Alter-Globalisation Movements

Globalization, not only of the economy, but numerous areas of social and cultural life, has, over the past decades, been the most visible and disquieting aspect in the evolution of capitalism, which was and still is primarily led by the United States (Touraine, in Pleyers, 2010:xi). This notion follows the rationale of a hegemonic power centred in the United States, as seen in the ‘historical structures’, when studying global political economy, and its global construction of ideas, material capabilities and institutions (Cox, 1981: 135-138).

Cox (2004) has defined the alter-globalisation movements through the term

‘nebuleuse’, which defines a counter-hegemonic movement towards ‘new multilateralism’.

The present world order, which centres from the notion of pax-Americana, is a relationship between social forces, material capabilities and ideologies, which are embedded in institutions, and further identifies how social forces, states and the present world order

31 coexist (Cox, 2004). In a state centric approach, towards multilateralism, the world order is made of anarchy, among states (Wendt, 1999), and in a ‘complex multilateralism’ approach, the role of civil society and NGOs are incorporated (O’Brian et al, 2000). Former social movements, which approached international institutions, like anti-WTO demonstrations and WSF, claimed a democratic deficiency – ‘governance without government’. The present

‘occupy’ movement and OWS are approaching the domestic democratic deficiency in liberal parliamentarism. The democratic system, and the world system, is under attack, and with reference to the term ‘counter hegemonic movement’, both OWS and WSF may be defined as such.

Globalisation has been understood as ‘the people of the world have been incorporated into a single global society’ (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000:24). Following this approach, we can identify six strands of globalisation and its effect on global society: changing concepts of time and space; an increasing volume of cultural interactions, the commonality of problems facing all of the world’s inhabitants; growing interconnections and interdependencies; a network of increasingly powerful transnational actors and organizations; synchronization of all the dimensions involved in globalization (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000:24). Arguing from these strands, Cohen and Kennedy claim that this approach has two points of departure. One, is the notion of globalism and the other of glocalization – meaning that the globalisation process has a two-fold dynamic, from local to global, and global to local (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000:27). Or put differently, globalization from above and from below.

The changes which occurred from the end of the industrial revolution until today have caused a several changes in the way society is structured and conducted, in ways of economics, politics, social relations and culture. Within this period, the time-space distances were rapidly reduced, most notably in later decades, because of the developments in electronic communication and social media. The world is interconnected, bringing the population of the world towards a similar way of thinking, acting and pursuit of solidarity.

Global resistance against the neo-liberal doctrine has been following different sets of ideas and tactics, such as revolutionaries and reformist, universalists and localists, ideological motivated and identity-based initiatives, universalists and particularists, pluralists and communitarians, modernists and post-modernists (Starr, 2000). The common denominator is the quest for alternatives to the current neo-liberal order, by interaction of citizens and groups, in networks and coalitions, and exchanging ideas and prospects.

Movements against neo-liberal globalization have networked together into families of movements, each very different from the other (della Porta, 2006:58), seemingly functioning

32 as a ‘movement of movements’. Even though the aggression is fluid, they come together on the basis of political affinities (della Porta, 2006:58). The unification between them has reconciled the organisations against capitalism, as critiques of globalisation (della Porta, 2006:58). Furthermore, several of the movements, in the past and present, like OWS, have tried out different forms of direct democracy and alternative forms of decision making, and the movements against neo-liberal globalisation increasingly make reference to the concept of consensus democracy (della Porta, 2006:58). The alter-globalisation movement may be defined as an ideological construction, or trend of global resistance, in order to redefine global interaction by other means. On the other hand, it should also be approached as the

‘plural participation of grassroots from below in transnational solidarity networks’, whereas the defining aim is to enhance globalisation on a democratic track (Hosseini, 2006:5).

The variety of global activism may be defined as both particularism and universalism, which has interrelated dichotomies with the post-1960s social movements, and the theoretical frameworks adapted to explain them in an intersection between old and new social movements (Hosseini, 2006:6). The global activism, and the dualism by means and aims, within global vs. local, particular vs. universal, with local autonomy and universal norms, were not approached as contradictory, but rather sees as the same mechanism (Hosseini, 2006:6). The supposedly contested forces of resistance between particularism and cosmopolitanism, has been related to the local issues and thereafter related to issues of a broader context and global resistance (Kohler and Wissen, 2003:943). It is more of a logical conclusion that local and domestic issues and activism become interrelated to the global norms, as the domestic and global norms are increasingly interrelated. And with the episodes of the global ‘occupy’ movement and OWS, there may be a subsequent debate of ‘scale shift’

in contestation, from the global level to the networked domestic levels.

At the end of the 20^th century and the beginning of the 21^st century, there was an escalation in the number of transnational movements, which challenged the intersection between a new type of internationalism and the emerging ‘plural global solidarity’ (Sen et al.

2004:1). The theoretical frameworks of transnational and global movements intersect with the paradigm shift between old and new social movements, where there is a transformation of the power networked between the global civil society (Wainwright, 2004: xviii). The tactics adopted in the quest to change the current shortcomings of international political- and economic institutions, are, in the present days, focused on the intersection between reform and revolutions, and subsequently transforming into a ‘non-reformist reform’ or

‘revolutionary reform’ (MacEwan, 1999: 15). The latter leads to the upcoming debate -

33 whether there are any unique explanatory shifts in the GSM and TSM approach, compared with the previous debated intersection between old and new social movements.