Untitled - socium.ge

356 Jeffrey S. Jurisorganizations.” There is indeed something to this. Emerging network normsand forms within global justice movements (and within the academy as well)thus not only mirror one another, they also reflect underlying technologicaltransformations mediated by concrete human practice, pointing to a muchbroader dialectic among cultural norms, organizational forms, and technologicalchange.Global justice movements are extremely diverse phenomena. While someMarxist and social democratic sectors promote a return to the nation-state asthe locus for democratic control over the global economy, others support aninternationalist “globalization from below” (Brecher et al., 2000), wheretransnational movements represent an emerging global civil society. Activistswithin more libertarian networks, however, increasingly view social movementsas concrete political alternatives in and of themselves. Many ecologists,squatters, and militant anti-capitalists emphasize the local sphere, while othersshare a broad vision for a decentralized, yet globally coordinated network ofautonomous, self-managed communities. What brings all these differentvisions together involves a commitment to help people establish democraticcontrol over their daily lives. Alberto Melucci (1989: 75–6) argues that socialmovements are signs that announce to society the existence of a conflict andrender power visible. In this sense, global justice movements highlight theincreasing social and economic polarization, environmental devastation, andcultural domination that activists associate with the current regime of corporateglobalization, where the market has become disembedded from society(Polanyi, 1957).Moving from resistance toward alternative political projects often generatesheated micro-political struggles among activists, which largely revolvearound two distinct forms of practicing democracy: one based on politicalrepresentation within permanent structures and another rooted in flexible coordinationand direct participation through decentralized network formations.Political parties, unions, and formal organizations of civil society operateaccording to a representative logic, where social movements function as lobbygroups, applying grassroots pressure to institutional actors, who ultimatelyprocess and implement political proposals. On this view, movements, parties,and unions should work together, each filling distinct, yet complementaryroles, as a labor delegate from Barcelona explained: “Social movements carryout grassroots work, raising awareness among citizens, but they cannot substitutefor political parties … Each one has to know what role they play, and inwhich social and political space they operate” (interview, June 12, 2002).On the other hand, radical network-based movements have articulated amore sweeping political project: transcending both the market and the state.During a debate between Catalan activists and their more institutional counterpartsin May 2002, for example, an activist from XCADE (the Catalan