Complexity and Social Movements: Multitudes at the Edge of Chaos ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

not fit the stereotype of a protester or eco-warrior, views strengthened when he appeared in court, justifying his actions as follows: The May Day celebrations were in the spirit of free expression against capitalism. Churchill was an exponent of capitalism and of imperialism and anti-Semitism. A Tory reactionary vehemently opposed to the emancipation of women and to independence in India. The media machine made this paunchy little man much larger than life – a colossal, towering figure of great stature and bearing with trademark cigar, bowler hat and V-sign. The reality was an often irrational, sometimes vainglorious leader whose impetuosity, egotism and bigotry on occasion cost many lives unnecessarily and caused much suffering that was needless and unjustified. (The Guardian 8.05.00) When asked by the stipendiary magistrate what he had wanted to achieve by his actions he replied, ‘I thought that on a day when people all over the world are gathering to express basic human rights and freedom of expression it was acceptable to challenge an icon of the British establishment.’ (The Guardian 10.05.00). An ex-soldier with a sophisticated understanding of the role of political leaders in fostering inequalities in the world cannot be easily dismissed as the stereotypic thug of media portrayals. Other individuals prominent in the protests also confounded simplifying folk devil epithets as The Sun headline of 4 May declared ‘Eton Boy is Riot Thug’ describing the University Professor’s son as a ‘Self styled Anarchist’ who had apparently thrown a plastic bottle at the police (The Sun 04.05.00, pp. 1 and 5). The Daily Telegraph preferred to focus on those they could easily classify as ‘outsiders’ reporting 8 of the initial 13 individuals appearing in court ‘were born overseas, others were unemployed and one was a Kurdish refugee’ (4.05.00). The McDonaldisation of protest? States fight back 77 The only property damage of any significance occurred in Whitehall when an unguarded McDonalds outlet was ‘trashed’. The destruction of this retail outlet featured prominently in establishing dominant discourses within the public sphere. Given that the ambitions of the Guerrilla Gardening event were largely confined to Parliament Square, this event raised significant speculation and debate about the underlying reasons for this action. Parliament Square is one of the unique spaces 13 in terms of public order and freedom of speech within the United Kingdom. A Sessional Order of Parliament instructs the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to maintain unimpeded access to the Palace of Westminster. Guerrilla Gardening raised the prospect of riot suited police fighting with ‘gardeners’
78 States fight back beneath Big Ben, an eponymous symbol of democracy recognised around the world. The police operation on May Day was as much about managing the political theatre of people staking their claim to this piece of land, as it was about any objective sense of threat posed by ‘guerrilla gardening’. The police found themselves in a double bind, compelled by political imperative to defend a particular space, described in police parlance as a ‘ditch’ in which they feel compelled to ‘die’ (Waddington 1994: 66). As an alternative allowing the crowd into Whitehall created the opportunity for those who wished to vent their frustrations on a McDonalds – this was an operational police decision that reinforced a public order strategy. As an eye-witness subsequently recounted: The inevitable happened and for a full quarter of an hour those who wished to, had a free hand to smash up the restaurant. It was only when surrounding shops were started on that the police miraculously reappeared and swiftly and easily corralled everyone in that section of Whitehall into the secured pen of Trafalgar Square 14 (http://www.urban75.org/mayday/015.html accessed 01.03.05) This was not an isolated view. Although The Evening Standard tabloid newspaper incorrectly reported that the McDonalds restaurant had been guarded by ‘12 police officers’ (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/newsite/ textsoftly_policing.txt accessed 18.10.01) John Vidal reporting in The Guardian noted, ‘The confrontation had to happen. The first 400 people went past McDonalds barely believing it was there, unboarded and unguarded. The second 300 gathered round it’ (1994: 66). The eyewitness, quoted, posed the question ‘Who stood to benefit from the day ending with a small, totally contained and 99.9% ineffectual disturbance?’. The eyewitness’s conclusion was that a kind of ‘give them enough rope and they will hang themselves’ conspiracy had taken place, because the police, the politicians and McDonalds would all benefit from images of the destruction of yet another McDonalds restaurant. Such a conspiracy, if real, would justify the police tactics, allow politicians to ‘rail against those advocating direct action’ and give the burger company free publicity. 15 In effect, the Mayday 2000 carnival against capitalism became transformed from a ‘peaceful celebration of the growing global anti-capitalist movement’ 16 into a riot. Francis Wheen, writing in The Guardian summed up the incredulity of such a label when he described the events as being a ‘Small Riot Near Trafalgar Square: No One Dead’ (3.05.00). For present purposes the intent and agency behind the photo-opportunities which became the dominant iconic representations of May Day 2000 are irrelevant. The importance of this iconic praxis lies in the ready availability of symbolic expressions that condense and fuse an event around a deviant social actor. Such condensation symbols are retrospectively retrieved and repeated to predict the behaviour and motives associated with future events reinforcing the need for firm action.
Page 2 and 3:
Complexity and Social Movements Che
Page 4 and 5:
Complexity and Social Movements Mul
Page 6 and 7:
Contents List of figures vi Acknowl
Page 8 and 9:
Acknowledgements With thanks to all
Page 10:
Preface ix activists and engaged ci
Page 13 and 14:
2 Introducing global movements poli
Page 15 and 16:
4 Introducing global movements arou
Page 17 and 18:
6 Introducing global movements esta
Page 19 and 20:
8 Introducing global movements Thes
Page 21 and 22:
10 Introducing global movements exp
Page 23 and 24:
12 Introducing global movements che
Page 25 and 26:
14 Introducing global movements Fra
Page 27 and 28:
16 Introducing global movements ‘
Page 29 and 30:
18 Introducing global movements for
Page 31 and 32:
20 Introducing global movements and
Page 33 and 34:
2 Prefiguration and emergence Intro
Page 35 and 36:
24 Prefiguration and emergence on T
Page 37 and 38: 26 Prefiguration and emergence 9 If
Page 39 and 40: 28 Prefiguration and emergence Prop
Page 41 and 42: 30 Prefiguration and emergence agai
Page 43 and 44: 32 Prefiguration and emergence C. E
Page 45 and 46: 34 Prefiguration and emergence The
Page 47 and 48: 36 Prefiguration and emergence Glob
Page 49 and 50: 38 Prefiguration and emergence In t
Page 51 and 52: 40 Prefiguration and emergence Neo-
Page 53 and 54: 42 Prefiguration and emergence from
Page 55 and 56: 44 Identities, protest dynamics and
Page 79 and 80: 68 States fight back when trust in
Page 81 and 82: 70 States fight back academically,
Page 83 and 84: 72 States fight back streets from d
Page 85 and 86: 74 States fight back ‘green Parli
Page 87: 76 States fight back to trivialise
Page 91 and 92: 80 States fight back ran out. The p
Page 93 and 94: 82 States fight back The attempt to
Page 95 and 96: 84 States fight back Accounts of th
Page 97 and 98: 86 States fight back hair, infringe
Page 99 and 100: 88 States fight back crisis is in e
Page 101 and 102: 5 Ecologies of action within global
Page 103 and 104: 92 Ecologies of action attractor wi
Page 105 and 106: 94 Ecologies of action embedded in
Page 107 and 108: 96 Ecologies of action The assimila
Page 109 and 110: 98 Ecologies of action compatibilit
Page 111 and 112: 100 Ecologies of action linking up
Page 113 and 114: 102 Ecologies of action occurred wi
Page 115 and 116: 104 Ecologies of action leading to
Page 117 and 118: 106 Ecologies of action siege of in
Page 119 and 120: 108 Beyond resistance to global nex
Page 139 and 140:
7 The death of collective identity?
Page 141 and 142:
130 Global movement as a parallelog
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
148 The map is not the territory th
Page 161 and 162:
150 The map is not the territory of
Page 163 and 164:
152 The map is not the territory Ne
Page 165 and 166:
154 The map is not the territory mi
Page 167 and 168:
156 The map is not the territory or
Page 169 and 170:
158 The map is not the territory mo
Page 171 and 172:
160 The map is not the territory of
Page 173 and 174:
162 The map is not the territory ne
Page 175 and 176:
Notes 1 Introducing global movement
Page 177 and 178:
166 Notes 12 Ya Basta’s! subseque
Page 179 and 180:
168 Notes 19 This practice has been
Page 181 and 182:
170 Notes Afro Bloc parading drum b
Page 183 and 184:
172 Bibliography Barker, C., Johnso
Page 185 and 186:
174 Bibliography De Sousa Santos, B
Page 187 and 188:
176 Bibliography Grubacic, A. (2003
Page 189 and 190:
178 Bibliography Lash, S. (2002) Cr
Page 191 and 192:
180 Bibliography O’Neill, J. (200
Page 193 and 194:
182 Bibliography Thompson, E.P. (19
Page 195 and 196:
Index Note: Page numbers in italics
Page 197 and 198:
186 Index class: affinities 93; and
Page 199 and 200:
188 Index G7 23 G8 23, 100; meeting
Page 201 and 202:
190 Index London 52, 63, 69, 116; E
Page 203 and 204:
192 Index Poland 44, 45; ‘Orange
Page 205 and 206:
194 Index Taylor, P. 168 n.2; call
show all

Complexity and Social Movements: Multitudes at the Edge of Chaos ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?