Historians have disagreed as to whether there was a social revolution in
Britain in the 1960s. What is your view about whether there was a
social revolution in Britain in the 1960s?
The extent to whether there was a social revolution in Britain in the 1960s has
caused much debate amongst historians. Martin Pugh argues that there was a
social revolution in the 1960s due to the visible changes in society which
exhibited many symptoms of an ‘outright rebellion or divergence from
conventional social behaviour’1. His argument highlights the various aspects of
British society which experienced extensive transformations such as the
introduction of permissive legislation and the considerable liberation of women.
Paul Addison shares Pugh’s views on the substantial number of changes visible in
society and legislation with the ‘arrival of a new society in which repressive
Victorian controls were replaced’ 2 however Addison marginally disagrees over
the universality of the revolution arguing that some of the transitions faced
significant opposition and that some of the changes only affected particular
people therefore ‘it would be misleading to see the 1960s as a one-way ticket to
a more libertarian society’3. Mark Donnelly argues that whilst there was
noticeable evidence of change, there’s a vast number of limitations to the
changes which therefore restricts the extent the 1960s can be called a ‘social
revolution’. Whilst Donnelly and Addison both agree there were limitations to the
change, Donnelly argues it was limited to a greater extent. He argues the press
focuses on ‘Swinging London’ however misses the ‘widening gap of have and
have nots’4 demonstrating that the changes in society focused on the
experiences of the wealthier. The extent to whether there was a revolution can
be determined based on various factors such as the universality of the social
changes, whether they were sustained, the extent to which the changes evolved
or whether they were new to society. Considering the three interpretations, it’s
clear that whilst Pugh argued that 1960s Britain experienced considerable
changes, a ‘revolution’ defined as a ‘sudden, radical, or complete change’ may
be an exaggeration. Therefore, the changes in the 60s arguably didn’t result in a
social revolution as, according to Donnelly, various people in society either
opposed the changes or weren’t integrated into the changes so they weren’t
universal.
During the 1960s, one reason many people suggest there was a ‘social
revolution’ was due to the transition to a Labour government in 1964. Labour
tended to adopt a more liberal viewpoint on various areas of policy and further to
this, Harold Wilson appointed Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary between 1965 and
1967. Jenkins arguably contributed to the social revolution due to his, ‘highly
tolerant, enlightened and influential approach’ 5. Pugh suggests there was a
social revolution due to this shift in government as a ‘younger generation began
to dilute the conservatism of parliament’ 6showing that there was institutional
change which is hugely significant. The Labour government was critical in
‘presiding over major reforms’ 7 in areas such as divorce, abortion, homosexuality
and immigration and without the appointment of ‘liberal’ Jenkins then ‘few of
1
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 297
2
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 196
3
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 220
4
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 131
5
Kenneth O Morgan, Britain Since 1945, page 260
6
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 299
7
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 299
1
, these measures would have been enacted’ 8. Whilst this indicates that the Labour
government’s actions were revolutionary and unprecedented, Donnelly
highlights the limitations to this as ‘there was still deep popular unease about
liberal reforms’9 demonstrated by continued support for the death penalty as
well as the common perception that ‘too much publicity was given to sex’.
Donnelly also suggests that these changes were evolutionary and ‘the end point
of a more gradual liberalisation’10 indicating there was not a sudden change in
society. This limits Pugh’s interpretation that the liberal legislation represents a
revolution as Donnelly highlights the lack of universality of the changes visible
from the extent of opposition, and the fact that many of the changes were
already underway from previous years and therefore, they weren’t new and
revolutionary.
One significant change which could be considered ‘revolutionary’ was the 1967
Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting
adults in private which were previously illegal. Addison argues whilst this was ‘a
great liberation’ it was still ‘a limited one’ 11 as the age of consent was fixed at
21 for homosexuals whereas it was still 16 for heterosexuals showing there was
still a lack of equality, and this legislation also didn’t apply to the armed forces.
There was also a lack of changing attitudes within politics as Attlee publicly
stated that he believed ‘homosexuality is an evil’ 12. Therefore, whilst this change
was critical as it was the first legislation which legalised any form of
homosexuality, it still didn’t go far enough to represent revolutionary change.
Martin Pugh however argues that it was a significant transition in society as it
was the first time ‘the question of homosexuality came into force’ 13 indicating
this was a critical movement forward. During the 1960s, homosexuality in
society became more ‘freely discussed’ with the establishment of papers such as
‘Gay News’ 1962. This relaxation in attitudes shows a shift in society as
homosexuality became a less taboo topic of discussion. Donnelly however
highlights this change was limited as the Gay Liberation front was established in
1970 as it was ‘less than satisfied with the 1967 act’ 14. Geoffrey Goer’s 1969
survey of under 45’s suggested there was still vast intolerance and that ‘there
was much to do’ as only 12% of his sample displayed ‘even a tolerant attitude to
homosexuality’, 22% expressed ‘pity’ and 24% even went as far to say they were
‘revulsed’ 15. This shows a lack of acceptance and arguably the strongest
argument is that there was not a social revolution, particularly in terms of the
lack of changes in attitude and inequality remaining within legislation regarding
homosexuality.
Divorce was another area which experienced significant reform during the 1960s
and contributed to the growing liberation of women. In 1969, the Divorce Reform
Act was passed which was a profound change in divorce law as it allowed a
marriage to end through mutual consent after three years whereas before, a
divorce could only occur if there was a ‘guilty party’ leaving many people
trapped in unhappy marriages. Pugh argues that this law was substantial as by
8
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 299
9
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 117
10
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 122
11
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 204
12
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 204
13
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 300
14
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 120
15
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 120
2
Britain in the 1960s. What is your view about whether there was a
social revolution in Britain in the 1960s?
The extent to whether there was a social revolution in Britain in the 1960s has
caused much debate amongst historians. Martin Pugh argues that there was a
social revolution in the 1960s due to the visible changes in society which
exhibited many symptoms of an ‘outright rebellion or divergence from
conventional social behaviour’1. His argument highlights the various aspects of
British society which experienced extensive transformations such as the
introduction of permissive legislation and the considerable liberation of women.
Paul Addison shares Pugh’s views on the substantial number of changes visible in
society and legislation with the ‘arrival of a new society in which repressive
Victorian controls were replaced’ 2 however Addison marginally disagrees over
the universality of the revolution arguing that some of the transitions faced
significant opposition and that some of the changes only affected particular
people therefore ‘it would be misleading to see the 1960s as a one-way ticket to
a more libertarian society’3. Mark Donnelly argues that whilst there was
noticeable evidence of change, there’s a vast number of limitations to the
changes which therefore restricts the extent the 1960s can be called a ‘social
revolution’. Whilst Donnelly and Addison both agree there were limitations to the
change, Donnelly argues it was limited to a greater extent. He argues the press
focuses on ‘Swinging London’ however misses the ‘widening gap of have and
have nots’4 demonstrating that the changes in society focused on the
experiences of the wealthier. The extent to whether there was a revolution can
be determined based on various factors such as the universality of the social
changes, whether they were sustained, the extent to which the changes evolved
or whether they were new to society. Considering the three interpretations, it’s
clear that whilst Pugh argued that 1960s Britain experienced considerable
changes, a ‘revolution’ defined as a ‘sudden, radical, or complete change’ may
be an exaggeration. Therefore, the changes in the 60s arguably didn’t result in a
social revolution as, according to Donnelly, various people in society either
opposed the changes or weren’t integrated into the changes so they weren’t
universal.
During the 1960s, one reason many people suggest there was a ‘social
revolution’ was due to the transition to a Labour government in 1964. Labour
tended to adopt a more liberal viewpoint on various areas of policy and further to
this, Harold Wilson appointed Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary between 1965 and
1967. Jenkins arguably contributed to the social revolution due to his, ‘highly
tolerant, enlightened and influential approach’ 5. Pugh suggests there was a
social revolution due to this shift in government as a ‘younger generation began
to dilute the conservatism of parliament’ 6showing that there was institutional
change which is hugely significant. The Labour government was critical in
‘presiding over major reforms’ 7 in areas such as divorce, abortion, homosexuality
and immigration and without the appointment of ‘liberal’ Jenkins then ‘few of
1
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 297
2
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 196
3
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 220
4
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 131
5
Kenneth O Morgan, Britain Since 1945, page 260
6
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 299
7
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 299
1
, these measures would have been enacted’ 8. Whilst this indicates that the Labour
government’s actions were revolutionary and unprecedented, Donnelly
highlights the limitations to this as ‘there was still deep popular unease about
liberal reforms’9 demonstrated by continued support for the death penalty as
well as the common perception that ‘too much publicity was given to sex’.
Donnelly also suggests that these changes were evolutionary and ‘the end point
of a more gradual liberalisation’10 indicating there was not a sudden change in
society. This limits Pugh’s interpretation that the liberal legislation represents a
revolution as Donnelly highlights the lack of universality of the changes visible
from the extent of opposition, and the fact that many of the changes were
already underway from previous years and therefore, they weren’t new and
revolutionary.
One significant change which could be considered ‘revolutionary’ was the 1967
Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting
adults in private which were previously illegal. Addison argues whilst this was ‘a
great liberation’ it was still ‘a limited one’ 11 as the age of consent was fixed at
21 for homosexuals whereas it was still 16 for heterosexuals showing there was
still a lack of equality, and this legislation also didn’t apply to the armed forces.
There was also a lack of changing attitudes within politics as Attlee publicly
stated that he believed ‘homosexuality is an evil’ 12. Therefore, whilst this change
was critical as it was the first legislation which legalised any form of
homosexuality, it still didn’t go far enough to represent revolutionary change.
Martin Pugh however argues that it was a significant transition in society as it
was the first time ‘the question of homosexuality came into force’ 13 indicating
this was a critical movement forward. During the 1960s, homosexuality in
society became more ‘freely discussed’ with the establishment of papers such as
‘Gay News’ 1962. This relaxation in attitudes shows a shift in society as
homosexuality became a less taboo topic of discussion. Donnelly however
highlights this change was limited as the Gay Liberation front was established in
1970 as it was ‘less than satisfied with the 1967 act’ 14. Geoffrey Goer’s 1969
survey of under 45’s suggested there was still vast intolerance and that ‘there
was much to do’ as only 12% of his sample displayed ‘even a tolerant attitude to
homosexuality’, 22% expressed ‘pity’ and 24% even went as far to say they were
‘revulsed’ 15. This shows a lack of acceptance and arguably the strongest
argument is that there was not a social revolution, particularly in terms of the
lack of changes in attitude and inequality remaining within legislation regarding
homosexuality.
Divorce was another area which experienced significant reform during the 1960s
and contributed to the growing liberation of women. In 1969, the Divorce Reform
Act was passed which was a profound change in divorce law as it allowed a
marriage to end through mutual consent after three years whereas before, a
divorce could only occur if there was a ‘guilty party’ leaving many people
trapped in unhappy marriages. Pugh argues that this law was substantial as by
8
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 299
9
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 117
10
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 122
11
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 204
12
Paul Addison, No Turning Back, page 204
13
Martin Pugh, State and Society, page 300
14
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 120
15
Mark Donnelly, Sixties Britain, page 120
2
