An Alternative Consciousness: Knowledge Construction in the Anti- Globalization Movement

An Alternative Consciousness: Knowledge Construction in the Anti- Globalization Movement Stephanie Rutherford University of Guelph Abstract: This study has been designed to explore the nature of knowledge construction in the anti-globalization, or as it is termed by participants, the global justice movement. I argue that new social movements are particularly privileged sites for the construction of alternative knowledge systems, based on a rejection of the types of institutionalized, or globalized, knowledge that is prevalent in much of formal adult education of today. As such, this study serves to explore the meanings, structure, discourse and actions embodied within one group of the larger movement to determine whether an alternative and meaningful collective identity is present. 1 Introduction The idea for this study was born as I stood facing a police barricade in Quebec City in April, 2001 to protest the Summit of the Americas. In my brief time there, I experienced what I perceived to be two distinct things. First, there were expressions of alternate visions for the world, which seemed to encompass a different way of interacting with both humans and nature an interaction that was intrinsically bound up with democracy, participation, dialogue, solidarity and pluralism. And second, the ferocity of the state s response indicated to me that the antiglobalization movement s resistance was a powerful threat to the hegemony of corporate globalization. It was from these initial observations that my interest was piqued and it occurred to me that this resistance might have implications for adult education practice as a whole. Thus, the purpose of this study became a personal and academic investigation into this alternative consciousness in terms of its structure or anti-structure, meanings, symbols, discourse and praxis to determine what made this way of knowing unique in comparison to the neoliberal and corporate understanding of what knowledge and truth are. Theoretical Framework As a basis for the research process, I conducted a survey of the relevant literature on contemporary social movements. As such I explored different theoretical orientations, such as: Resource Mobilization Theory (Cohen, 1985; Eyerman & Jamison, 1991), Political Opportunity Structure Theory (Kitschelt, 1986; Neidhardt & Rucht, 1991), Master Frame Theory (Carroll & Ratner, 1996), and New Social Movement Theory (Cohen, 1985; Offe, 1985). To extend this analysis, I looked more in depth at four theorists in particular, with reference to their development of theory on both the formation and structure of contemporary social movements Jürgen Habermas (1971, 1981, 1987), Alberto Melucci (1985, 1988, 1989, 1995) and Ron 1 Given the current climate of the criminalization of dissent in Canada, the name of the group studied has been withheld. 249

Eyerman & Andrew Jamison (1991). Their work on social movements provided me with pieces to a larger puzzle, which I synthesized into my theoretical framework. One complaint emerged as I delved into the literature on contemporary social movements. The two predominant strains, Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) and New Social Movement Theory (NSM), were answering different questions. RMT views social movements as a vehicle for individual action based on a cost-benefit analysis individual interests, opportunities, mobilization tactics and strategies for resistance are the indicators used to explain the emergence of collective action (Canel, 1992; Cohen, 1985). NSM theory, on the other hand, envisions social movements as engaged in a process of redefining meaning production where the collective seems to be privileged to the individual (Cohen, 1985). Put more succinctly, RMT asks questions of how movements organize, rather than why. NSM suffers from the opposite approach, exploring issues of why people come together in collective action, but ignoring the processes that keep them engaged (Canel, 1992). Bearing this division in mind, I sought to create a theoretical synthesis which might address both of these questions in the study of one group. This synthesis involves three main concepts and is depicted graphically below. These concepts are: social movements as action system, cognitive praxis and communicative action. ACTION SYSTEM SITUATED KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION COGNITIVE PRAXIS (Eyerman & Jamison) COMMUNICATIVE ACTION (Habermas) 250

A case study that combines an analysis of the structural considerations, the mobilization forces, the issues of both individual and collective identity formation, and the praxis of contemporary social movements would prove useful in understanding the manner in which all of these factors converge to establish a context for knowledge production. Research Design The case study methodology was selected for this research project in order to provide insights into the nature of this phenomenon in a small-scale setting but with a wealth of detail. As part of this methodology, the methods selected for a maximum of qualitative data were indepth semi-structured interviews with members of the group to discover their understanding and articulation of the alternative knowledge system, participant-observation in both formal and informal settings to understand how this knowledge is constructed, communicated, reinforced and expressed, and a document/internet site review to determine both the nature of discourse around this knowledge system and how it is disseminated. With these methods borne in mind, the research questions for this study are as follows: What are the specific structures and processes that have elicited the production of this knowledge system? What are the characteristics of this alternative way of knowing? How does this knowledge differ from the so-called objective reality of globalization ideology? What discourse is developed in the construction of this knowledge system? What does it indicate about its nature? How is this system of local knowledge externalized and shared among the members of the global justice movement? How does the movement seek to disseminate their knowledge to both members and the larger public? Preliminary Findings Major Themes The findings presented in this paper are preliminary in nature. Being a new researcher, I lacked the perspective and experience to recognize that research is indeed often a long and sometimes painful process, occasionally marked by long periods of waiting. Indeed, I had assumed my entry into the group would be much more swift then it was because of my previous engagement on the periphery of the movement. This was not the case and the process-orientation that I so admired about the group was that which hindered my project. Hence, I can only present preliminary results in the format of broad themes at the moment. Nonetheless I think these observations still shed light on the construction of knowledge within the global justice movement and are important to explore further. 251

Contemporary social movements clearly create knowledge within an oppositional framework. As Melucci tells us, They don t ask, they offer (Melucci, 1985: 812). But what does this movement offer? In my investigation, it seems that through their resistance these social movement actors collectively present alternatives to the dominant norms and values of corporate globalization alternatives which are people-centred, emancipatory and informal. Thus, they are not only subject to their structural context, but also shape the context in which they operate. Through the raising of the questions, the new social movement actors offer new alternatives to the present structures of domination. They seek to render the power of neoliberal hegemony visible. Thus, collective resistance has embraced the role of soothsayer creating a terrain where the new conceptions of the truth can be formed and articulated. Through this process, as Melucci has argued, all people are called to meet their full human potential, as self-aware and reflective actors embarking on a process to direct and make meaning in their own lives, as well as operating as nodes in a network of coexistence and communication (Melucci, 1995: 293). They produce this knowledge in four different ways: first, through articulation that an alternative is possible; second, through the group structure in which they organize; third, in the communicative action framework which they adopt; and finally through their action/reflection cycle, or praxis. An Alternative Exists New Worldviews In a broad sense, all of the meeting, actions, documents, workshops and informal discussions within the organization are underpinned by one concept an alternative to corporate globalization is possible. This counter-hegemonic assertion is bolstered through the plethora of activities of other activists around the world. Through the establishment of community kitchens, workshops on the effects of wartime security, demonstrations against the transnational financial institutions, and personal decisions not to purchase from Wal-Mart or contribute to a culture of consumerism, these actors, individually and collectively, are articulating a vision of the world which represents a rejection of domination and an embrace of different tactics which support people s articulation of their own identities. Indeed, this can be said to be the collective identity of this group it is shared and understood by all of the diverse actors as the basis for their struggle. This is, in a sense, the font from which their contestation flows and sustains activists in the difficult work of engaging in resistance for social change. More broadly, in the Ricoeurian sense, one can see the articulation of utopia. By this I mean utopia as a counter-force to ideology, or the vehicle for the exploration of the possible (Ricoeur, 1986: 310). The global justice movement embraces this exploration and perhaps may be utopian at its core. Structure/Anti-hierarchy Not only do contemporary social movements and actors present overt resistance to dominant codes, but as Melucci suggests, also provide a source of symbolic resistance through their very structure (Melucci, 1985). Further, it is this structure that provides a context through which new knowledge can be constructed (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991). This is clearly the case of the group that I am studying, however, this alternative structure might more aptly be titled as anti-hierarchical space or utopian space. This group, through its use of anarchist principles of organization, has provided a space which is more directly democratic, participatory and identity- 252

based for its members. This is reflected in a number of ways. First, the group operates as a coalition of members who are also engaged in other struggles. Among those represented are various labour groups, environ-mentalists, anti-racist activists, socialists, peace activists, antipoverty workers, student groups, political organizations and those that identify themselves as anti-globalization activists. This coalition basis means that there cannot be one statement of unity instead there are a multiplicity of voices and views expressed within the group, and an attempt is made to create space for all of them. In addition, the group utilizes rotating chairs and has no staff to maintain an equal power differential among its members. Indeed, through mobilizing and organizing via committees, each member finds a voice of their own, and has the opportunity to fulfill their own needs in terms of participation. Thus the anti-structure of the group presents a symbolic challenge to the top-down, centralized and hierarchical approach of corporate globalization. Communication & Discourse The manner in which this multiplicity of voices is mediated is through consensus-based decision making. Instead of viewing communication as a means to an end as a strategic tool for arriving to agenda-driven decisions this group seeks to achieve consensus from all its members before any decision is made. Of course, it is important to recognize that there is inevitably a gap between aspiration and actuality, and sometimes a consensus process simply results in compromise rather than its goal of agreement. In addition, it is important to recognize that while there are a multiplicity of voices represented, the movement has been correctly identified, both within and outside of it, as a white middle-class movement. However, it seems evident that, to some extent, loyalties, ambitions and even identities are parked at the door in order to engage in meaningful dialogue. As such, the communicative action framework that is established through this process, in and off itself, provides a symbolic resistance to the win-lose logic of corporate globalization. Indeed, the discourse used within the group represents this challenge. In what seems at first a sort of bricolage of ideas from old social movements, global justice activists use terms such as dialogue, democracy, solidarity, participation, and diversity to define themselves collectively as a separate system a system of meaning that is alternative to the cult of efficiency pre-supposed by the architects of corporate globalization. Praxis or the Action/Reflection Cycle In terms of action, this group seems to use mobilizations and tactics to serve four main functions: exposure, education, solidarity/recruitment and challenge. The first function, which is most often seen in large demonstrations, is the idea of exposing the enemy, or saying I see you! Rendering the power of transnational financial institutions visible is one of the key goals of action. The second function relates to the education of the public at large but also the capacities of their membership. Through workshops, teach-ins, movie nights on political issues, panel discussion or puppet-making seminars for protest, this group seeks to bring the issues out of the hands of the powerful, and reclaim knowledge production for the people. The third function, that of solidarity or recruitment, serves to bring others into the movement. Linked to education, these actions promote interest in the group and allow new members to find expression of their identity 253

in the movement. The final role of action, challenge, is clearly the most obvious. This group uses oppositional politics, both physical and symbolic, to articulate their new vision of the world. However, praxis also involves reflection. Through reflexive thought, both individually and collectively, members explore the meaning and effects of these actions in two ways. First, the success of the action is based on its objectives. How many people attended the protest, meeting, teach-in? How many people were recruited? Was it covered by the media? Was there a clear articulation of the goal of the action? These can be seen as more instrumental measures of success. However, there is another process of reflection in this group, which is more clearly linked to emancipatory knowledge. At regular intervals, this group sets aside time in their general meeting to reflect specifically on a broader perspective of where are we going? In these sessions, members are asked to analyze the actions and the directions of the group in order to provide an opportunity for new ideas and innovations. This action/reflection cycle provides the group with the learning curve that keeps their struggle going. Implications for Adult Education Theory and Practice By examining the manner in which the global justice movement constructs its resistance through structure, communication, worldview assertion and praxis, it may present some alternative systems for both the confrontation and the reconstruction of public policy around a multitude of issues. Indeed, as Holford reminds us the fact that social movements are producers of alternative knowledge is of importance to adult educators who seek to utilize emancipatory frameworks in their critical pedagogy. This movement s articulation of an alternative way of being in the world may speak to new ways in which adult educators can divorce themselves for the current trend of professionalization and instead challenge and inspire people to be part of social change. References Canel, Eduardo. (1992) New Social Movement Theory and Resource Mobilization: The Need for Integration. In Carroll, William K. ed. Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice. Canada: Garamond Press, pp. 22-51. Carroll, William K. & Robert S. Ratner. (1996) Master Frames and Counter-Hegemony: Political Sensibilities in Contemporary Social Movements. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 407-433. Cohen, Jean. (1985) Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements. Social Research. Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 663-716. Eyerman, Ron & Andrew Jamison. (1991) Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Habermas, Jürgen. (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, Jürgen. (1981) New Social Movements. Telos. Vol. 49, pp. 33-37. 254

Habermas, Jürgen. (1989) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2: Lifeworld and System. Boston: Beacon Press. Kitschelt, Herbert. (1986) Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies. British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 16, pp. 57-85. Melucci, Alberto. (1985) The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements. Social Research. Vol. 52, No.4, pp. 789-816. Melucci, Alberto. (1988) Social Movements and the Democratization of Everyday Life. In Keane, John ed. Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives. London: Verso, pp. 245-260. Melucci, Alberto (1989) Nomads of the Present. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Melucci, Alberto. (1995) The Global Planet and the Internal Planet: New Frontiers for Collective Action and Individual Transformation. In Cultural Politics and Social Movements. Darnovsky, Marcy, Barbara Epstein & Richard Flacks, Eds. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 287-298. Neidhardt, Friedhelm & Dieter Rucht. (1991) The Analysis of Social Movements: The State of the Art and Some Perspectives for Further Research. In Rucht, Dieter, ed. Research on Social Movements: The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 421-460. Offe, Claus. (1985) New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. Social Research. Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 817-868. Ricoeur, Paul., ed. George H. Taylor. (1986) Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. New York: Columbia University Press. 255