ABSTRACT
According to academic research as well as activists’ descriptions, the GJM exhibits a constellation of characteristics supporting the notion that something new has emerged since the protests in Seattle (della Porta et al. 2006a). In this chapter, we will review these assessments, focusing on activists’ latent networks at the fourth European Social Forum in Athens. We will first enumerate the assumptions made so far in the literature, relate them to the study of the European Social Forum, and finally elucidate which empirical patterns confirm or challenge these notions of a unique occurrence. First, specific network characteristics support the notion of the GJM as a ‘movement of movements’. In contrast with earlier times, when activists tended to adhere to either one or another strictly defined ideological current, GJM activists seem to hold tolerant identities, allowing openness to a wide array of themes, social perspectives, and political stances. Rather than loose networking between clearly segmented currents with exclusionary membership, what have emerged are rhizomes and complex entanglements not only between but also within single activists of the GJM. A volunteer working within a trade union and at the same time in an environmental group, for example, can broaden and connect both social perspectives. As a result, the GJM is highly inclusive: a wide array of thematic niches, political traditions, and issue types are at home in their complex network structures. These network patterns blur conventional distinctions. For example, within the GJM the ‘old’ or ‘traditional’ left, namely bureaucratized trade unions or socialist parties, does not necessarily shy away from cooperation with radical grassroots (see Chapter 9 in this volume). Second, the network metaphor not only grasps the characteristics of inclusiveness and tolerance, but also the transnational character of the GJM. While cross border activities of social movements are not entirely new, the current mobilizations exhibit a pattern of mass participation of individuals in transnational efforts. Thus, in contrast to earlier times, both rank and file activists and leaders of social movement organizations are active at the transnational level. Third, notwithstanding, or because of, this heterogeneity, the GJM must establish some commonality regarding procedures for their joint principles of
cooperation. If participants work in traditional trade unions and at the same time in radical grassroots groups, the GJM must provide a common understanding of how decisions are made, or at least, should be made. Many activists of the GJM interpret social forums as the attempt to offer such commonality by providing a discursive space guided by the ideals of consensus-oriented communication and full participation. In this vein, della Porta (2005a) concludes that the GJM provides a fertile ground for practising what scholars of normative political theory term ‘deliberative democracy’. In attempting to empirically assess these statements, scholars face the problem of where to start, since social movements – especially those as broad as the GJM – are difficult to observe at all. Our approach of looking at the participants of the European social forums not only updates past research on these questions and accommodates to practical restrictions, such as scarce resources and time. It can also be justified in two regards. On the one hand, these social forums serve as the ‘infrastructure’ of the GJM (Rucht 2008), meaning that these events are of high importance for internal coordination and opinion formation. While we cannot assume that the picture shown here is widely representative for the whole GJM in Europe, we can nonetheless estimate the adequacy of scholars’ descriptions for one of these major events, namely the fourth ESF in Athens. On the other hand, activists try to apply normative standards within the social forum. According to the charter of Porto Alegre, the bylaws of the social forums, the event is explicitly open to all kinds of social movements from all over the world. It should serve as a ‘context for interrelations’, thereby building a transnational discursive space. The use of the concept of ‘space’ rejects the notion of being an actor and stresses the need to shield egalitarian, participative discourses oriented towards consensus from the assaults of power politics. The charter clearly proposes a horizontally and egalitarian networked space for deliberative democratic practices and forbids voting and representative politics in the name of the forum (see also Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 in this volume). Indeed, deliberative and participative values and practices are quite popular among the participants of the ESF in Athens (see Chapter 4), and these findings align well with our participant observation of sessions and workshops. But conflicts between ‘verticals’ and ‘horizontals’ still play a role (see Chapters 2, 4, and 9), indicating that this normative claim is not undisputed by all participants. Over the last several years, key activists have repeatedly lamented some characteristics of social forums as prescribed in the charter, urging reform. For example, Walden Bello,2 a prominent intellectual figure of the GJM, asked for more action orientation of the World Social Forum, suggesting that the original concept of the forum as a space rather than an actor/movement may hinder activists from speaking with a partisan voice. In his response, Chico Whitaker3 judged that such an opportunity for expression was always available from within the open space methodology and thus, for him, the World Social Forum can both incubate contentious movements and foster the principles of horizontality and openness.4
