Sunday, April 03, 2005
While i'm logged in, i might as well cross-post the abstract i submitted for a conference. Wish it luck!
‘No Vote, no voice’ – no longer?
Re-theorising social movements in a post-representation society
From the 1960s onwards, a body of literature evolved to explain the ‘new social movements’ which came into being in dramatic ways during this period. Such movements were apparently unlike anything ever seen before, and as such necessitated a re-thinking of the existing theories surrounding citizenship and political participation. However, I will argue that today’s ‘anti-globalisation movement’ may in turn have confounded these theories; in doing so, I aim to advance an alternative influenced by both traditional anarchist theory and Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of rhizomatic resistance.
Three main assumptions will be challenged here. In traditional social movements theory, as put forward by Tarrow and Diani, a key concept is representation by the state and by social movements. The effectiveness of social movements, likewise, has generally been measured in terms of their impact on the behaviour of state institutions. In addition, social movements have been seen as something outside civil society, acting upon the public consciousness. I will argue, using the so-called ‘anti-globalisation’ movement as an example, that these assumptions are no longer valid.
Firstly, the concept of representation has arguably been supplanted by that of agency as the key word describing today’s anti-structural protest movements. From its early days – the run-up to the mass action/‘riot’ of June 18 1999 is often taken as a starting-point for this type of movement – the focus has been on ‘DIY’ politics and ‘people power’: here, individuals are enabled to mobilise themselves, rather than being mobilised as part of a ‘mass’. The vanguardist model favoured by traditional communists cannot be applied in this case. It is here where the rhizome becomes important: as an organism with no single ‘root’ or linear structure, it provides a viable metaphor for this anarchic ‘movement of movements’.
Secondly, the impact on the state is no longer a reliable measure of the effectiveness of social movements. To begin with, today’s movement is based around global networks, focussing on supra-national bodies (of finance, for example, or governance) rather than national governments. The significance of direct, official impact for the movements themselves has also reduced – how, therefore, can it be used to judge their efficacy? Instead, these movements aim to have the sort of low-level grassroots effect sometimes referred to as ‘the revolution of everyday life’ (Vaneigm 1967) – again, the focus is on mobilising individuals to effect change in their own contexts.
Thirdly, as might be implied from the previous arguments, the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement should not be perceived as a separate entity from those involved or in whose ‘everyday life’ the ‘revolution’ is felt. Its effects are maybe best described as being in rather than on the grass roots of civil society, stemming from within the public consciousness rather than feeding (or being fed) in from outside. Here, arguably, is a form of political action for a post-representation society, rejecting linear and vertical structures of influence (and, by implication, the Marxist/Leninist concept of the vanguard) and opting instead for horizontal networks of autonomous affinity groups linked together by solidarity.
The theories which have previously explained social movements must, therefore, be deconstructed and adapted to the new developments in political action: in particular, the attachment to concepts such as representation, structure and leadership need to be questioned.
‘No Vote, no voice’ – no longer?
Re-theorising social movements in a post-representation society
From the 1960s onwards, a body of literature evolved to explain the ‘new social movements’ which came into being in dramatic ways during this period. Such movements were apparently unlike anything ever seen before, and as such necessitated a re-thinking of the existing theories surrounding citizenship and political participation. However, I will argue that today’s ‘anti-globalisation movement’ may in turn have confounded these theories; in doing so, I aim to advance an alternative influenced by both traditional anarchist theory and Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of rhizomatic resistance.
Three main assumptions will be challenged here. In traditional social movements theory, as put forward by Tarrow and Diani, a key concept is representation by the state and by social movements. The effectiveness of social movements, likewise, has generally been measured in terms of their impact on the behaviour of state institutions. In addition, social movements have been seen as something outside civil society, acting upon the public consciousness. I will argue, using the so-called ‘anti-globalisation’ movement as an example, that these assumptions are no longer valid.
Firstly, the concept of representation has arguably been supplanted by that of agency as the key word describing today’s anti-structural protest movements. From its early days – the run-up to the mass action/‘riot’ of June 18 1999 is often taken as a starting-point for this type of movement – the focus has been on ‘DIY’ politics and ‘people power’: here, individuals are enabled to mobilise themselves, rather than being mobilised as part of a ‘mass’. The vanguardist model favoured by traditional communists cannot be applied in this case. It is here where the rhizome becomes important: as an organism with no single ‘root’ or linear structure, it provides a viable metaphor for this anarchic ‘movement of movements’.
Secondly, the impact on the state is no longer a reliable measure of the effectiveness of social movements. To begin with, today’s movement is based around global networks, focussing on supra-national bodies (of finance, for example, or governance) rather than national governments. The significance of direct, official impact for the movements themselves has also reduced – how, therefore, can it be used to judge their efficacy? Instead, these movements aim to have the sort of low-level grassroots effect sometimes referred to as ‘the revolution of everyday life’ (Vaneigm 1967) – again, the focus is on mobilising individuals to effect change in their own contexts.
Thirdly, as might be implied from the previous arguments, the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement should not be perceived as a separate entity from those involved or in whose ‘everyday life’ the ‘revolution’ is felt. Its effects are maybe best described as being in rather than on the grass roots of civil society, stemming from within the public consciousness rather than feeding (or being fed) in from outside. Here, arguably, is a form of political action for a post-representation society, rejecting linear and vertical structures of influence (and, by implication, the Marxist/Leninist concept of the vanguard) and opting instead for horizontal networks of autonomous affinity groups linked together by solidarity.
The theories which have previously explained social movements must, therefore, be deconstructed and adapted to the new developments in political action: in particular, the attachment to concepts such as representation, structure and leadership need to be questioned.
Comments:
Post a Comment
