Reviewed by Megan Yarrow

…Next to the wall, the police were battering people, except for a few of us with our hands raised. Several officers were totally crazed, while others said, “We don’t have to hit them anymore…I was really affected by an image of an older couple, pacifists, I suppose, with white shirts and their hands above their heads and blood all over their faces, and their shirts drenched in blood, begging the police, “Please stop hitting us!”(176-7)

(Nuria, a Movement for Global Resistance (MRG) activist from Barcelona, describes to Jeffrey S. Juris the police attack at Plaza Manin, Genoa in 2001, during anti-corporatist globalization protests against the G8 summit.)

As a self-described “militant ethnographer”, Jeffrey S. Juris is uniquely placed to study anti-corporate globalization movements. In Networking Futures: The Movements Against Corporate Globalization, he analyses anti-corporate globalization activism from the dual perspectives of active participant in protest movements and academic observer—he is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences at Arizona State University. In addition, his youthful and unpretentious approach has produced a lively and informative text that should appeal to activists, and readers interested in social justice.

Juris focuses mainly on the struggles of anti-corporate globalization activists over the past decade, pointing out that the anti-corporate globalization movement is not a unified movement, but comprises “congeries of overlapping networks”, which are constantly evolving and adapting to circumstance:

Despite their differences, activists within each sector are struggling to regain democratic control over their daily lives, wresting it back from transnational corporations and global financial elites (60).

Juris argues that as the power of more traditional and hierarchical forms of organizing to effect social change has diminished, largely unstructured, and fluid networks of resistance have appeared. The success of these contemporary networks is dependent upon their ability to mobilize where necessary, as well as generate sustained interest. The efficacy of these networks is evidenced by the remarkable number of protesters who have participated in major anti-corporate globalization protests and events over the last decade. (Details of the major protest actions throughout the last decade are provided in Table 3.)

Toward the end of the book, Juris contends that—limitations of the two-party political system aside—anti-corporate globalization activists have made conflict more “visible” and:

…sparked heated public debate around values and ideas that just a few years ago were ignored, tacitly accepted, or widely taken for granted: the supremacy of unfettered markets, unrestricted free trade and foreign investment, production for export over domestic consumption and other neo-liberal tenets (295).

Networking Futures explores how experimentation with digital-age technology and organizational forums such as email lists, websites and chat-rooms—along with ancillary culture-jamming, guerrilla communications and electronic civil disobedience—has enlivened and underpinned anti-corporate globalization movements.

You may or may not know that the Australian programmer Matthew Arnison developed the open publishing software that was used to establish the first Indy Media Centre (IMC) during the anti-WTO protests in Seattle. According to Juris, the global network now includes nearly 160-local sites and receives up to two-million page views per day. Funnily enough most Australian capital cities have an “Indymedia” website—Brisbane had one too—but it vanished a couple of years ago, apparently because it was infiltrated and corrupted.

Juris’s thesis extrapolates on the origins of networks of resistance (and how these networks continue to remain a progressive force) in Spain—a country with a long and proud culture of opposition to fascism and the state. Catalan resistance to Franco and the rise of the intercontinental Zapatista Encuentros led to the formation of solidarity groups throughout Europe, which Juris says were “instrumental” in the development of today’s anti-corporate globalization networks:

Emerging network norms and forms among Barcelona-based, anti-corporate globalization activists have been shaped by Catalonia’s unique political and historical context, including the region’s history of anarchism, nationalism, and assembly based struggles (92).

As well as incorporating detailed descriptions of the passionate network politics and continually shifting alliances between and within various protest groups around the world, Networking Futures has captured the vibrancy, energetic strategising and intense emotions experienced by activists during a number of direct actions. From the contagious euphoria following the “Battle In Seattle” (1999), in which 50, 000 activists managed to shut down the WTO meeting, to shock and fear in the aftermath of the “Battle of Genoa”—a protest against the G8 summit (2001) that resulted in the death of 22-year-old Carlo Giuliani, and where hundreds of protesters were beaten, tortured and psychologically abused in jail.

Juris’s account of the largest mass direct action against corporate globalization outside North America to date (in Prague, 2000) illustrates the application of networking dynamics to the physical protest. He observes how the various blocs occupied different spaces and performed decentralised manoeuvres such as rhythmic dancing, drumming and symbolic confrontation, before swarming and reclaiming areas of public space.

What I found most engaging about this book was how his privileged position as a participant allows Juris to reveal the essential humanity of the different actions:

Although a few activists were beaten and arrested, Miguel, Marcela, and I escaped to a bar at the far end of the park. We took off our bandannas, changed shirts, and shared our experiences from the front lines. These stories increased our sense of belonging to a common struggle despite the differences among protest blocs and networks. The emotions sparked by bodily contiguity and collective action had generated intense feelings of affective solidarity throughout the day (144).

By recounting his own personal experiences and the dialogue exchanged with friends, Juris offers an important counterpoint to the detached and stereotypical manner in which mainstream media frames protest actions for consumption as propaganda. And protesting corporate globalization isn’t always doom and gloom—sometimes there’s plenty of socializing, beer, music and dancing to be enjoyed—as his description of the No Border/PGA camp Strasbourg (2002) reveals:

On the evening of July 25, for example, after another day of terse interaction, the samba band led a spontaneous fire march around the camp, which involved hundreds of musicians and dancers dressed in pink and silver. The crowd danced and howled its way across the camp as fire breathers sent huge flames into the sky, heightening the hypnotic effect. The march culminated in a wild cathartic release, sparking hours of collective drumming and dancing (220).

As well as being an insightful and inspiring resource for activists, Networking Futures: The Movements Against Corporate Globalization, is a absorbing history of the ever-evolving contemporary resistance to corporate globalization. I found it a refreshing antidote to the constant barrage of neo-conservative blather emanating from the mouths of free market evangelists on the pages and the airwaves of the mainstream media—especially read in the context of collapsing global markets!

Networking Futures: The Movements Against Corporate Globalization
(2008)

by Jeffrey S. Juris
Duke University Press
ISBN: 9780822342694
378pp US$23.95

Click here to view the original review

By Geert Lovink

Originally posted to the Nettime mailing list on Friday, October 10, 2008
(http://mail.kein.org/pipermail/nettime-l/2008-October/000856.html)

Jeffrey Juris wrote an excellent insiders’ story about the “other
globalization” movement. Networking Futures is an anthropological

account that starts with the Seattle protests, late 1999, against the
WTO and takes the reader to places of protest such as Prague,
Barcelona and Genoa. The main thesis of Juris is the shift of radical
movements towards the network method as their main form of
organization. Juris doesn’t go so far to state that movement as such
has been replaced by network(ing). What the network metaphor rather
indicates is a shift, away from the centralized party and a renewed
emphasis on internationalism. Juris describes networks as an “emerging
ideal.” Besides precise descriptions of Barcelona groups, where Jeff
Juris did his PhD research with Manuel Castells in 2001-2002, the
World Social Forum and Indymedia, Networking Futures particularly
looks into a relatively unknown anti-capitalist network, the People’s
Global Action. The outcome is a very readable book, filled with group
observations and event descriptions, not heavy on theory or strategic
discussions or disputes. The email interview below was done while
Jeffrey Juris was working in Mexico City where studies the
relationship between grassroots media activism and autonomy. He is an
Assistant Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Social and
Behavioral Sciences at Arizona State University.

GL: One way of describing your book is to see it as a case study of
Peoples’ Global Action. Would it be fair to see this networked
platform as a 21st century expression of an anarcho-trotskyist avant-
gardist organization? You seem to struggle with the fact that PGA is
so influential, yet unknown. You write about the history of the World
Social Forum and its regional variations, but PGA is really what
concerns you. Can you explain to us something about your fascination
with PGA? Is this what Ned Rossiter calls a networked organization? Do
movements these days need such entities in the background?

JJ: I wouldn’t call my book a case study of People’s Global Action
(PGA) in a strict sense, but you are right to point to my fascination
with this particular network. In many ways I started out wanting to do
an ethnographic study of PGA, but as I suggest in my introduction, its
highly fluid, shifting dynamics made a conventional case study
impossible. A case study requires a relatively fixed object of
analysis. With respect to social movement networks this would imply
stable nodes of participation, clear membership structures,
organizational representation, etc., all of which are absent from PGA.
However, this initial methodological conundrum presented two
opportunities. On the one hand, it seemed to me that PGA was not
unique, but reflected broader dynamics of transnational political
activism in an era characterized by new digital technologies, emerging
network forms, and the political visions that go along with such
transformations. In this sense, PGA was on the cutting edge; it
provided a unique opportunity to explore not only the dynamics, but
also the strengths and weaknesses of new forms of networked
organization among contemporary social movements.

At the same time, PGA also represented a kind of puzzle: I knew it had
been at the center of the global days of action that people generally
associate with the rise of the global justice movement, yet it was
extremely hard to pin down. Participating individuals, collectives,
and organizations seemed to come and go, and those who were most
active in the process often resolutely denied that they were members
or had any official role. Yet, the PGA network still had this kind of
power of evocation, and, at least during the early years of my
research (say 1999 to 2002), it continued to provide formal and
informal spaces of interaction and convergence. In this sense, it
seemed to me that figuring out the enigma of PGA could help us better
understand the logic of contemporary networked movements more
generally. On the other hand, the difficulty of carrying out a
traditional ethnographic study of PGA meant I had to shift my focus
from PGA as a stable network to the specific practices through which
the PGA process is constituted. In other words, my initial
methodological dilemma opened up my field of analysis to a whole set
of networking practices and politics that were particularly visible
within PGA, but could also be detected to varying degrees within more
localized networks, such as the Movement for Global Resistance (MRG)
in Barcelona, alternative transnational networks such as the World
Social Forum (WSF) process, new forms of tactical and alternative
media associated with the global justice movement, and within the
organization of mass direct actions.

In other words, the focus of my book is really these broader
networking practices and logics, although these were particularly
visible within the PGA process. Methodologically, then, I situated
myself within a specific movement node- MRG in Barcelona, and followed
the network connections outward through various network formations,
including but not restricted to PGA. However, it is also true that the
ethnographic stories I present are largely told from the vantage point
of activists associated with PGA. This is because MRG happened to be a
co-convener of the PGA network during the time of my research, but
also because PGA activists were particularly committed to what I refer
to as a network ideal.

In my book I distinguish between two ideal organizational logics: a
vertical command logic and a horizontal networking logic, both of
which are present to varying degrees, and exist in dynamic tension
with respect to one another, within any particular network. Whereas
vertical command logics are perhaps more visible within the social
forums, PGA reflects a particular commitment to new forms of open,
collaborative, and directly democratic organization, thus coming
closer to the horizontal networking logics I am most concerned with.
In this sense, PGA is definitively NOT a 21st century avant-gardist
organization and has been particularly hostile to traditional top-down
Marxist/Trotskyist political models and visions. PGA does reflect
something an anarchist ethic, although this has more to do with the
confluence between networking logics and anarchist organizing
principles than any kind of abstract commitment to anarchist politics
per se.

Rather than a networked organization, which refers to the way
traditional organizations increasingly take on the network form, PGA
is closer to an “organized network” in Ned Rossiter’s terms, a new
institutional form that is immanent to the logic of the new media
(although in this case not restricted to the new media). The network
structure of PGA thus provides a transnational space for communication
and coordination among activists and collectives. For example, PGA’s
hallmarks reflect a commitment to decentralized forms of organization,
while the network has no members and no one can speak in its name.
Rather than a traditional organization (however networked) with clear
membership and vertical chains of command, PGA provides the kind of
communicational infrastructure necessary for the rise of contemporary
networked social movements. The challenge for PGA and similar
networks, given their radical commitment to a horizontal networking
logic, has always been sustainability. This is where the social
forums, with their greater openness to vertical forms, have been more
effective. In this sense, I find PGA much more exciting and
politically innovative, but it may be the hybrid institutional forms
represented by the social forums that have a more lasting impact.

GL: We’re 3 or 4 years further now. What has changed since you
undertook your research? The post 9-11 effect has somewhat leveled
off, I guess, but the anti-war movement is also weaker. Is it fair to
say that the worldwide? Seattle movement’ has weakened, or rather,
exhausted itself? Please update us.

JJ: If you mean the visible expressions of movement activity,
particularly those associated with confrontational direct actions,
then I think it is fair to say the worldwide anti-corporate
globalization/anti-capitalist/global justice movement has weakened.
But it is not entirely exhausted. As I argue in my book, mass
mobilizations are critical tools for generating the visibility and
affective solidarity (e.g. emotional energy) required for sustained
networking and movement building. However, activists eventually tire
and public interest inevitably wanes. In this sense, movements are
cyclical and the public moments of visibility necessarily ebb and
flow. In terms of the global justice movement, events such as 9-11, or
the repression in Genoa, certainly put a damper on the movement, but
it would have slowed anyway. That said, mass actions have continued
throughout the post- 9-11 period, while the anti-war and global
justice movements have largely converged, although more so outside the
United States. What we have seen is a shift toward the increasing
institutionalization of movement activity combined with a return to
“submerged” networking, to borrow a term from Melucci.

If we think about social movements in terms of these less visible,
spectacular forms of action, then in many ways, the global justice
movement has proven remarkably sustainable. In this sense, global
justice activists have continued to organize mass actions, but at
regularized intervals (every two years against the G8 Summit, for
example, or every four years during the Democratic and Republic
National Conventions in the U.S.). The massive 2007 anti-G8
mobilization in Heiligendamm, Germany, which I was able to attend, was
a particularly empowering experience for many younger activists. At
the same time, the global social forum process has continued to
provide a more institutionalized arena for networking and interaction.
Although the WSF itself has attracted declining media coverage, tens
of thousands people continue to attend the periodic centralized global
events (every two years or so), while local and regional forums have
expanded in many parts of the world.

For example, the first U.S. Social Forum was held in Atlanta last
summer, representing a key moment of convergence for a movement that
was particularly weakened by the climate of fear and repression after
9-11. At the same time, countless networks, collectives, and projects
that arose in the context of the global justice movement continue to
operate outside public view, including local organizing projects and
new media-related initiatives such as Indymedia. In sum, if we think
about movements as those relatively rare periods of increasingly
visible and confrontational direct action, then the global justice
movement has perhaps run its course, at least for now. However, if we
take into account the submerged, localized, routinized, and
increasingly institutionalized (by which I mean the building of new
movement institutions, not the existing representative democratic
ones), then the movement remains alive and well, perhaps surprisingly
vibrant after so many years.

GL: We can’t say that many practice “militant ethnography”. There is a
limited interest in media activism but the life inside radical
movements is not over studied. In the past decade this was, in part,
also due to rampant anti-intellectualism. What is the intellectual
life inside social movements like these days? What are the main
debates and critical concepts?

JJ: The lack of “militant” ethnographic approaches to life inside
radical social movements has to be understood not only with respect to
anti-intellectualism among activists, which varies from region to
region, but also the dominant academic traditions for studying social
movements. For the most part, what many refer to as “social movement
theory” has been the province of sociologists and political
scientists, many of whom are committed to positivist theory building,
using quantitative or qualitative methods, and thus tend to view
social movements as “objects” to be studied from the outside. These
scholars may support the political goals of the movements they study,
but their theory and methods are directed toward other academics, not
movements themselves. There has always been a significant counter-
tradition, of course, including anthropologists who have used
ethnographic methods to study popular movements around the world and a
few politically engaged scholars who have gone deep inside the heart
of radical movements, such as Barbara Epstein’s study of the U.S.
direct action movement during the 1970s and 1980s, “Political Protest
and Cultural Revolution,” or George Katsiaficas’ book on German
autonomous movements, “The Subversion of Politics.”

Meanwhile, critiques of positivist approaches to social movements have
become more frequent within the academy, while the recent push for a
more public or activist anthropology and sociology have led to a more
conducive environment for “militant” approaches to the study of social
movements. At the same time, there has also been a noticeable trend
toward self-analysis and critique among activists themselves. In my
book I suggest that contemporary social movements are increasingly
“self-reflexive,” as evidenced by the countless networks of knowledge
production, debate, and exchange among global justice activists,
including listserves, Internet forums, radical theory groups, activist
research networks, etc. There is still a great deal of anti
intellectualism, although as mentioned above, this varies by region.
For example, in my experience, activists in the Anglo-speaking world,
including the UK and the U.S., tend to be more suspicious of
intellectuals, while those in Southern Europe or the Southern Cone of
Latin America are more open to abstract theorizing.

There has been a general surge in activist research and radical theory
projects linked to the global justice movement over the past decade,
many of which have been associated with the social forum process. In
this sense, there has been a blurring of the divide between academic
and movement-based theorizing as evidenced not only in my own work,
but in many other spheres, including the volume edited by Stephven
Shukaitis and David Graeber, “Constituent Imagination,” the on-line
journal Ephemera, or the newly created movement newspaper Turbulence.
In terms of the main debates and critical concepts these vary widely
depending on the particular network, region, or project. Given that we
are dealing with a “movement of movements” or a “network or networks”
the particular issues and ideas of concern to activists are shaped by
the specific contexts in which they are embedded. My own work is no
exception, as I was particularly influenced by the interest in
networks, digital technologies, and new forms of organization among
activists in Barcelona. It was through hours of collaborative
practice, discussion, and debate that I began to see the network as
not only a technical artifact and organizational form, but also a
widespread political ideal.

It was fascinating to see how the concept of the network popularized
by theorists such as Manuel Castells or Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri
had seeped into activist discourse itself. Indeed, by the end of my
time in the field the “network” had emerged as one of the key unifying
concepts among global justice activists around the world, and many of
the movement debates surrounded the pros and cons of network
organizing, the divide between the so called “horizontals” and
“verticals,” the struggle against informal hierarchies, the role of
new technologies, etc. In other words, the theoretical concerns
addressed in my book reflect the concepts and debates I encountered in
the movement itself. At the same time, the specific theoretical
languages and traditions through which these issues have been
addressed vary greatly. For example, many Italian activists associated
with the occupied social centers, and those influenced by them
elsewhere, were particularly influenced by the Italian autonomists and
concepts such as the multitude, immaterial labor, and precarity found
in the writing of Hardt & Negri and Paolo Virno, among others. Some of
the more UK-based radical theory networks have been particularly
influenced by Gilles Deleuze as well as Deleuze and Guattari’s notion
of the rhizome.

Although some movement pockets in Barcelona were in line with the
Italian tradition, many of the Catalan activists I worked with were
more familiar with Manuel Castells, and there was a general concern
for emerging forms of participatory democracy. To the extent that
there have been intellectual debates within the U.S. context, these
have tended to revolve around direct democracy, on the one hand, and
issues of race, class, and exclusion, on the other. The other critical
arena for intellectual discussion and debate within the global justice
movement has revolved around the social forum process. Here the key
concept has been “open space,” which I view as a reflection of a
horizontal networking logic inscribed within the organizational
architecture of the forum. Proponents of open space see the forum as a
new kind of organization, an arena for dialogue and exchange rather
than a unified political actor. Critics argue the open space concept
neglects the multiple exclusions generated by any political space, and
undermines the ability of the movement to engage in the kind of
coordinated actions needed to achieve tangible victories. The open
space debate thus incorporates many of the concepts and tensions that
are important within the movement, including networks, the rise of a
new politics, participatory democracy, and tension between networking
and vertical command logics.

Finally, activists have also widely debated alternative models of
social change, particularly within and around the forums. Although
traditional sectors of the movement are still committed to state-
centered strategies of reform or revolution, there has been a keen
interest, particularly among younger and more radical activists, in
more autonomous forms of transformation based on “changing the world
without taking power” to borrow a phrase from John Holloway. These
emerging political visions involve a complex mix of traditional
anarchism, autonomous Marxism, Deleuzian post-structuralism, and the
post-representational logic of organized networks. The intellectual
life within many (though not all) parts of the movement continues to
thrive, and in many respects represents a far richer and more complex
set of ideas and debates than those found within many academic circles.

GL: It is not hard to notice that you left the Italian intellectual
influences outside of your writings. One could easily state that the
bible of Seattle movement has been Negri/Hardt’s Empire (with Spinoza
hovering in the background). No traces of Virno or Berardi either, no
Lazzarato, not even an Pasquinelli or Terranova. How come?

JJ: I do address Hardt & Negri’s work, but not so much the others.
This is perhaps more of a reflection of my particular approach to
theory, as well as my anthropological concern for “staying close to
practices, “as Chris Kelty puts it in his recent book on free
software, “Two Bits,” than a statement of my affinity (or lack
thereof) for Italian theory. Analytically, I take the emergence of
distributed networks associated with post-fordist, informational
capitalism (as analyzed by Hardt & Negri, Castells, and others) as a
starting point, but I specifically examine how network forms are
generated in practice and how they relate to network technologies and
imaginaries. I use ethnography to generate another series of concepts
that are closer to the networking practices I encountered in the
field, such as the cultural logic and politics of networking. In this
sense, I try to descend from the realm of abstract theorizing about
networks, immaterial labor, capitalism, and so forth, to consider the
complex micro-political struggles and practices through which concrete
network norms and forms are generated in specific contexts, as well as
the links between network norms, forms, and technologies more
generally. Hardt & Negri are thus in the background, particularly
their emphasis on the networked form of contemporary resistance, but I
am concerned with a more concrete level.

At the same time, it is true that I am less convinced by the more
ontological, Spinozan dimension of Hardt & Negri’s writing, given my
emphasis on practices, circulations, and connections- the rise of new
political subjectivities certainly, but I’m not so sure about a new
historical subject. A second, more contextual reason why the Italian
theorists are not more prominent in my book has to do with the fact
that the particular Catalan activists I worked with most closely were
less influenced by this tradition than theorists such as Manuel
Castells, general writing on participatory democracy, or ideas
developed through their own grounded networking practices. In this
sense, although Empire has indeed been influential within many global
justice movement circles, and has had an important impact on my own
thinking and writing; it would be a stretch to call it, or any other
single book for that matter, the bible of the global justice movement.
The movement is too diverse and there are too many political and
regional variations. Finally, to be frank, I was not aware of Berardi,
Lazzarato, Pasquinelli, or Terranova at the time of writing this book,
which is partly due to the specific intellectual and political
currents in which I moved. It would be interesting to go back and
address some of these theorists now, particularly Terranova’s “Network
Culture,” and Ned Rossiter’s recent book, “Organized Networks,” which
more deeply engages the Italian tradition.

GL: Do you see the networking practices amongst radical activists as
something special? I mean, isn’t it terribly mainstream to use all
these technologies? I understand that the network paradigm within the
realm of politics is still something new, but as tools there is
nothing that creative, or even subversive, about their cultures of use.

JJ: My contention is not that the networking practices I explore in my
book are unique to radical activists, but they do form part of an
innovative mode of radical political practice that has to be
understood in the context of an increasing confluence between network
norms, forms, and technologies. It is important to point out that,
when I talk about networking practices, I am not only referring to the
use of digital technologies, but also to new forms of organizational
practice. Activist networking practices are both physical and virtual,
and they are frequently associated with emerging political
imaginaries. It is precisely the interaction between network
technologies, network-based organizational forms, and network-based
political norms that characterizes radical activism.

As I point out in Networking Futures, there is nothing particularly
liberatory or progressive about networks. As Castells and Hardt &
Negri show, decentralized networks are characteristic of post-fordist
modes of capital accumulation generally, while terror, crime,
military, and police outfits increasingly operate as transnational
networks as well (see Luis Fernandez’ fantastic new book about police
networks, “Policing Dissent”). What is unique about radical activist
networking, however, is not only how such practices are used in the
context of mass movements for social, economic, and environmental
justice, but also the way radical activists project their egalitarian
values- flat hierarchies, horizontal relations, and decentralized
coordination, etc.- back onto network technologies and forms
themselves. It is this contingent confluence that makes certain
activist networking practices radical, not the use of specific kinds
of technologies per se.

GL: One could easily write a separate study of Indymedia and the
Independent Media Centres, which were erected during all these protest
events. You have not gone very deeply into internal Indymedia matters.
These days, almost ten years later, Indymedia is not playing an active
role anymore, at least not the international English edition. How did
it lose its momentum and is there still a need for such news-driven
sites?

JJ: Although I do address Indymedia and other forms of collaborative
digital networking, its true that the main ethnographic focus of my
book revolves around broader global justice networks such as MRG in
Barcelona or PGA and the WSF process on a transnational scale. Largely
for that reason I was not able to provide more in-depth coverage of
the fascinating and very important internal debates and dynamics
within the Indymedia network. Tish Stringers dissertation on the
Houston Indymedia collective called, “Move! Guerrilla Media,
Collaborative Modes, and the Tactics of Radical Media Making,” comes
closest to this kind of analysis. I’m not sure what you mean when you
say that Indymedia is not playing an active role anymore. If you mean
that the novelty of the network has worn off, that particular
collectives are not as active as they once were, or that it is no
longer on the cutting edge of technological and/or organizational
innovation, you may be right. But if you mean that Indymedia has a
lower profile on the web than it used to or that activists no longer
read or contribute to the various local and international sites, then
I’m not so sure. Indymedia is nearly ten years old and certainly much
of its novelty has worn off. At the same time, it continues to fulfill
a key role of providing a space for activists to generate and
circulate their own news and information, facilitating mobilization
and continuing to challenge the divide between author and consumer.
There have been heated debates within the network about the need to
generate more reliable and higher quality posts, and I think this goal
still remains elusive. In this sense, Indymedia remains very good at
doing what it was initially set up to do, but it has not advanced much
further in terms of pushing the bounds of its grassroots collaborative
production process to generate the kind of deeper and more insightful
reporting that some might wish for.

For example, there had been a proposal to develop a kind of open
editing system that would generate more accurate, higher quality posts
without the need for a more centralized editorial process, but that
proposal has yet to yield any concrete results, as far as I know. If
this is what you mean by losing momentum, then I suppose it is true.
However, this might be expecting too much. In my experience networks
are often good at achieving the specific goals they were established
for, but efforts to reprogram them midstream are often extremely
difficult. It is generally much easier to simply create a new project
or network than try to retool an existing one. In this sense, I would
expect that further innovation with respect to alternative,
decentralized news production is happening elsewhere. Indymedia thus
continues to play a critical role for grassroots activists in many
parts of the world, and, in fact, I think it is one of the most
important and enduring institutions the global justice movement has
left behind. At the same time, I think the desire to see Indymedia
become something else, resolve all of its internal tensions, or
forever remain at the vanguard of innovation is misplaced. Indymedia
will continue to fulfill a key role in terms of creating alternative,
self-produced activist news and information, but I think it is
important to look elsewhere for new innovations, practices, and
strategies.

In my own case, I have recently become fascinated with the burgeoning
free media scene in Mexico, which includes not only online news sites,
but also a rapidly expanding network of Internet/FM radio stations,
web-based forums and zines, digital video collectives, free software
initiatives, etc. (my current research focuses on the relationship
between alternative media, autonomy, and repression in Mexico). Some
of the most exciting developments are happening within the free
radios, many of which combine FM and Internet broadcasts to reach out
to activists on a global scale, while at the same time more deeply
engaging local populations outside typical activist circles. Many of
these projects combine an open publishing component on the web with
live streaming as well as more focused and directed reporting about
local issues and wider national and international campaigns.

GL: Your research clearly shows that there is a direct and positive
relation between autonomous social movement and network paradigms.
However, on the Internet level this is no longer the case as of about
five years ago or so. Activists worldwide have lost touch with the
whole Web 2.0 wave and they tend to have neither a positive nor a
critical attitude toward social networking applications, for example.
There does seem to be a productive engagement with free software and
perhaps wikis, but not even blogs have been appropriated. How come?

JJ: As I understand the question, you seem to be suggesting that the
Internet has progressed over the past few years, but that activists
from autonomous-oriented movements are not keeping up. They were once
at the forefront of technological innovation, but this is no longer
the case. Perhaps, but I’m not sure this is the most productive
framework for looking at this, although the more specific question of
why or why not certain groups of activists appropriate particular
Internet tools is a fascinating one. This is a big question, though,
and is also somewhat counter-factual. I can offer a few speculative
thoughts based on my research and activist experience, but I suppose
the best way to get at this would be to simply ask people why they do
or do not use certain web tools. In general, though, if the argument
in my book is right that contemporary activism involves an increasing
confluence between network norms, forms, and technologies, I would
expect that activists would be more likely to use those Internet tools
that most closely reflect their political values and most effectively
enhance their preferred forms of organization. In this sense, Internet
listserves and collaborative on-line forums such as Indymedia
facilitate decentralized movement organization and reflect values
related to bottom-up organization, grassroots coordination, direct
democracy, and the like. These sorts of early Internet tools
facilitated movement organization and reflected the values of the
movement.

The question is whether more recent Internet tools, including social
networking and video sharing sites, blogs, and/or wikis also enhance
mobilization and reflect activists’ values. If they don’t, I wouldn’t
expect activists to appropriate them, and thus would not be worried if
activists are somehow not keeping up. In terms of free software and
wikis, I think this is one area where, as you rightly point out,
radical or autonomous-oriented activists have been deeply engaged.
Both free software and wikis precisely reflect the kind of
collaborative networking ethic that I explore in my book, and it
should come as no surprise that so many radical or autonomous
activists see their own struggles reflected in the struggle for free
software or that so many contemporary activist collectives and
projects use wikis- and the decentralized, collaborative editing
process these tools allow. In my view, social networking sites are
completely different. While non-governmental organizations, policy
reform initiatives (such as those lil’ green mask requests to stop
global warming on Facebook), political campaigns (look how many
friends Obama has!) have arguably begun to make effective use of sites
such as Facebook or MySpace, in my experience this has been less true
of more radical movements. My book does have a MySpace site, which is
linked to other books, projects, and organizations, and I do belong to
an anarchist group on Facebook, but I don’t find much ongoing
interaction and coordination on these sites.

Many radicals I know use social networking sites in much the same way
as other individuals do- to keep up with their friends and maintain
interpersonal communication, but (and I might be behind the ball
here), they are not as frequently used for collaborative kinds of
organizing. It seems to me that not only are social networking sites
extremely corporate, they don’t necessarily facilitate the kind of
collaborative, directly democratic forms of organization and
coordination that tools such as wikis or old-school listserves do.
They do a good job of allowing radicals to keep in touch with their
friends and broadcast what they are up to, but I don’t think they
facilitate networked forms of organization or particularly reflect
directly democratic ideals. I would say the same for blogs, which,
with perhaps a few exceptions, are generally a personalized, broadcast
medium, and thus not necessarily conducive to more collective,
distributed norms and forms of organization. On the contrary, I would
say video sharing sites such as YouTube (and similar non-commercial
endeavors), do enhance decentralized, networked organization and do
reflect radical activist values by facilitating the autonomous
production and circulation of movement-related images, videos, and
documentaries. Consequently, I have found, in my experience, that
radical activists have made significant use of video sharing sites.
The videos posted on YouTube from the No Borders camp last November in
Mexicali/Calexico provide one concrete example. Rather than asking
whether activists are keeping up with the latest Internet trends, a
more useful question is perhaps whether the latest Internet tools
facilitate distributed forms of networked organization and whether
they reflect activists’ political ideals. To the extent they do, I
would expect activists to enthusiastically take them up. To the extent
they don’t, I would expect there to be limited interest beyond the
individual level.

GL: The ‘distributed’ form of organization could also be read as just
another expression of more individualism, and less commitment. There
is a debate right now about ‘organized networks’ and how organization
can be strengthened in the age of networks. Do you think this is
possible or should we drop the ‘network’ in the first place?

JJ: I would say the distributed network form of organization reflects
a particular strategy for balancing individual and collective needs,
interests, and desires. Rather than less commitment, it reflects a
broader shift toward what the Sociologist Paul Lichterman, in his book
“The Search for Political Commitment,” calls “personalized
commitment.” That said, it is true that diffuse, flexible activist
networks have generally proven more effective at organizing short-term
mobilizations and events than the kind of sustainable organizations
needed to generate lasting social transformation. There is often a
false debate between “movement” or “flexible networks” and
“institutionalization,” as if there were only one way to
institutionalize. Institutions are generally associated with the kind
of centralized, top-down bureaucratic organizations inherited from the
industrial age. However, if we see institutions more broadly as simply
sustainable networks of social relations along with the organizational
and technological infrastructure that makes such relations possible
then there are many ways to institutionalize. In this sense, there is
no necessary contradiction between sustainable organization and
networks.

The key is to create new kinds of sustainable institutions that
reflect and incorporate the networking logics I explore in my book.
For example, what would a political institution look like that is
sustainable over time and able to generate more effective coordinated
action, yet is still based on directly democratic forms of decision-
making, bottom-up participation, decentralized collaboration, etc.? As
I understand it this is the crux of what you, Ned Rossiter and others
are talking about when you argue for the need to move toward organized
networks, at least in the realm of new media. I agree that something
similar is needed in the realm of political activism. I think there
will always be a role for more flexible, diffuse networks to plan and
coordinate specific actions. And there is nothing wrong with letting
these networks fizzle out when they are no longer needed (in my
experience old networks rarely die, they simply cease to provide a
forum for active communication). However, I do think it is important
that we build new kinds of networked institutions (contra
institutional networks) that reflect the best of what distributed
networks have to offer, but are more sustainable over time. At
present, I think the social forums, with all their problems, are the
best example we have of this new kind of organized network in the
realm of political action.

Forums are hybrid organizations, combining vertical and horizontal
organizing logics. Many radicals have criticized the social forums
precisely because of the participation and influence of traditional
reformist institutional actors. However, in my view, it is precisely
at the intersection of these different sorts of political and
organizational logics, and in the context of the associated conflicts
and debates, that new kinds of sustainable hybrid networked
institutions will emerge. This is why I have consistently argued over
the years that more radical activists should engage the forum, even if
from the margins, creating autonomous spaces to interact with the
forum process while promoting their more innovative horizontal
networking practices. Again, it is through this kind of ongoing
interaction and conflict between different organizational logics and
practices that new kinds of organized networks will emerge in the
political realm. It is no accident that of all the projects, networks,
and institutions that have been created by the global justice movement
the social forums remain the most active and vibrant, despite, or
perhaps precisely because of, the continued critiques. To go back to
your first question, PGA remains closest to my heart, but the social
forums may ultimately turn out to be a more lasting and influential
organized network. One of the more interesting projects I have taken
part in over the past few years, the Networked Politics initiative
(http://www.networked-politics.info/ ), has been an effort on the part of
activists and engaged scholars to think more deeply about how to develop
new forms of politics and institutions that are sustainable yet reflect the
kinds of networking logics and practices that were particularly visible in
the context of the global justice movement.

GL: You got involved at the right time, and got out to write down your
findings at the moment when the ‘other globalization movement’ had
somehow lost steam. Do you agree? There is a certain nostalgia for Big
Event days, which makes Networking Futures such a fascinating read.
Where do you see the movements heading? We can all see that they are
not dead, but the urge to continue as if it still were 2001-2002 isn’t
there anymore. Is the network form making it more bearable to see
movements disappear? You seem to have no problem admitting that
“social movements are cyclical phenomena.” What topics and social
formation do you see emerging? Would it, for instance, make sense to
come up with a radical movement inside the larger context of climate
change?

JJ: Yes, I think that’s right. I was extremely fortunate to have
gotten involved in the movement when it was becoming publicly visible
in Seattle, and then lived through what we might call its peak years
from a unique position in Barcelona. I think the movement lost some
steam, or at least some of its confrontational spirit, after the
repression in Genoa, and then 9-11 obviously had a huge impact,
although more so in the United States then elsewhere. Somewhere
between 2002 and 2003 I think the social forums began to replace mass
actions as the main focus of the movement, which reflected a shift, in
my view, toward a more sustainable form of movement activity. At the
same time, there was also a move toward more local forms of organizing
rooted in specific communities. To some extent I think the turn away
from mass actions and the change in emphasis toward local organizing
resulted from the critique of summit hopping that had been around
since Seattle (if not before) but became increasingly widespread as
the novelty of mass actions began to wear off. At the same time,
regardless of any internal movement debates, it is increasingly
difficult to pull off successful mass direct actions over time.

The sociologist Randal Collins hypothesizes that movements can only
maintain their peak levels for about two years, which isn’t too far
off in the case of the global justice movement (say late 1999 to
mid-2001 or so). In this sense, the shift of emphasis toward the
forums and local organizing, although not necessarily conceived in
this way, was a strategic response to the cyclical nature of social
movements. Mass actions continue of course, but as I pointed out
above, even these have become more regularized and routine. The
movement has thus traded some of its emotional intensity for greater
sustainability. Given this strategic shift, I would say the movement
remains surprisingly vibrant. In contrast, as Barbara Epstein has
argued, the anti-nuclear energy movement petered out when activists
failed to make the shift from mass actions, which began attracting
fewer and fewer people and eliciting decreasing media attention, to an
alternative strategy. In many ways, the global justice movement is
well placed to pick up steam again if and when the next cycle of
increasing confrontation comes around again.

The global justice/alternative globalization/anti-capitalist frame is
a good one in that it encompasses an array of movements and struggles,
while maintaining a focus on systemic interconnections. I think it
would be an error to revert back to single issue politics and
struggles at this point, as such connections would be obscured and the
social, political, and cultural capital of the global justice movement
would be squandered. In this sense, rather than organize a radical
movement around climate change, for example, it would make more sense
to organize around this issue in the context of a global justice
frame. This was done to great effect by the European anti-war
movement, which was a really a fusion between the anti-war and global
justice movements. This connection was never really made in the U.S.,
partly due to the absence of a national level forum process, and both
movements were worse off as a result. In terms of what specific issues
I see emerging, that is always a tough call, but I think you are right
that global climate change will constitute a key site of struggle over
the next few years, as will alternative energy, particularly given the
spike in oil prices. At the same time, in light of the current global
financial and economic crisis, a broad anti-capitalist critique
remains as relevant and important as ever. Moreover, if the history of
previous crises provides any indication, we may well see the rise of a
global democracy movement to challenge the increasing repression and
authoritarian trends in many parts of the world. Whatever new forms of
struggle emerge, I think they will be stronger to the extent that they
can link themselves to a broader anti-systemic critique such as that
represented by the global justice movement.

–

Jeffrey S. Juris, Networking Futures, The Movements Against Corporate
Globalization, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 2008.

Promotional website of the book: http://networkingfutures.com/home.html.

ASU page of Jeffrey Juris: https://sec.was.asu.edu/directory/person/863914

Juris’ book is a result of nearly a decade’s research on the various movements for alternative globalization, from their first emergence in the public eye during the Battle of Seattle in 1999 to last year’s US Social Forum in Atlanta, Georgia. There are stops in between in Barcelona, Prague, and Porto Alegre, Brazil. The author, a 2004 PhD and now assistant professor of anthropology at Arizona State University, didn’t just observe his research field, he lived in the middle of it, squatting with activists in Europe and taking part in hundreds of meetings and discussion groups as well as many of the major alt-globalization actions of recent years.

The view Juris offers is more in-depth than has been generally reported even by sympathetic journalists such as Naomi Klein, whose book Fences and Windows covers a lot of the same territory but with less detail. Basically an academic text, the book also puts a conceptual framework around the events and interactions in which Juris participated to explain their significance.

A major theme that emerges is how digital network technology reinforces certain social norms and political forms of the alt-globalization movements. The spoke-and-hub architecture of online networks, for example, mirrors a political organizational structure in which individual groups retain their autonomy but communicate with one another to coordinate their actions. That horizontal hierarchy, in which no one node is essentially “in charge”, also reflects the egalitarian culture new social movements espouse. There’s also the fact that alt-globalization doesn’t reject globalization per se, but the way it’s evolving under transnational corporate rule, and so it fittingly turns the information-processing and telecommunications tools of global capital against itself, much in the way that the literacy that indoctrinated colonized peoples into Christianity through studying the Bible also permitted them to read the The Communist Manifesto and thereby come up with liberation theology.

While average readers will perhaps find the point nerdy, those with a social science bent ought to appreciate Networking Futures at least for the alternative example it offers to traditional research methods, especially as typically practiced in America. Ever anxious about the scourge of subjectivity (and therefore susceptibility to accusations of being inconsequential), conventional social science is constantly on the make to display its “hard” science credentials. One way it does this is a predilection for quantitative research. (‘Math is hard’ as Barbie says, or is it GI Joe?) It’s also displayed in the presumption of objectivity, classically set out by Max Weber as the ideal of acting sine ira et studio, that is, without passion or interest. The postmodern reformer’s position embraces something called ‘reflexivity’, acknowledging self-awareness of one’s situation in the constellation of social positions vis-à-vis the object of study. Juris goes a step further, adopting what he calls ‘militant ethnography’, a research agenda that seeks to advocate as well as understand.

Juris has no qualms about his dual identities as both as observer and participant, researcher and activist. In fact, he asserts that ‘going native’ is the only way to really get what alt-globalization is all about. Physically joining in on protest actions, feeling the sting of tear gas, being overcome by fear of the police truncheon about to come down, but also the exhilaration of collective contagion and feelings of group solidarity is an essential part of documenting these new social movements as they are in the making.

A good portion of the book is taken up reporting field research. There’s a chapter on the aesthetics of direct-action protests, laying out the color coding of different march columns in which various positions are organized—white overalls and padding for civil disobedience where some police retaliation is presumed, pink and silver for frivolity and festivalism, symbolic, unruly play set in contrast to buttoned-up official ‘business as usual’ of the transnational suits, black bloc for militant action, including calculated property damage, primarily against corporate targets, etc. Another chapter maps out various alt-globalization constituencies—the ‘institutional’ wing comprising progressive political parties and trade unions, the ‘critical’ sector of non-governmental organizations, the ‘network-based’ units of direct democracy, such as the Movement for Global Resistance and Peoples’ Global Action, and ‘autonomous’ elements, including squatters and indigenous peoples’ groups.

These mappings are augmented by reports of actions in which Juris took part, from the heady days of Seattle, Barcelona, and Prague to the terror of Genoa and the discontent in its aftermath. There’s also a bit of history, tracing alt-globalization to the grassroots, peasant, and indigenous peoples’ movements in the 1970s in the Global South, especially Latin America, the first region to be subjected to the then new ideology of neoliberalism as Milton Friedman and his wrecking crew ‘adjusted’ Chile’s economy after ‘Little September 11’ (the date in 1973 when dictator Augusto Pinochet assumed power in a military coup d’etat that ended in the death of popularly elected president Salvador Allende). This history, while generally well told, could have given a little more attention to Northern unionists, who actually accounted for some two-thirds of the protestors on the street in Seattle.

While his book is sympathetic to its subject, Juris does offer criticism and correctives. He points out, for example, the Eurocentric bias of some alt-globalization groups, who by virtue of access to financial, technological, and cultural resources are positioned to set and manage the global agenda on behalf of not-so-fortunate others who actually constitute the vast majority. (Half the planet’s population has never received a telephone call let alone downloaded files from the so-called World Wide Web.) He also acknowledges the limitations of informal networks of organization and communication, which reinforce egalitarian ideals but lead to instability that may hamper long-term effectiveness. Then there’s the question of political legitimacy, which democratically elected governments ostensibly have and self-appointed counter-forces outside the system arguably don’t. (Although if the will of the people were truly being done, the United States would likely have been out of Iraq long ago and Bush and Cheney may well have been deposed by now.)

At several points, Juris credits alt-globalization with achieving ‘symbolic’ victory in its struggle against transnational capital. But that begs the question as to what has been tangibly accomplished. It’s true as Nobel Laureate and former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the alt-globalization movements do appear to have succeeded in putting certain issues on the table, although one can well argue that so far talk has been cheap. Resistance in South America has been more concretely bolstered by the electoral mandate of several progressive governments who are refusing go along lock, stock, and barrel with the neoliberal transnational agenda. Capitalism in the United States seems to be doing a pretty good job of bringing itself to its knees through the cupidity, venality, and hubris of its own agents, without the help of outside activists. What’s known as the Doha round of free trade negotiations collapsed this summer not because of the alt-globalization movements but because the two biggest parties, India and China, wouldn’t submit to the rules of a game they saw as rigged against them (a clear example of God blessing the child that’s got its own).

The force of Juris’ close-up perspective needs to be set alongside an understanding of the dark side’s structural apparatus to make clear just what it is the alt-globalization movements are up against. Naomi Klein’s most recent book The Shock Doctrine is a timely place to start, although I recommend David Harvey’s Brief History of Neoliberalism and William Robinson’s Theory of Global Capitalism as more substantial yet still readable. That noted, Networking Futures stands as a pioneering document of what may yet prove to be a new new world order. That makes it important enough for me.

Click here to view the original review.