Abstract
A criticism recently directed at Social Movement literature is that movement activists are often disappointed by what they find in Social Movement theory (Rootes, 1990; Darnovsky et al., 1995; Barker and Cox, 2002; Flacks, 2004; Bevington and Dixon, 2005; Juris, 2007; Haluza-DeLay, 2008; Howley, 2008; Plows, 2008; Humphrys, 2009; DeFilippis et al., 2010; Jasper, 2010). It fails to address practical concerns (Barker and Cox, 2002); is often produced for a solely academic audience (Juris, 2007); and ultimately, is not relevant (Bevington and Dixon, 2005). Indeed, as Flacks asks: ‘what is all this analysis for? In what way does the validation, elaboration and refinement of concepts provide usable knowledge for those seeking social change?’ (2004: 138). The recent ‘activist-turn’ in Social Movement research seeks to remedy this, and activist ethnography is one such methodology that has gained increasing attention in recent years.
Activist ethnographers are influenced by feminist approaches to research methodologies, and in particular, the notion of ‘participatory action research’. Reid and Frisby note that this is a process which not only focuses on democratizing the research process and acknowledging lived experience, but importantly, it is a process which should be ‘liberating, transformative’ and able to contribute to ‘social justice agendas’ (2007: 102). However, participatory action research is a term traditionally associated with the study of women’s movements, and Social Movement scholars in recent years have adopted a specific ethnographic approach which may be applied to Social Movements more generally (Graeber, 2002, 2009; Juris, 2008; Lagalisse, 2009; Maeckelbergh, 2009; Plows, 2008). Broadly speaking, this activist-centric approach eschews the overly structural and somewhat detached approach heralded by previous Social Movement scholars (Zald and Ash, 1966; McCarthy and Zald, 1973, 1977; Arendt, 1976; Tilly, 1978, 1993; McAdam, 1982; Morris, 1984; Zald and McCarthy, 1987; Tarrow, 1989, 1993, 1994; Voss, 1996), which sought to develop grand, universal theories that attempted to understand and explain ‘any Social Movements,whatsoever’ (Zald and Ash, 1966: 340). Instead, there is an increased focus on examining movements from within using rigorous ethnographic methods, in order to understand and analyse specific movements (including their development, local understandings, constructions and performances) from the standpoint of an activist. This approach therefore attempts to bridge the divide between activism and practice with a ‘politically engaged and collaborative form of participant observation carried out from within rather than outside grassroots movements’ (Juris, 2007: 165). Ultimately, this allows for a move away from sweeping statements and grandiose theory, toward not only producing texts that further an understanding of Social Movements, but also for facilitating reflection within movements in order to understand, analyse and improve goals, tactics, structures and processes.
In order to understand some of these ideas in more detail, over the course of this essay, I will review the work of three scholars who have utilized an activist ethnography methodology—Marianne Maeckelbergh’s The Will of the Many: How the Alterglobalisation Movement is Changing the Face of Democracy; David Graeber’s Direct Action: An Ethnography; and Jeffrey Juris’ Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalisation. Although these three texts assume (somewhat) different approaches, research questions and goals, they are united in the concept of shedding light onto often overlooked organizations and providing useful insights into the complex network of Social Movement organizations—capturing processes as they occur, from the perspective of activists themselves.
The Will of the Many: How the Alterglobalisation Movement is Changing the Face of Democracy (Marianne Maeckelbergh, 2009)
Marianne Maeckelbergh’s The Will of the Many: How the Alterglobalisation Movement is Changing the Face of Democracy takes on an ambitious task-seeking to identify some of the key organizational processes that are utilized by the alter-globalization movement, by drawing on ethnographic research spanning over two years. The main research question underlying the work addresses the democratic processes that are emerging and evolving in the alter-globalization movement, and through understanding the philosophy of democracy, seeks to draw out the theoretical and practical implications of these alternative forms. Importantly, Maeckelbergh notes that the study aims to understand the process and values of democracy, rather than specific systems and being. Indeed, as noted early on, in contrast to previous Social Movements, it is the alter-globalization movement’s concrete organizational processes and forms that make up the core ideology, rather than more abstract ideas and goals. For this reason, Maeckelbergh chooses to ‘follow the process’, and much attention is paid to examining these emerging organizational processes and democratic forms of organizing, from day-to-day practicalities to the challenges and conflicts that occur along the way, as well as methods for negotiation and resolution.
After introducing the theory behind alternative democracy, Maeckelbergh turns our attention to the ethnographic studies which were undertaken to observe how the processes work in practice, for example, describing in great detail the process of consensus decision-making. These practical illustrations are effective at conveying how processes are carried out on a regular basis by autonomous groups, with first-hand observations providing interesting and often remarkable insights into the day-to-day experiences of activists and research participants. Furthermore, these observations are particularly useful for a forming a constructive critique, with various ideas emerging—from the concept of inclusion/exclusion; to exploitation of the consensus model by those who are not committed to its goals; and how a number of diverse outcomes may ‘split’ a group. Maeckelbergh highlights that in many cases, alter-globalization movement actors are very aware of the conflict involved with alternative democracy, and see it as a positive learning experience when treated and established in a constructive way. This text therefore, may provide activists with a useful insight into how their processes work in practice.
The concept of power is also highlighted throughout the book. Maeckelbergh first introduces the two main concepts of power, as ‘command obedience’ and a relational view, and once again goes on to describe how they work in practice. The findings are interesting and ultimately demonstrate that the ideal of the alter-globalization movement is to work toward a system whereby power is fluid and can be mixed, reused and recombined to form a ‘transistory knowledge building community’ (Wood, 1998: 60) which rejects the concept of a privileged knowledgeable leader and celebrates diversity and the need to involve all in decision-making. In practice, this was not always possible, with Social Forums often centralizing their own power and limiting the dissemination to others, and diversity being sidelined in favour of reaching a unitary decision.
Some time is devoted to discussing the specific ethnographic methodology of this research, and Maeckelbergh pays particular attention to the roles that were undertaken throughout the project. By and large, these roles fluctuated greatly, depending on relationships, levels of engagement, political affiliation and access. For the most part, the study is written from an ‘inside’, engaged activist perspective, where the balance between observer/participant is largely tipped towards acting as a participant. It is noted that long-term access was granted largely because of the previous experience (of protests, consensus decision-making and meetings) and skills gained in the field (such as meeting facilitation and language skills). Becoming an insider may not be an easy task, but if trust and access are effectively gained then the researcher may be able to benefit from stronger interpersonal relations with the members of the organization (through shared narratives, experiences, histories) and ultimately resulting in a more ultimately resulting in a more accurate and relevant representation of the organization. However, whilst most of the events were analysed from an inside activist perspective, in some situations, Maeckelbergh was treated as an ‘outsider’, simply observing practices. The example given in this case is where Maeckelbergh had initially developed less strong bonds with the Scottish Anti-G8 protesters, and took on the role of a cleaner and was not included in decision-making processes or meetings. Far from becoming detached, this experience led to an alternative and useful perspective on the movement, such as meeting those who were not directly involved in the decision-making processes, but functioned in the background—such as organizing temporary housing for travelling activists. Usefully, Maeckelbergh also highlights some of the practical limitations of conducting an activist ethnography. The main area to be aware of, it is noted, is that personal politics may act as a barrier as well as a benefit to access. Although Maeckelbergh’s own politics were undoubtedly essential for gaining the long-term access for certain groups, it also meant that she was treated with caution from others. An example given is the UK Coordinating Committee, who were initially welcoming, but after observing the ‘personal politics and the company I was keeping’ (Maeckelbergh, 2009: 26), became increasingly hostile, eventually refusing to invite or include her in their meetings.
Throughout this text, Maeckelbergh effectively presents a picture of a movement that is very much in the early stages of development. Although no concrete conclusions are formed, the research question is consistently addressed, in the respect that the processes of alternative democracy are identified and addressed from a variety of perspectives, with the regular ethnographic observations not only highlighting the benefits, but also the drawbacks of the often ambitious goals of the movement. From a methodological perspective, Maeckelbergh’s text is also valuable. Although some points are not given much space, especially regarding some of the legal and ethical issues that activist ethnographers may face, much attention is paid to the specifics of the methodological design of this project, which provides not only an interesting read, but also one that may offer some practical guidelines for those seeking to engage in activist ethnographies themselves.
Direct Action: An Ethnography (Graeber, 2009)
In Direct Action: An Ethnography, David Graeber provides a detailed ethnography of his time spent as an activist with various organizations in the United States. The work is largely centred around the New York City Direct Action Network (NYC-DAN), but various other organizations and groups are introduced throughout the text. Primarily, this work is intended to fill a gap by conveying the experience of planning and participating in Social Movements prior the global summit. Graeber aims to develop a reflexive account, which has two parts (reflecting the core tenets of activist ethnography outlined above): (a) providing a descriptive snapshot of movements, organizations, protests and processes at a particular time—stepping away from the objectivist ideas of developing generic and superficial descriptions (b) alongside these detailed descriptions, acting as a critical insider and activist with the ultimate purpose of furthering the movement’s goals.
For the purpose of this review, I will focus on three particular chapters (‘Meetings’, ‘Action’ and ‘Representation’) which most concisely summarize the themes of the book. Early on Graeber argues that although activists are often proactive in creating new forms of democracy, they experience dilemmas of representation and as a result, the positive aspects (such as consensus decision-making) receive minimal coverage and are not effectively presented to the wider society. Therefore, in the chapter ‘Meetings’, the democratic principles of NYC-DAN are made explicit. This is where the ethnography really begins to offer something more than past Social Movement writings, in that we are able to witness, through recountments and observations, how real-life situations pan out, and can understand and address problems that may not normally be foreseeable. For example, while the principles of consensus are based around a relational view of power (where all actors have the power to accept or deny/block proposals), it was found that after some time, certain individuals became dissatisfied with the process and misused their power to block any proposals, thus dramatizing small issues. Class and gender issues were also prevalent, with an observation that while women are the core ‘nuts and bolts’ of the movement, they would often not attend meetings because of the predominantly white, male atmosphere—with ‘macho posturing’, and ‘men that liked the sound of their own voices’ (Graeber, 2009:336).
The second chapter is ‘Action’, which refers to five rough typologies of Direct Action that Graeber observed and/or participated in—Protest Marches, Picket Lines, Street Parties, Blockades and Black Blocs. Again, through his own observations and experience, ethnographically informed discussions are formed, highlighting the ideas, benefits and problems that come about through participating in these different types of actions. Throughout the chapter, the analyses made contribute to the final comments, which suggest that more hierarchically arranged actions (protest marches and picket lines) may be of less importance to activists as, although they may help to communicate their dissatisfaction, they fail to include the horizontality and decision-making techniques that form the basis of more autonomous actions. Although previous Social Movement literature may have pointed toward this idea, Graeber’s account provides a more robust analysis in that the work is not speculative, but rather based on real-life situations, on interviews with activists, and from personal experiences.
This leads on to the next chapter, ‘Representation’. Throughout the study, Graeber notes that the representation of activist groups is often conducted in a negative way. The first part of the chapter refers to the corporate media, and provides an insight (via participant’s experiences) of how movements are often represented. A main issue that occurs, and indeed, is referenced several times throughout the course of the text, is that the mainstream media will not inform the viewing public of why the protests have taken place, which results in two factors being publicized: ‘(a) giant colourful puppets (b) anarchists in black smashing windows’ (Graeber, 2009: 489). The second part of the chapter focuses on the anarchist responses to this, and of particular interest is the meeting that was conducted with the New York Ya Basta! Collective. Here, Graeber provides an account of the meeting regarding the ‘press blackout’ of protests at the time and effectively highlights some of the tensions experienced with the members (i.e. should they play to the media and act in a non-violent way, or continue with their normal tactics, which would undoubtedly be frowned upon by corporate media), their methods for conflict resolution (through consensus decision-making) and the ultimate resolution. Through doing this, Graeber not only provides a true sense of the organization, with its faults and inner conflicts, but also brings to light how these conflicts are resolved—through a decision-making model which is normally so ineffectively broadcast.
Direct action provides a thought-provoking, in-depth and important analysis. The effective use of ethnographic studies supports Graeber’s original claim that these organizations should not be understood by exclusively using generic or superficial descriptions, but rather a more rigorous, activist ethnographic methodology which seeks to uncover the practices and organizing methods which are created—from both an academic and activist perspective. The direct action movement is fragmented and dispersed, and by stepping back from broad analysis, this account provides an accurate description of what goes on, the problems which present themselves, and how existing organizations seek to tackle them.
Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalisation (Juris, 2008)
Jeffrey Juris’ Networking Futures: The Movement against Corporate Globalisation focuses on the struggles of anti-corporate globalization movement in Barcelona, seeking to examine the concrete practices through which networks are constituted. In a similar vein to Maeckelbergh and Graeber’s texts, Juris places importance in not only seeking to study visible movement activity—namely how activists respond to particular social, economic and political issues—but also the ‘submerged’ phases, where alternative values, discourses and practices are generated, negotiated and enacted through networks and ‘social laboratories’ (Juris, 2008: 297). Between 2001 and 2002, Juris was an active member of the Movement for Global Resistance (MRG)—the case study of this text—an anti-corporate globalization network based in Barcelona, who formed to mobilize Catalonian activists against the World Bank and IMF meetings in Prague; were active in the Barcelona and Genoa protests; then self-dissolved in 2003 when members felt that the structures had become too hierarchical and centralized. Prior to his involvement with the MRG, Juris had some previous experience of the anti-corporate globalization movement—planning and organizing actions since the anti-WTO protests in Seattle, and as an activist in Latin America working in support of grassroots struggles in El Salvador and Guatemala. It was, it is noted, directly because of this previous experience (as well as being fluent in Spanish and Catalan) that access was granted to MRG.
The major theme of this text is concerned with the ‘cultural logic of networking’, that is, an ‘increasing confluence among network technologies, organizational forms and political norms mediated by concrete activist practice’ (Juris, 2008: 288). Juris describes how MRG activists embraced networking logics and information and communication technologies, as they offered an infrastructure that mirrored anarchistic values of autonomy, self-management, federation, direct action and direct democracy. Technologies therefore represented political norms that may, in turn, be transformed into concrete organizational structures that could potentially shape and replace ‘the current system of representative democracy’ (Juris, 2008: 120). Throughout this book, Juris consistently addresses the question of democratic practices and involvement, and draws upon his extensive ethnographic fieldwork to explore a wide range of practices utilized by the anti-globalization movement, including: direct action tactics, democratic coordination between and across affinity groups, shifting alliances between groups, social forums and the uses of digital platforms (such as Indymedia). In addition to this, Juris also maps out the history of the anti-corporate globalization movement, from the indigenous peoples’ movements in the 1970s in the Global South; to the effects of Neoliberalist ideology; and toward more recent events, such as the ‘Battle of Seattle’ in 1999.
Alongside the theoretical content of Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalisation, it is also important to address the methodology behind the study, which is particularly significant for this review. As the project focuses on global networks, Juris also notes the importance of utilizing a ‘multiscalar’ ethnographic approach, which saw him moving across both virtual and physical sites. In the first case, he remained somewhat ‘rooted’, monitoring how online networks unfolded and functioned, and making extensive use of the internet to follow and participate in the planning and coordination of actions. The second case saw Juris visiting physical sites, following activists to mobilizations and gatherings to monitor ongoing discourses and debates, conducting qualitative interviews and engaging in participant observation and document analysis (including publications produced by movements, and articles and texts from the mainstream media). Underlying this is a notion that Juris refers to as ‘militant ethnography’—a methodology that may be aligned with activist ethnography, in that it involves the researcher engaging in and organizing ‘strategic and tactical debates and putting one’s body on the line during direct actions’ (Juris, 2008: 19). This approach is introduced as an alternative to traditional ethnographic methods whereby the observer remains distant and detached. The latter, it is argued, fails to understand the concrete logic of activist practice, resulting in inaccurate explanations that are of little practical use to activists. In contrast, Juris suggests that militant ethnography is a more appropriate methodology for grasping the real lived experience of Social Movements, as it is not only politically engaged, but also collaborative, where the boundaries between researcher and research participants are broken down. It is clear from the beginning that this research not only seeks to fill a gap in Social Movement literature, but also, it is aspires to provide activists with useful and relevant information that can ultimately enable reflection about movement practices. This isn’t always straightforward however, as Juris describes in one situation where he was challenged regarding his dual-role as a researcher and activist—‘you go back to the university and use collectively produced knowledge to earn your degrees and gain academic prestige. What’s in it for the rest of us?’ (Juris, 2008: 21).
However, although Juris’ ethnographic observations do provide an interesting insight into the practices of the anti-corporate globalization movement, at times it feels that little room is left for really discussing and analysing the theoretical and practical implications of these practices, especially in each chapter’s concluding section, which generally seem to highlight similar points (the confluence of norms, forms and technologies), without building on them. Therefore, on occasion, this feels more like a collection of mini-essays rather than a coherent whole. Furthermore, in comparison with Maeckelbergh and Graeber’s texts, Juris’ writing style does suggest some disparity between the dual role of activist and academic. Whilst it is undoubtable that Juris is passionate about the goals of the anti-corporate globalization movement, rather than Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalisation reading as a flowing narrative, it feels somewhat disjointed, almost as though the empirical examples are given as supporting evidence for theory instead of advancing our understandings of how movements work in practice.
Discussion and conclusion
As stated at the beginning of this essay, a key problem with Social Movement literature is that movement actors and activists are often disappointed with what they find, that is, it does not address practical concerns; is often directed at a solely academic audience; and ultimately, is not relevant. However, the recent ‘activist-turn’ in Social Movement studies has sought to remedy this issue, and the work of Maeckelbergh, Graeber and Juris usefully demonstrates how activist ethnographies may be an effective way of producing research that not only contributes to social science agendas, but also can engage with the concerns and questions of Social Movement actors themselves. This ‘dual commitment’ has a number of advantages.
First, scholars utilizing an activist ethnography methodology have the potential to avoid the problem of getting locked into discussions about SMO definitions and classifications, and instead, are able to understand and analyse individual organizations, including their development, local understandings, constructions and performances. This, Juris suggests, means that activist ethnographies have the potential to capture the ‘intersubjective, complex, highly fluid, rapidly shifting phenomena […] which are missed by macro level analysis’ (Juris, 2008: 38). For example, not only do the texts reviewed here provide accounts of visible aspects of movements and organizations, but also they provide insights into their ‘submerged’ phases, that is, the inner workings, practices and processes, and how these may change over time. This is something that has been missed by previous Social Movement research, which has often only succeeded in providing superficial observations. Thus, activist ethnographies are able to contribute to the development of Social Movement theory.
Following on from this, instead of treating ethnography as a method simply to produce knowledge, activist ethnographies also function as a means of supporting also function as a means of supporting Social Movement activists in their efforts. This is achieved through the researcher building long-term relationships and involving themselves in the movement as much as possible to produce a well-rounded and practical understanding. Through becoming engaged and using ‘the body as a research tool’ (Juris, 2008: 319); ‘tipping the balance in favour of participation rather than observation’ (Maeckelbergh, 2009: 23) and/or becoming a ‘critical insider’ (Graeber, 2009: 11), the research takes on a new meaning and not only allows the researcher to develop a better knowledge of the movement and its practices, but can provide activists with tools to enable self-reflection, to see what works, what the common issues are, and what may be refined. In different ways, Maeckelbergh, Graeber and Juris effectively demonstrate that it is possible to identify the latent issues and address factors that have been identified by Social Movement actors, and through joint-construction, researchers and activists can ‘bridge the gap’ and work together in seeking to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their movements, in order to expand the understanding of new, emergent and evolving processes. In the future it may also be fruitful for activist ethnographers to highlight some of the more complex ethical and legal issues that occur during research periods, as well as reporting on how useful, practical and/or relevant those under study actually found the research to be.
As highlighted here, it is clear a ‘dual commitment’ does indeed exist. On one hand, activist ethnographies have the potential to bring otherwise hidden information to public attention and to contribute to social science research agendas. However, on the other hand, researchers undertaking this kind of research have a commitment and responsibility to also bring value to activists and to address practical issues, whether that is at individual, group or movement levels.