ALTERNATIVE GLOBALISATION MOVEMENTS
The alternative or alter-globalisation movement (AGM) came to prominence through its capacity to mount large-scale protests and interventions during summits of international governance and finance organisations (World Trade Organisation/International Monetary Fund/World Bank/ G8) during the late 1990s and early 2000s. This capacity was one outcome of networking processes that were underway for a considerable time before the AGM came to public prominence in events during 1999, such as the June 18th Carnival Against Capitalism in London or the massive protests and shutdown of the Seattle meetings of the WTO in late November and early December of the same year. These protests were amongst the first to explicitly articulate a link between Northern movements and the backlash against neoliberal globalisation that had found previous expression in the resistance to structural adjustment policies and free-trade agreements by movements in the Global South during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
There were many catalysts for these links, but perhaps the most significant for the emergence of the AGM were the actions of the Zapatistas ā the EZLN (EjĆ©rcito Zapatista de LiberaciĆ³n Nacional, see Zapatismo), an insurgent movement in Mexico who had militarily occupied parts of the Mexican state of Chiapas on 1 January 1994. They timed their actions to coincide with and protest the introduction of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Zapatistas were crucial to the emergence of the AGM because they were amongst the first to publicly articulate and communicate the potential for a global resistance movement to neoliberalism. Their conception and realisation of the āFirst Intercontinental Encuentro for Humanity and Against Neoliberalismā in Chiapas in 1996 gave a form and expression to a network of previously disparate actors and provided the inspiration for a movement that was to subsequently animate protests globally.
The AGM is not a social movement in the traditional sense of the concept. The AGM is best defined as a network movement, with significant nodes and clusters consisting of social movements, social movement organisations, groups and individuals, expanding across a multidimensional space with both material and virtual manifestations. Coterminous with this network is a series of what are referred to as āplateauxā (Chesters and Welsh 2006): protest events, campaigns, gatherings of one type or another (see World Social Forum, Peoplesā Global Action) which allow for a brief manifestation and stabilisation of the network, facilitating processes of identity building, the exchange of ideas, and the planning of protest actions etc.
The AGMās use of globally co-ordinated days of action has proven a significant innovation in mobilisation and the network architecture it produced was highly significant in the development of the movements against the Iraq war, culminating in the global protests on 15 February 2003, the single largest co-ordinated protest in history. The suggestion for this emerged from the assembly of social movements held at the end of the first European Social Forum in Florence in 2001. In many ways, then, the AGM represents a confluence of different conflictual currents originating in diverse regions of the world that have identified a common opposition and sought a shared field of action. Consequently, any neat or linear explanation of origins and context is likely to be problematic and reductive, leaving the debate as to whether this complex phenomenon is correctly identified as a movement, network movement or movements to remain open.
References and resources
Chesters, G. and Welsh, I. (2006); McDonald, K. (2006); Mertes, T. (ed. 2004); Marcos, Subcomandante. (2001). Notes from Nowhere (eds. 2003); Tormey, S. (2004).
ANARCHISM
Anarchism is the collective term for a diverse range of philosophical, political, social and cultural theories originating in the nineteenth century and subsequently revised and reinterpreted. Whilst anarchy is commonly understood in terms of the absence or breakdown of social order, advocates of anarchism promote voluntary forms of association constitutive of social order independent of a state. Independence from the state can also be consistent with support for capitalism and neoliberalism. Forms of collective anarchism which argue for forms of sociality involving justice in dealings and respect for difference challenge all state forms whether capitalist or communist.
Nineteenth-century European anarchism emerged within the International Working Menās Association, better known as the First International, and had counterparts in Russia, Latin America, America, the Philippines and Pacific Rim. Anarchism was a prominent response to what Anderson calls āearly globalisationā (2005: 3) as the first wave of industrialised economies became colonial powers. Whilst the relationship between historical and contemporary forms of anarchism is beyond the scope of this text it is important to be aware of key continuities and disjunctures.
In terms of political expressions of anarchism, syndicalism ā the self-organising process of voluntary association between workers, formalised in nineteenth-century anarchism ā remains important. Syndicalism retains a contemporary significance and was a prominent part of the philosophy of the 1970s advocate of Post-Scarcity Anarchism Murray Bookchin (1974). Community and communitarian expressions of the nineteenth-century European anarchist tradition emphasised the capacity for self-organising, collaborative interaction within human societies. Mutualism, the propensity towards co-operation, was advanced by Kropotkin (1998) as more important than competition in terms of evolution and survival and is a prominent underpinning of the contemporary work of Noam Chomsky.
Michael Bakunin (Dolgof 1972) is best known as a nineteenth-century insurrectionist drawn to conflicts throughout Europe as the industrial revolution transformed societies and sharpened class antagonisms. He was a prominent figure within the First International where he clashed with Marx and Engels, arguing that the peasantry rather than the emergent industrial proletariat represented the true revolutionary social force. Whilst the revolutionary catechism written with Nachiev has made him famous for advocating the uncompromising use of violence in the pursuit of revolutionary change, there are more important aspects of his work for the contemporary conjuncture. Two in particular stand out. First, Bakunin argued for the importance of what he termed āinvisible pilotsā to guide and facilitate the revolutionary process. Anarchist groups throughout Europe fulfilled this role, representing a pre-cursor of contemporary network actors. The use of cells as an organisational form became widely used by a wide range of movements on several continents. Second, Bakunin wrote at a point when science and technology were becoming dominant drivers of economic and social change. Whilst Bakunin mourned the fact that the introduction of modern rifles using manufactured ammunition ended the ability of revolutionaries to make lead shot for muskets, he also theorised the role of the emergent āsavants of scienceā. Within this work lay key elements of an anarchist theory of science (Thorpe and Welsh 2008).
After a prolonged period of apparent decline anarchism achieved a renewed prominence with the emergence of the counterculture and new social movements during the 1960s and 1970s. The US writer Murray Bookchin was a prominent exponent of struggles based outside the workplace, prioritising autonomy and voluntary association coupled to the rejection of authoritarian behavioural norms. Combined with the liberatory potential of āalternative technologyā capable of capturing the energy of the sun, tide and wind Bookchinās work resonated with the emergent green and environmental movements (Dobson 1997). The emphasis on decentralised social forms based on consensus decision-making in Bookchinās work was influential within a wide range of activist networks in the USA, the United Kingdom and beyond.
In Europe anarchist influences were prominent in and around the student-led Paris rebellions of 1968. Drawing on a range of left-orientated thinkers, events in Paris contained many currents. Those most closely associated with the anarchist canon included the Situationist International (SI) and the work of Guy Debord. Debord and the SI prefigured many elements of postmodernism with their emphasis on spectral and iconic practices (Stephens 1998). By creating situations and spectacles revealing the sterility and emptiness of everyday life associated with consumer capitalism the SI prefigured a diverse range of social movement repertoires (e.g. subvertising) which have increased in prominence as computer mediated communications have developed. The founding editor of the journal Anarchist Studies, Tom Cahill, argues that the New Social Movements of this era were all examples of anarchist praxis. Irrespective of the veracity of this argument, anarchism and anarchist influences were key sources in the upwelling of citizensā initiatives and action groups that took place across the industrialised nations of the world at this time.
Towards the end of the twentieth century, anarchism was a prominent element within the social, political and economic transformations that accompanied the end of the post-Second World War bi-polar world order. The end of Soviet Communism was accompanied by a series of revolutions across Central and Eastern Europe within which anarchist groups played important roles (Kenney 2002). In a similar manner the consolidation of neoliberalism within industrial economies such as the United Kingdom was also accompanied by innovative, anarchist-inspired interventions (McKay 1996, 1998). As the global stakes associated with neoliberalism became increasingly prominent with the advent of US neoconservatism, anarchism played a prominent role in constituting the alternative globalisation movement (Chesters and Welsh 2006; Graeber 2002; Tormey 2004). Compared to previous decades this upwelling has achieved global reach with anarchist principles of self-organising, autonomous initiatives rooted in the contradictions of everyday life appearing all over the world (Notes from Nowhere 2003). At the start of the second decade of the twenty-first century it is clear that the historically significant anarchist traditions of non-violent direct action and violent confrontation remain active. More importantly, the digital commons and ease of physical mobility have added a range of modalities to the anarchist tradition and ended the isolation associated with small-scale anarchist interventions.
The contemporary significance of anarchism continues through an engagement with post-structural thinkers such as Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari (Call 2002; May 1994) leading to the introduction of the term postanarchism. Whilst the theoretical bases of this work are complex it is also informed by, and engaged with, emergent forms of cultural and political agency within a highly mobile and electronically connected world. Zapatismo, Reclaim The Streets, the alternative globalisation movement are amongst the widely dispersed, horizontally structured, network actors around which postanarchism builds. Postanarchism is a self-conscious attempt to reposition anarchist theory and praxis through a critical engagement with the existing canon of anarchist thought and postmodernism to formulate modes of collective political engagement based on diversity and hybridty rather than collective identity (Newman 2007). Andersonās discovery of Indymedia via a traditional paper leaflet headed āOrganize Without Leaders!ā led him to speculate about the arrival of āLate Globalizationā (Anderson 2005: 234). The persistence of anarchist theory and praxis through space and time suggests that anarchism will continue to play a significant role in social movement studies.
References and resources
Anderson, B. (2005); Bookchin, M. (1974, 1982, 1986); Bookchin, M. and Foreman, D. (1991); Call, L. (2002); Chesters, G. and Welsh, I. (2006); Dobson, A. (1997); Dolgoff, S. (1972); Graeber, D. (2002); Kenney, P. (2002); Kropotkin, P. (1998); McKay, G. (1996, 1998); May, T. (1994); Newman, S. (2007); Notes from Nowhere (eds. 2003); Stephens, J. (1998); Thorpe, C. and Welsh, I. (2008); Tormey, S. (2004).
ANTAGONISTIC MOVEMENT
Concept derived from the work of the late Italian social movement theorist Alberto Melucci (1989, 1996) which constitutes one of four analytically distinct types of behaviour that Melucci argues can be identified in social movements, the others being conflictual networking, claimant movement and political movement. An antagonistic movement is one that challenges society and politics in the most fundamental of ways. It not only questions the allocation of resources between social groups or classes, but challenges the ideological and organisational basis for the production, distribution and exchange of crucial social and economic goods. Examples might include radical environmentalistsā critique of economic growth and the incommensurability of growth and environmental protection, or the growth of explicitly anticapitalist movements whose choice of direct action is for ideological (against representative liberal democracy) rather than for instrumental (influencing policy) purposes.
Whilst no movement is ever completely antagonistic, that is, without recourse or relationship to existing formal systems of social and political representation and decision-making, an antagonistic orientation may be empirically observable within certain movements in certain contexts and might become increasingly apparent in circumstances where organisational or political systems attempt their repression through a process of criminalisation.
Melucci makes this argument through his description of the criteria for determining an antagonistic social movement:
1 The way in which the system affected by the collective action responds. Melucci argues that a movementās opponents, having greater access to resources, w...
