could help us revive the essential humanism of Islam, its love of beauty and passion for life, rather than fear of beauty and the cult of death preached by some new fundamentalists.
This brings us to the issue of freedom - one that no Muslim society should ignore. With the increasing globalisation of life, it is no longer possible to erect walls around any society.
We all know that, nowadays, capital can emigrate at the touch of a key on the computer. Increasingly, individuals are also able to emigrate to escape living conditions they find unbearable.
It is no accident that Muslim countries represent the biggest sources of immigrants in the world. Part of this is due to economic factors. But even in the richest Muslim countries a growing number of people have organised their lives as "part-time immigrants" in the sense that they spend a good portion of each year in foreign lands.
The issue of freedom cannot be dodged. But the best way to tackle it is through its juxtaposition with the issue of responsibility. The principle of duty is best defended through the acceptance of man's right to be free within the laws he has consented to. Dealing with freedom, we are bound to end up with the issue of human rights.
The universally accepted position is that all human beings have intrinsic rights regardless of racial, class, religious and social backgrounds.
The problem is that this universal principle has been somewhat "over explained" during the decades since May 68. The numerous conventions enacted to define and concretise the basic principle have ended up weakening them. This has enabled some of our fundamentalists to reject the concept of human rights as anti-Islamic by citing this or that particular convention.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the question: does the mere fact of being human confer a set of inalienable rights?
If we say yes, we will be part of the mainstream of humanity.
Saying yes would not be easy. It would imply a revision of many traditional rules and practices regarding women, for example. This is an issue we cannot fudge.
But where should such discussions and redefinition take place?
Framework
Normally the framework for such introspection is provided by universities, political parties, associations, parliaments and, of course, the media. Such institutions do exist in virtually all Muslim countries but with different degrees of authenticity and efficiency.
The way some of these institutions are organised and managed in many Muslim countries prevents them from serving as genuine vehicles for discussion, debate and dissent.
Even where this is not the case, our discussions and debates still suffer from lack of common terms of reference, and an emotional vocabulary. Caught between populist demagoguery and official hypocrisy, the debate on re-definition of the key concepts is often pushed to the sidelines.
One forum where such a debate could take place is the family. Another is the informal gatherings of friends and acquaintances, a phenomenon rapidly spreading in Muslim societies. We need to think about our situation. And we need to share our thoughts with our brothers and sisters. We need to learn to talk to one another, not at each other.
That was, perhaps, the main message of May 68.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.
