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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

May Day 2001 – the devil incarnate? States fight back 79 As May Day 2001 approached media reports emphasised impending violence with The Sunday Telegraph reporting: more than 15,000 dedicated, hardened activists from all over Europe [who] will descend on just one target, central London. . . . Among the anarchists who are likely to attend are those from the Black Flag movement and German terrorists. These are the same people who caused trouble at the meeting of the G8 group of economic powers . . . at Seattle (18.02.01) Such accounts were reproduced across the spectrum of print media (see The Observer 29.04.01). Photographs of suspected ringleaders ‘intending’ to cause violence were circulated to the press during April 2001 (Vidal and Branigan 2001), despite none having been identified as offenders. Newspaper accounts intoned that anarchists were thousands strong, would carry samurai swords, had links with the Real IRA, had been to training camps in United States, and were ‘battle hard’. Political figures including the Mayor of London, Ken Livingston warned protesters to stay at home and backed the police in arresting anyone whose intention was ‘to engage in criminal activities’ (Vidal and Branigan 2001). Tony Blair considered that: The limits are passed when protesters, in the name of some spurious cause, seek to inflict fear, terror, violence and criminal damage on people and property....There is a right way to protest in a democracy and there is a wrong way. Britain and its people are not just tolerant of peaceful protest but see it, rightly, as part of our democratic process. (The Guardian 1.05.01) The Guardian, reported that ‘more than 100 often hysterical articles have been printed in the mainstream press hyping the violence, with few suggesting that the protesters have any valid point. The unbalance has been remarkable. No one wants to look at why people are protesting (Vidal and Branigan 2001). Given the expectation of violence the police adopted a ‘zero tolerance’ stance, mobilising 6,000 officers with a further 3,000 in reserve (The Independent 2.05.01). Predictions of a large protest committed to violence were confounded when only 3,000 to 5,000 turned out to participate in a fluid action that envisaged carnivalesque events in areas of London associated with the board game Monopoly. The policing operation was clearly intended to maintain control of the streets and limit mobility and resulted in protestors being ‘kettled’ in Oxford Circus. The police cordon was strictly maintained for over six hours during which no one was permitted to leave without being photographed and giving their personal details. Some small skirmishes broke out as water, food and personal comfort all
80 States fight back ran out. The predicted demonic assembly did not materialise leaving senior Metropolitan Police Officers in evening TV news studios justifying their operations in terms of ‘plastic bottles’ having being thrown at officers. The tabloid media emphasised the success of the police action. The Daily Mail ran under a headline reading ‘Day the Law fought back’ (2.05.01) with The Mirror announcing the result as if reporting on a football match ‘One Nil To The Bill’ (2.05.01). Both front pages carried the same photograph depicting a protester being beaten over the head by a police baton. The Sun’s coverage announced ‘Mayhem Across The World – Going Nuts in May’ depicting the ‘Face of hate’ as protestors clashed with police in London, Australia, France, Korea, Germany, Pakistan and Russia (2.05.01, pp. 12–13). Participants were variously described as being a ‘mob’, ‘anarchists’ and ‘thugs’. The broadsheets carried images of police surrounding protestors in Oxford Circus, with The Daily Telegraph headline declaring ‘Police quell May Day threat’ (2.05.01) whilst The Times considered ‘Rain rescues capitalism from spike-haired hoard’ (2.05.01). The Independent and The Guardian headlines declared ‘Scuffles mar May Day protest’ and ‘Police set trap for protests’ (2.05.01 respectively). Despite attempts by Liberty to pursue the police for ‘unlawfully detaining’ activists (The Guardian 12.06.01) the Metropolitan Police’s position remained virtually unchanged in 2002, with assistant commissioner Mike Todd reportedly instructing officers to use ‘in your face’ tactics with protestors regarded as potential rioters (Hopkins et al. 2002). Such views resonate with US government thinking which has seen the introduction of ‘free speech zones’, 17 specially designated areas within which dissent can be voiced, that are frequently far-removed from the source of protestors’ concerns. Similar restrictions have been applied in the United Kingdom. 18 The dominance of images depicting damage to war memorials in 2000 contributed to a widely held view that London RTS had been significantly damaged and their credibility undermined. But pessimism within activist circles overlooked polling data suggesting a far more complex public stance. A Democratic Audit survey (http://www.fhit.org.democratic_audit) sought responses to the statement ‘If governments don’t listen, peaceful protests, blockades and demonstrations are legitimate ways of expressing people’s concerns’. Amongst respondents 49% agreed strongly whilst a further 32% tended to agree, a combined total of 81%. Such polling evidence leaves interpretation of ‘peaceful’ open but taken with other indicators, such as not guilty jury verdicts in trials involving activists from Trident Ploughshares charged with criminal damage on military bases, point to a public sphere which resonates with aspects of the anti-capitalist movements’ case and moral principles. If you have got something to say, say it democratically. Come out and vote, but don’t end up trying to beat the place up because your politics aren’t shared by the vast majority of people. (Hopkins et al. 2002)
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 and 88: 76 States fight back to trivialise
Page 89: 78 States fight back beneath Big Be
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?