I was reading the last book of the semester this past week and having trouble getting into it for some reason even though it was a book called "Transnational Protest and Global Activism" and it was about the global justice movement. (It even called it that "the global justice movement" not the "anti-globalization movement" which I appreciated immensely. That "anti-globalization" term irks me to no end. I think because it so effectively obscures both the phenomena and the popular reactions against it that it's hard to have a coherent debate about it!)
Anyway, it was a collection of essays by these various sorts of scholars who were all trying to understand/analyze/explain the (relatively) recent manifestations of the global justice movements (Seattle in '99, Prague, Cancun, Miami etc.). Mostly it was pretty dull reading for my taste. They didn't really tell me anything I didn't know and other than feeling a little weird for being (or having been) part of the social phenomena they were studying I didn't find the book useful at all.
Now it's not readily apparent that the term "activist" is problematic. I used to call myself an activist. No big deal. But reading this book and its descriptions of these sorts of people known as activists got me thinking. Even though the authors were (relatively) sympathetic, they were unwittingly reproducing a conservative framework by using the terms and definitions they used, which were terms and definitions taken from the social movements literature.
To explain, we can examine volume editor Donatella della Porta’s definition of social movements as “composed of networks of groups and activists, with an emerging identity, involved in conflictual issues, using mainly unconventional forms of participation” (177) beginning with the term “activist”, which presumably refers to people who take political action. Democracies theoretically are based upon political participation by the masses; they require such participation or they cease to be democracies. Activists then, are citizens who participate in the democratic process. Anyone who at least goes to the polls on election day is an “activist”. The inclusion of the phrase “involved in conflictual issues” is redundant. Examining and debating issues is the job of the citizenry which is just another way of saying (again) that they are politically active, (not to mention that the term “conflictual” has negative connotations).
But she goes further to say “unconventional forms of participation”. That creates a distinction between “activist” and “citizen”. Activists aren’t just politically active they are “unconventionally” so. But who decides what is a “conventional” way of being politically active and what is an “unconventional” way? Is letter-writing unconventional? How about organizing a sit-in? Today's unconventional is tomorrow's convention. It is irrelevant whether a mode of political participation is conventional or unconventional. It’s all political phenomena.
The separation of the adjective “active” from the concept of “citizen” is political. One is a passive noun with connotations of obedience, moderation and responsibility. The other is active, with connotations of abnormality, aggression (or at least assertiveness), excess and irresponsibility. Della Porta’s definition including the use of “unconventional forms of participation” reinforces this impression and privileges some forms of political action over others. This is a mistake. There's no empirical evidence to justify doing this. It's purely arbitrary and it's immensely disempowering to divorce the notion of action from the concept of citizenship. It's inherently undemocratic.
In contrast, if we look at understanding the popular uprisings against neoliberal economic globalization and its effects in terms of democratic participation on a global level, there are fewer conundrums to try to figure out. It’s not hierarchical and organized because we wouldn’t expect the random reactions of a democratic populace to be hierarchical and organized. If the people speak and act in a relatively unified way it’s not necessarily because there is a “social movement” but because they have similar interests --in this case, because all are hurt in some way by the globalization of capitalism. So of course there are New York feminists in league with unionists in Michigan in league with environmentalists in Germany in league with campesinos in Chiapas. They are all together not because they've suddenly figured out a new way to organize a global movement but because they are all are responding to the multi-faceted face of neoliberal economic liberalization (global capitalism).
In other words, globalized capitalism contains the seed of its own destruction and this is it!
So is this just some purely academic debate? Who cares what a bunch of academics think? What does this mean for us, for regular old people? It means we have to normalize dissent. We have to --by our own language-- bring action back into the concept of citizenry. In a participatory democracy citizenship is inherently active!
We who take political action are not activists. We are citizens. We are not radicals disillusioned with "conventional" means of protest (voting) driven to politics by other means (street protests). We are citizens doing exactly what citizens are supposed to do and whatever tool of political action we choose to use in a given situation (vote, write letters, organize a sit-in or commit civil disobedience, even stage an overthrow of the government) doesn't matter. Political action is political action and human beings have used all sorts of means over the years; it's all political. Doesn't mean there can't be disputes over which tactic is appropriate at any given time in any given situation. Morality and strategical questions will come into consideration with each one. But to make a distinction, to privilege some forms of political action over others --or worse to separate the connotation of action from the concept of citizen-- is erroneous, inaccurate and undemocratic.
Recent Comments