Collective Identity and Global Justice

Creating Cohesion from Diversity: The Challenge of
Collective Identity Formation in the Global Justice

Movement*
Cristina Flesher Fominaya, University of Aberdeen
Collective identity formation is important because it plays a crucial role in sustain-
ing movements over time. Studying collective identity formation in autonomous groups
in the Global Justice Movement poses a challenge because they encompass a multiplic-
ity of identities, ideologies, issues, frames, collective action repertoires, and organiza-
tional forms. This article analyzes the process of collective identity formation in three
anti-capitalist globalization groups in Madrid, Spain, based on 3 years of ethnographic
eldwork. The author argues that for new groups practicing participatory democracy
the regular face-to-face assemblies are the crucial arena in which collective identity
can form and must be both effective and participatory in order to foster a sense of
commitment and belonging. The article raises the possibility that scholars should con-
sider what seems to be an oxymoron: the possible benets of failure for social move-
ments.
Introduction
The Challenge of Studying Collective Identity Formation in Autonomous
Groups
Collective identity formation has been a central concern for scholars
seeking to understand how a sense of cohesion that leads to collective action
is developed in social movements (Hunt and Benford 2004; Polletta and Jasper
2001; Snow 2001). For Melucci (1995) the empirical unity of a social move-
ment should be considered as a result rather than a starting point, a fact to be
explained rather than evidence. Understanding how a movement succeeds or
fails in becoming a collective actor is therefore a fundamental task for social
movement scholars. Studying collective identity formation in autonomous
groups poses a challenge because the Global Justice Movement encompasses a
multiplicity of identities, ideologies, issues, frames, collective action reper-
toires and organizational forms, often eschewing formal structures (Abramsky
2001; Anonymous 2001; Della Porta 2005; Starr 2005; Yuen, Burton-Rose,
and Katsiacas 2004).
1
Autonomous groups represent a major strand within
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 80, No. 3, August 2010, 377404
2010 Alpha Kappa Delta
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00339.x
the Global Justice Movement. They reject institutional ties to major parties
and unions, defend a movement organized in a horizontal network form and
support the principles of self-organization, participatory democracy, autonomy,
horizontality, diversity, and direct action. As in the U.S. womens movement
(Mansbridge 1986), autonomous groups actively pursue the strategy of
strength through weak ties or strength through inclusivity (Smith 2001),
rejecting ideological purity and xed identities (Drury and Reicher 1999;
Schnews 2004; Seel 1997). Given that shared identities, ideologies, and
interests are commonly understood to provide internal cohesion to social
movements, how is collective identity generated in these relatively hetero-
geneous autonomous groups?
In the face of heterogeneity, McDonald (2002) argues that collective
identity is an orthodox paradigm that needs to be abandoned and that scholars
should understand collective action as the public expression of self
(p. 111). I disagree. Drawing on case studies from Madrids anti-capitalist net-
work, in this paper, I will argue that collective identity formation is a crucial
process even for heterogeneous social movements and a theoretical concept
that continues to yield deeper knowledge of social movement dynamics.
Meluccis (1989, 1995, 1996) understanding that collective identity (CI) does
not necessarily imply coherent or unied cognitive frameworks but is
constructed through the interaction of movement actors provides a key to
understanding collective identity formation in these groups. For Melucci
(1995), collective identity is a dynamic ongoing process that involves cogni-
tive denitions about ends, means, and the eld of action, which are expressed
through a common language and enacted through a set of rituals, practices,
and cultural artifacts. It involves the ability to distinguish the collective self
from the other and is always formed in relation to a eld of opportunities and
constraints. It involves emotional investment and solidarity bonds between
group members, which are strengthened in the face of conict (p. 48).
Snow (2001) takes exception to Meluccis primary emphasis on the pro-
cess-aspect of the concept, arguing that while process is important, it is ques-
tionable and unnecessary to contend that the process is more fundamental than
the product to understanding the character and functionality of collective iden-
tity. For Snow, the product is generative of a sense of agency that can be a
powerful impetus to collective action, but it functions as well as the orienta-
tional identity for other actors in the eld of action. More concretely it is the
constructed social object to which the movements protagonists, adversaries,
and audience(s) respond (p. 4).
Snow attempts to combine two elements of collective identity, process and
product. But collective identity as process and movement identity as socially
constructed product are two different things. The movement identity that is
378 CRISTINA FLESHER FOMINAYA
publicly projected may be a specic issue-based movement identity (e.g., no-
nukes), an ideology-based movement identity (e.g., communism) or an identity-
based movement identity (e.g., gay or nationalist) and this should not be con-
fused with the process of collective identity as it is experienced and understood
by movement members. Movement adversaries and audiences do not respond
to the collective identity of a movement as it is experienced by membersthey
respond to the visible expression and projection of political content (frame is-
sue claim action), which only in some cases (notably identitarian movements)
is dened in similar terms to the collective identity of the movement. Put
another way, the process of collective identity is an intra-movement phenome-
non even though it is conditioned and constructed in interaction with the
broader political eld. In only some cases is the construction of that collective
identity a central explicit goal of the movement that is then strategically
deployed as a political tool. Even in cases where there is a strong overlap
between elements of the individual and collective identities, however, we
should not confuse intra-movement collective identity processes with the
publicly projected movement identity.
Because so much work on collective identity has dealt empirically with
movements in which identity politics are central, the distinction between col-
lective identity as a process and as a product has sometimes been blurred. As
Haunss (2000) points out the examination of identity oriented movements
covers only a specic form of the process of collective identity. Studying the
process of collective identity in the autonomous anti-capitalist movement
allows one to see clearly that the construction and maintenance of that collec-
tive identity is a crucial part of movement building regardless of whether iden-
tity politics or ideological or even clearly dened issues form a central part of
their political agenda. Identitarian movements strategically mobilize collective
identity as a political tool. The internal cohesion of the movement is also cen-
tered and focused on the explicit construction of that collective identity. There
is a strong overlap between personal, social and collective identities. In con-
trast, in autonomous movement, the social, and personal identities are much
less salient than the collective identity and that collective identity is deliber-
ately dened in a very elastic, pluralistic manner, both on principle and for
strategic reasons. Unlike ideology-based movements, beyond a loosely shared
subscription to some general principles, there is no common ideology to
provide a sense of shared purpose and belonging.
Because the anti-capitalist groups in Madrid were in the initial stages of
attempting to create an autonomous collective identity as an alternative to the
dominant institutional left (Flesher Fominaya 2007a), there was no consoli-
dated autonomous collective identity product around which activists could
organize. Autonomous activists identied with the principles that underlay the
COLLECTIVE IDENTITY FORMATION IN THE GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT 379
global movement (e.g., autonomy, disobedience and participatory democracy),
but this worked more on an abstract level than as a collective reality, because
there were few groups established along these lines. The cases analyzed here
represent three signicant initiatives to develop political projects that would
provide a collective reality to this imagined belonging and forge a new
autonomous movement culture in Madrid.
Meluccis emphasis on collective identity as a dynamic ongoing process
is particularly useful for the study of groups who are in the early stages of
developing an emerging collective identity and especially for the study of the
autonomous Global Justice Movement, because of the movements heterogene-
ity, its emphasis on diversity being the basis for unity (the movement of
movements) and its strong anti-identitarian and anti-ideological orientation
(Barr and Drury 2009; Seel 1997).
The State of Knowledge
Collective Identity and Social Movements
While the effects of protest itself on collective identity is well docu-
mented, especially when met with repression (see Barr and Drury 2009; Drury,
Reicher, and Stott 2003; Fantasia 1988; Gamson, Fireman, and Rytina 1982),
there is still a need for empirical work that sheds more light on the process of
collective identity formation in the latent phase of movement activity that leads
to mobilization. For autonomous groups a key arena for this pre-mobilization
activity is the assembly, which will be central to this discussion. Scholars
studying collective identity formation stress the importance of activist inter-
actions in which goals and identities are negotiated and internalized. Other
central mechanisms in the process of collective identity formation include
boundary work, which involves creating a reciprocal identication between
group members that simultaneously express commonalities and difference with
reference groups (Hunt and Benford 2004; Rupp and Taylor 1999; Taylor and
Whittier 1992) and maintaining commitment and forging bonds of solidarity
through shared leadership, organization, ideologies, and rituals (Downton and
Wehr 1991; Hirsch 1990; Hunt and Benford 2004; Klandermans 1997). In
social movement groups collective identity formation is also crucially linked to
a shared collective action project (Barr and Drury 2009). Goodwin (1997),
Jasper (1998), Rupp and Taylor (1987), Melucci (1996), Adams (2003), Brown
and Pickerill (2009), and Flesher Fominaya (2007b) stress the importance of
shared emotional experiences as a means of fostering and sustaining collective
identication and commitment to social movements.
Some scholars have chosen to focus on how groups sustain commitment
over time without linking that discussion to collective identity formation.
However, studying collective identity formation as a process provides the the-
oretical leverage that allows one to move beyond the group level to explore
the relationship between collective identity formation at group level and at
network and movement levels (Hunt and Benford 2004; Rupp and Taylor
1999; Snow 2001). Collective identity is usually conceived as being strongest
at the group level and weaker and more abstract as one moves up to the
network or movement levels. Saunders (2008) and Snow (2001) argue that
strong collective identity at the group level can actually work against collec-
tive identity formation at the movement level leading to fragmentation and
division between groups. However, the opposite possibility has not been con-
sidered in the literature: that failure to generate collective identity at the group
level can nevertheless foster collective identity at the network level, an
argument developed here.
Methods
This analysis is based on participant observation in the Madrid anti-glob-
alization network from July 2002 to July 2005; 32 interviews with autonomous
activists and regular monitoring of e-mail lists and alternative media web
pages. Although participant observation over a 3-year period included a wide
range of backstage and public movement activities, systematic participant
observation centered on three groups, the European Social Consulta (CSE);
Disobedience Lab; Horizontal Space Against War (EHCG). The rst two
emerged roughly in parallel to each other and largely differed in ideological
inuences and membership so were representative of a large cross-section of
activists at the time. The third consisted of activists involved in the rst two
and represented an explicit attempt to overcome the problems these groups
encountered. Madrids network is characterized by a high degree of multi-mil-
itancy, where activists participate in multiple political spaces and ow from
one to another acting as conduits of information, inuences, and connections.
The overlap of certain activists within these groups provided a comparative
understanding of their experiences in these different spaces. Given shared time
and place, activists were responding to a common set of constraints, chal-
lenges, and concerns. The chronological overlap of the different groups also
enabled me to track the learning curve of the activists and the shifts in their
responses to problems and challenges within the network. Combining partici-
pant observation and interviews allowed me to study group processes and indi-
vidual interpretations of those processes and their effect on participation. For
all three groups, I attended weekly or bi-weekly group assemblies, (latent)
social encounters, and (visible) collective actions and events, taking extensive
eld notes. Interviews were interactive, lasted 26 hours and covered a broad
range of issues related to political participation, including the specic
experiences of the activists within each group studied. I subscribed to the
internal and public email lists of all three groups.
2
Historical Background
Much U.S. literature on participatory groups focuses on a tension between
democracy and efcacy (e.g. Breines 1980; Epstein 1991; Polletta 2002).
Unlike many U.S. groups practicing radical democracy, European autonomous
activists do not equate participatory democracy with consensus. In fact, many
European activists are highly critical of what some term the consensus obses-
sion. Consensus is sometimes seen as desirable,
3
but not always necessary
and practical or more laissez-faire approaches to decision making often pre-
vail. European autonomous activists would often prefer to agree to differ than
embrace a uniform decision making practice, including consensus. The legacy
of the European 1960s is different from that of the United States
4
and so is
the understanding of direct democracy, which encompasses such activist prac-
tices as decision-making assemblies, rotation of key positions, and imperative
mandates for delegates. In keeping with a trend in Western Europe,
5
the
Madrid network is made up of a range of groups that can roughly be divided
into two broad categories in tension: those who practice more deliberative,
horizontal politics and insist on autonomy from political parties and unions
and those following a more formalized institutional left model, with strong ties
to parties and unions.
6
Whereas the institutional left is organizationally hege-
monic and enjoys access to resources (nancial, organizational, legal) that
autonomous groups do not, this strength is countered by the discursive legiti-
macy of the autonomous groups, derived in large measure from the dominance
of autonomous principles (e.g., horizontality, openness) in the broader global
movement. However, autonomous groups often depend on the institutional left
for resources (Flesher Fominaya 2007a). In Madrid, this tension not only
affects relations between actors in the network but also manifests itself in
internal group dynamics and development.
Taylor and Whittier (1992) argue that movement collective identity is
formed in opposition to dominant cultural practices. Autonomous groups in
Madrid actively understand their activism as an attempt to create free spaces
(Evans and Boyte 1986) that offer an alternative to institutional left forms of
practice. They attempted to forge a new collective identity contra the local
(and national) institutional left model that permeated activists previous experi-
ences in local and statewide forums,
7
and toward an imagined global iden-
tity inspired by the global movement, despite the fact that many activists had
never had direct experience with the movement outside Spain.
8
One of the features of contemporary autonomous politics is the weaken-
ing of personal and social identity requirements for participation. This is not
merely a natural evolution, but is a result of the active application of the
diversity principle within the movement itself. Earlier autonomous movements
in Europe, such as those in Italy and Spain during the 1970s, 1980s, and
1990s, had a strong counter-cultural component and aesthetic and lifestyle
requirements for acceptance into the scene. While such barriers have by no
means disappeared, they are now less prevalent and tend to emerge around
specic physical social spaces (e.g., squatted social centers). Melucci
(1995:123) stressed the provisional (rather than lifelong) nature of commit-
ment and the circulation of individuals in different groups in contemporary
movements. What is perhaps unusual about the movement community studied
here, even within a movement where unity through diversity is a guiding prin-
ciple, is the degree to which aesthetic and lifestyle requirements were elastic.
A wide range of people were considered to be legitimate members of the
movement. The phrase used to identify people as one of us was illustra-
tively vague: es del rollo loosely translates as S hes part of the scene,
and means someone sympathetic to the movements goals and principles.
When asked to dene themselves politically, activists might claim identica-
tion with a range of options from anarchist to lay Christian, but would rarely
voice these particular identities spontaneously. Sometimes they focused on
issues rather than identities (e.g., Im most concerned about immigration
issues) and often responded, I dont really know how I would dene
myself. Indeed, not having to dene themselves was one of the main attrac-
tions of participation in the anti-globalization movement for many activists.
9
Commitment requirements were equally elastic, with individuals disappearing
from activism for months at a time, to later reappear and be reintegrated into
political activity.
10
These groups were created against the backdrop of the invasion of Iraq.
Typical assemblies ranged from 7 to 20 activists, increasing to 60 people of
mobilization. Most activists were in their twenties or thirties and university
educated.
11
Groups encompassed a range of ideological orientations from anar-
chist to orthodox leftist, lay Christians, feminists, NVDA anti-militarists,
squatters, environmentalists, and more. Some activists also belonged to parties
and unions, especially IU (Izquierda Unida) a federation of leftist parties and
CGT (Confederacion General del Trabajo), an anarchist workers union.
The Process of Collective Identity Formation in Autonomous Groups
The Assembly: The Attempt to Generate an Autonomous Collective Identity
Brown and Pickerill (2009) argue that we need to pay attention to the
different spaces of activism to better understand the relationship between
emotions and activism. [We should consider] the conduct of the self and
interpersonal relationships in activist encounters, how these relationships
change over time... and identify those practices that might facilitate on-
going commitments to activism (p. 3).
In order to create a new autonomous movement project in Madrid, a
group of activists invites people to participate in an assembly. Projects are
dened as spaces designed to pursue a particular goal, which can be nar-
rowly or loosely dened: i.e. squatting and setting up a new social center; gen-
erating protest against anti-capitalist globalization (in general) or the invasion
of Iraq. The designation assembly connotes asamblearismo, a political tradi-
tion based on participatory deliberative practice. It is within the weekly or
bi-weekly assembly that decisions are taken, actions are planned and tasks are
distributed. It is here that the collective denition of the project is developed
and the mechanisms of social bonding (Downton and Wehr 1991) and gratify-
ing interaction that Klandermans (1997) argues are crucial in sustaining com-
mitment can be set into motion. In order to understand collective identity
formation in autonomous groups, special attention must be given to the assem-
bly since, in the absence of a formal organizational framework and external
resources, the continued existence of the project initially depends on the suc-
cess or failure of the dynamic generated therein. Initially these assemblies are
often a heterogeneous collection of individuals with multiple and sometimes
conicting ideologies, priorities, and strategic orientations. Whether and how
this ad hoc collection of activists gels into a cohesive movement group
depends in large measure on what happens in assembly.
Melucci (1989) argues that collective identity formation takes place in a
paradoxical relationship between latent and visible moments of collective
action. The latent moment is the everyday, socio-cultural interaction that
develops creative experiments, new cultural codes, reciprocal identication,
solidarity ties, and emotional investments. This pre-political moment, however,
tends toward disintegration unless it nds expression in the visible moment of
mobilization and action. There is a reciprocally correlated and dependent rela-
tion between the latent and visible poles of collective action (pp. 7071).
Whereas Melucci conceives of the latent and visible as two separate but
interrelated spheres, I propose that for autonomous groups, the assembly, as
the core around which new projects form, can be understood as occupying a
pivotal space between the latent and the visible with characteristics of both.
Assemblies are latent or pre-political in that they provide the arena for prepar-
ing public actions (direct actions, debates, etc.) and that they are directed
inward given that only activists participate. But given their pre-gurative nat-
ure and the inseparability of means and ends for autonomous politics, assem-
blies are always simultaneously political. Autonomous assemblies aim to be
open, horizontal, participatory and to generate direct action. Their ostensible
openness to any potential sympathizer lends them a visible, public aspect, the
more so if they are not intimate with other members. And even the most infor-
mal assemblies (for example, those based on friendship networks) have a
structured quality that distinguishes them from the more latent social and
cultural events that ow from them.
These cases will show that the dynamic generated in assembly has crucial
ramications for the process of collective identity formation for autonomous
groups in both the latent and visible arenas. In heterogeneous groups, if the
dynamic in the assembly is participatory, tensions and conicts can be negoti-
ated. The participatory assembly validates activists emotionally, helps them
feel comfortable and connected to other activists, and works to integrate them
into the group. This has a positive spillover effect that fosters other latent
activities (social and cultural events) that provide important arenas for cohe-
sion among group members. Social events like post-assembly drinks and fund-
raising parties are important arenas for the process of collective identity
formation. Socializing, especially sharing drinks and food, symbolizes a level
of reciprocal identication that merely participating in the same assembly does
not. The informal backstage environment also provides a place for activists
to rehash problems or issues in assembly that they might not feel comfortable
discussing directly onstage and to clarify doubts, obtain additional informa-
tion, gossip and share information on events in the broader movement
network.
Important as the affective component is, activists also need to feel useful
and that they are advancing toward their goals, however modestly dened.
Therefore, if these pre-political moments do not nd expression in visible
action, they tend toward disintegration. The assembly must not only be partic-
ipatory, but also effective in generating visible mobilizations and actions that
are meaningful to group members, it must satisfy both emotional and rational
needs in order to generate a sense of cohesion, purpose, and collective identi-
cation with the group project (see Figure 1).
This feedback mechanism is consistent with Brewer and Silvers (2000)
argument that group identication provides the motivational underpinnings for
group loyalty and collective action and also enters into a system of positive
feedback loops with other variables that inuence collective action (p. 168).
The Consulta Social Europea (CSE): Participation Without Mobilization
The CSE, in spirit if not practice, exemplies the essential aspirations of
autonomous anti-globalization politics: a horizontal, participatory democratic
process, which is locally rooted yet transnational in its orientation, whose aim
is to expose the lack of real democracy in formally democratic systems. This
project was inspired most directly by the Zapatista concept of consulta
(consultation) and the experience of the successful RCADE (Red Ciudadana
por la Abolicion de la Deuda Externa) consulta (movement organized referen-
dum) in Spain to abolish third-world debt. Of the three groups, the CSE had
the greatest resources (funds and activist base). Despite much initial enthusi-
asm and hard work, the CSE never progressed much beyond a vague, ambi-
tious idea and failed to live up to its potential. Although it managed to
organize a referendum against the invasion of Iraq and a few other actions it
never succeeded in harnessing the enormous excitement and energy activists
had initially brought to the project. Despite this it managed to sustain itself
over a period of 4 years, quite a long time for groups in this network.
The Madrid group of the CSE provides an interesting example of the
relations between the latent and visible aspects of mobilization in collective
identity formation. The CSE assembly generated two opposing tendencies: one
toward integration, strengthened by (latent) social activities; the other toward
disintegration, facilitated by the failure to generate enough (visible) actions to
counter frustration and burnout. The internal dynamic of the assembly was
strongly inuenced by the tension between institutional left and autonomous
approaches within the movement network.
From its inception, the CSE managed to generate a positive environment
in the assembly. Beyond a small core of founding members, the initial group
was made of a majority of activists who knew each other slightly or not at all
and who came from a range of political and ideological afliations. Invitations
to participate were extended through the network primarily on a personal
basis. Initial meetings were dominated by boundary work, where some
Form of
Action: Visible
Form of
Action: Latent
Assembly
Participatory
Effective
Collective
Identity
Formation
Figure 1
Interplay between assembly, forms of action, and collective identity formation
activists insisted on pushing for a collective denition of the group that clearly
established it on autonomous principles. In the rst meeting (July 2002), most
people seemed less interested in discussing the project itself and more inter-
ested in resolving the issue of whether or not parties and unions would be
allowed to participate. The general feeling was that parties not be allowed to
contaminate the process, but more sympathy was expressed for the small
unions, which were seen as a useful resource. The promoter group, as the
assembly called itself, was repeatedly dened as a space of people: no one
can represent the promoter group and the promoter group can speak for no
one. In this way the debate over whether or not parties and unions could par-
ticipate was implicitly resolved, although the issue continued to be raised in
future meetings. The desire to clearly establish participation in the group on
an individual basis as opposed to a representative basis represents a desire to
clearly establish the boundary between autonomous versus institutional left
practice. Interestingly, this explicit need to establish autonomous rules of
engagement was frustrating to Xurxo,
12
who as a long-term member of MOC
(Movimiento de Objecion de Concienciaan autonomous direct action group)
arguably had the most consolidated autonomous identity. After the second
assembly he told me:
It is impossible to prevent people from parties and unions from participating! Everyone has
the right to participate in an open space, as individuals. Then they can go back to their orga-
nizations. Lets not waste any more time on this sterile debate!
As a long-term autonomous activist, he was clear about the difference
between participating in an open space as an individual versus participating as
a representative of a party or a union. For the majority of activists who were
new to autonomous politics this explicit boundary work was more important.
The adoption of autonomous principles and practice allowed the group to
negotiate potential mineelds in the Madrid network and had clear benets for
the group. First of all, the rejection of Alphabet-soup politics, i.e., the prac-
tice of publishing calls to protest and political manifestos signed with a slew
of acronyms, rendered the group unattractive to institutional left actors who
might seek to control the group for political prot:
Look the minute we say were not signing anything, and that we dont work with representa-
tives the [Left] loses interest and you dont need to worry about them wanting to come in
and control it. (Txema)
By refusing to dene the project in explicitly ideological terms, activists
from a range of orientations felt comfortable identifying with the broader prin-
ciples of the project, and it was especially attractive to activists who did not
understand their own political participation in explicitly ideological terms:
The anti-globalization movement is so open that it allows one to be active without develop-
ing an explicit ideology. Political debates bore me, but Im drawn to mobilization because I
can express myself without having to join a collective... Thats one of the things that
attracted me to the Consulta. (Darla)
I really think the easiest labeling for me is anti-capitalist anti-globalization, because I am
not a communist and not really an anarchist. (Carolina)
The open assembly, elastic membership requirements and the desire to
generate a participatory environment represented a radical departure from con-
ict-ridden assemblies, which were the status quo in the network and this
worked to incorporate many new members into the group. Interviews and par-
ticipant observation revealed that beyond a commitment to the principles that
fueled the project, the participatory environment was a key factor in the deci-
sion to stick with the CSE over time despite frustration with the lack of pro-
gress. Activists continually contrasted their positive experience in the CSE
assemblies with previous hostile experiences in other political spaces, most
notably (although not exclusively) those directed by members of the institu-
tional left. The following quotes are typical:
Hey I come from the CGT, for me just getting through an assembly without anybody throw-
ing anything is a new experience, its great. (Juan)
...after the horrible environment of the FST, it was something I couldnt even imagine,
I couldnt believe that the environment could be so positive. And I felt just absolutely
fantastic in it, with all the problems that it has as a political project. And even though
we dont get very far, and maybe we dont do anything and we seem to be going
around in circles, its people that you get along well with and youre able to talk to.
(Fritzi)
The positive environment in the assemblies generated latent activities
such as routine post-assembly drinks and dinners that provided an important
means of forging ties of solidarity and reciprocal identication between mem-
bers and fostered a collective identication with autonomous politics in the
network. Activists discussion of their experience highlights how important
emotions are in fostering a sense of integration (Adams 2003; Jasper 1998).
Despite this tendency toward integration, the CSE was also debilitated by
the tension between the institutional left and autonomous approaches mani-
fested in assembly. There was a central tension in the group between people
keen on direct action and those who feared this would alienate members of
the institutional left (on whom they thought the CSE depended for any hope
of success) by being seen to usurp their territory through the creation of a
competing node within the network. Yet, at the same time they were careful
not to rock the boat within the network, they were equally committed to not
reproducing the practices of the institutional left. The fear of generating
conict within the group kept discussions at an abstract level and prevented
the group from delving into specic initiatives. Because they felt strongly
about the need for consensus, they avoided taking any decisions future
members might not be in agreement with. Instead they developed complicated
methodologies and calendars for participation. This was exacerbated by the
fact that the open assembly generated a constant ux of activists. The
changing composition of the assembly led to a lack of continuity as previous
decisions were forgotten, or reopened. All of this was extremely frustrating for
those who felt strongly that the group was wasting opportunities for action:
There came a moment, very soon, when we realized we didnt know why we were meeting
anymore, and the discipline was really impressive. People didnt miss a meeting for months,
the list was super activeI mean my god! With that amount of effort we shouldve been
able to do anything! It was a total waste of time and energy. This discourse of no we
cant direct anyonethere came a point where were realized this is craziness! People
keep joining and leaving! Each meeting was a step backward. (Xurxo)
I was at the point where if we didnt do something practical, I was going to leave the Con-
sulta because I was exhausted and I couldnt continue. I think a lot of people felt the same
way. I felt like I was contributing nothing, I wasnt saying anything in the meetings and I
was getting burned out. (Nadia)
These tensions came to a head at a meeting in March 2003 where a number
of people nally voiced feelings that they had been harboring but not express-
ing in assembly: People dont join a methodology; We need to adopt the...
proposal and move on it; We have autonomy, we can participate in actions
as the Consulta; With so much process we are left with nothing!
Despite creating a positive environment in assembly that sustained the
project far longer than would be expected, the CSE failed to create a collec-
tive identity that would sustain the project because, due to distortions in
assembly, it was ineffective and failed to generate sufcient visible meaning-
ful mobilization that would provide the shared experiences that play a crucial
role in developing reciprocal identication and solidarity between actors. It
failed to satisfy the rational or strategic requirements of group members.
But even failed attempts to create and sustain movement groups can
work to develop a collective identity at the network level. The CSE formed
part of the process of the formation of an autonomous collective identity in
Madrid, which as it developed, became less affected by its relationship
with the institutional left and generated its own dynamic and logic. Shared
participation in the CSE led some activists to come together around
new projects (notably the EHCG) that attempted to overcome its decision-
making paralysis and to generate direct actions based on autonomous
principles.
The Disobedience Lab: A Failed Attempt at Theory-driven Direct Action
The Disobedience Lab (Laboratorio de Desobediencia) was an attempt to
create a direct action assembly in response to a proposal made by the Disobe-
ddienti in Genoa (ESF 2001). The project initially generated excitement and
expectation. Despite the heterogeneity of the original assembly, a group called
the Nomad University quickly assumed the hegemonic position and was the
driving conceptual force behind the project.
The autonomous institutional tension affected the dynamic within the
assembly in a strikingly different manner than in the CSE. Whereas the CSE
suffered from an over compensation to institutional left politics, the Disobe-
dience Lab under compensated, unintentionally reproducing institutional left
practices that seriously impeded the possibility of generating a collective
identity around a group ostensibly founded on autonomous principles.
Despite expressing a desire to create a space that would overcome the
political cannibalism that has been practiced here for years, the Nomads
behavior contradicted their desire to break with institutional left practices
and create an autonomous space and was in constant tension with the more
autonomous orientation of other activists in the assembly. The most obvious
contradiction was the Nomads notion that the Disobedience Lab would con-
stitute an intellectual vanguard that would guide the social movements, via
the elaboration of theory that would orient and give meaning to action. This
very idea, so important to the institutional left, is clearly antithetical to the
spirit of autonomous politics and in practice this notion worked against the
development of an autonomous collective identity in a number of concrete
ways.
First, the theoretical focus of the hegemonic nucleus alienated newcomers
through the use of abstract intellectual discourse and created tensions and
divisions in the assemblies.
Anita commented:
I remember they wanted to be a space of less to become a space of more, which were
things none of us understood at all and to get people together in the Labo for two hours to
end up telling us that, well it doesnt make any sense. They talked a lot and did very little.
It was funny because I would sit through the meetings and say to myself: Im the only per-
son who doesnt understand a word theyre saying, and then over the beers later, I would
talk to people and it turns out nobody else understood them either.
Nico, analyzed the political ramications of the Nomads discourse:
the language some of the Nomads used prevented others from participating. I dont think
it was done with bad intentions...But I think that the important thing in an assembly isnt
whats said, but that a lot of people can participate. You can win or lose the assemblynot
in the classic sense of winning or losing a votebut in the sense that the assembly has been
able to collectively construct something, and that people leave the assembly feeling optimis-
tic and invested in that space and whats being produced there. In order for that to happen,
it is really important to construct a language that everyone can use.
In contrast to the Nomads, Nicos (autonomous) denition of political savvy
rests on the use of inclusive language, recognizing participants affective
needs, and achieving participation itself, as opposed to theoretical sophistica-
tion. The experience of the Disobedience Lab highlighted how crucial the use
of language is in fostering participation, essential to collective identity
formation.
Second, the commitment to theory-based action (institutional left) was
in tension with an alternative vision of action-based theory (autonomous).
Appealing to other activists experience rather than to theory would have
been a more useful approach given the objective of engaging in direct
action. Instead, the Nomads continually decried spontaneity and adamantly
refused to engage in brainless activism (activismo descerebrado), which
ironically prevented them from engaging in hardly any activism at all.
Comments like We dont want to fall into sterile activism turned one
meeting called to organize direct action into a rather surreal experience.
This frustrated activists seeking to develop the space as a launching pad
for direct action in Madrid. As Katsiacas (1997) puts it: Action denes
the autonomous discourse, not the sterile contemplation of its possibilities
or the categorization of its past occurrences (p. 203). Yet the desire to
engage in this contemplation and categorization lay at the very heart of the
hegemonic nucleus of the Disobedience Lab and played a great part in its
failure.
Third, although the Disobedience Lab never developed the complicated
documents or calendars of the CSE, it shared a presupposition of its own
long-term existence. The Nomads repeatedly argued that they were not inter-
ested in short-term activism. But in not paying attention to the short term,
they guaranteed the impossibility of the long term, because the group dis-
solved before its objectives could be fullled. Like the CSE, the Disobedience
Lab suffered from conceptual over extension, rather than building up from a
solidly constructed base of trust and shared experiences.
The Nomads also engaged in other local institutional left practices, with
disastrous results for the assembly. One was credentialism (implicit and expli-
cit membership requirements), which included theoretical sophistication, dem-
onstrated membership in a valid political group and bona des. This
contradicted their goal of breaking with institutional left practice by constitut-
ing an assembly of individuals rather than of representatives of specic politi-
cal groups and incurred a heavy cost. In one meeting, one Nomad insisted on
a round to have people present their political afliations. Four people got up
and left the meeting. They later explained why:
Those people want to be the intellectual vanguardthey want to sit around and theorize and
create actions and then have other people do all the work. There are 20 people in Getafe
13
that are up for doing an action, but they want dates, they want something concrete. Im not
gonna waste my breath anymore with those people, Ive seen it all before.
They also acted in concert within the assembly to inuence decisions,
and also acted to override the sovereignty of the assembly by transferring
the boundaries of the assembly to the email list (which they controlled
access to) where decisions would be taken that contravened those taken in
the assembly. By acting in concert, the members of the Nomad University
engaged in a personalized politics (based on personal loyalties) rather
than in a politics of the personal, based on the sovereignty of the individ-
ual in the forum of the assembly, in clear violation of autonomous princi-
ples. These practices alienated activists initially drawn by the promise of
direct action and acted to stie the dynamic impulse toward civil dis-
obedience.
Unlike the CSE, where conict was avoided even at the cost of action
itself, they embraced conict. The hostile atmosphere of the assemblies was
reected in the post-assembly drinks ritual where each mini subgroup within
the assembly would go off separately for a drink to hash over the meeting.
The conict extended from the assembly into cyberspace as well where acri-
monious emails further heightened tensions, causing people to leave the group,
taking their subgroups with them:
I was tired of being patronized and ridiculed. I remember in particular the email suggesting
I sit at my computer and think things through ten times before writing. Their arrogance
was really amazing, especially since they did not exactly have much experience and their
ideas about security were totally off base, they didnt have a clue about direct action.
(Adela)
I once made the terrible mistake of sending an email to the list in Microsoft Word. I got
a very snotty email back from [a Nomad member] telling me that Microsoft was a very
nasty company and that I should be using free software! I would have loved to use free soft-
ware but I had no idea how to use it. I felt like saying, Fine come and install Linux on my
computer because I dont know how. Needless say I never bothered to send another email.
(Darla)
After a great deal of planning and debate, the Disobedience Lab gener-
ated one direct action against the Telefonica Corporation.
14
The action failed
to achieve its objectives not least because someone had tipped off the riot
police who blocked the entrance to the site. Strikingly, however, activists did
not consider the action a failure. Despite its minimal public impact, they
interpreted the action as a success in that it proved to themselves and others
that direct actions can be done in Madrid:
I stuck with the Disobedience Lab because I had a personal desire ever since I returned from
Holland (the meeting of Peoples Global Action in Leiden) that we pull off an action in
Madrid in solidarity with Argentina, and we did it, we actually did it. (Juan)
For many this was their rst direct action and for those who embraced
direct action as a form of political practice, the presence of new people was
encouraging. The shared experience of facing riot police can create bonds
between people who otherwise might have little in common, and such was the
case here. They felt the action was a success, but the space was a failure and
at the post-action assembly, the Disobedience Lab was dissolved after only
3 months. The dynamic in assembly failed to generate latent and visible activ-
ities that would serve to generate a sense of solidarity and cohesion between
members and a collective identication with the project. As one member put
it at the last meeting:
I doubt very much that we all share the same views about actions or theory or anything, but
of course how would we know since we have never, ever talked about any of that here? If
the action against Telefonica worked at all it was because individuals got people from their
collectives and networks to show up and participate in it, but not in any way because this
space works at all. (Elena)
In keeping with the ebb and ow of movement projects in the network,
as one project disintegrated, another was born from the ashes. At the last
meeting, one activist, who had been actively involved in both the CSE and the
Disobedience Lab, announced the creation of a new space:
I think its clear that no one here is satised with the space as it is .... It seems pretty clear
that there are some people who are really interested in reection and discourse and others
who are more interested in a space that is strictly an activist space.... So, to that end, I ran
into some members of Espacio Alternativa, MOC, Mujeres de Negro, Casa Pueblos, and
others who told me they are interested in working on developing some direct action against
the war, but are nding it difcult, if not impossible, to work with the PC (Communist
Party) controlled platform against the war. So they told me that whoever is interested should
come down to the MOC next Wednesday at 6:30.... (Juan)
The Disobedience Lab failed to satisfy either the emotional or rational
needs of its members, the assemblies were neither participatory nor effective.
Yet, as with the CSE, despite the failure of the project, the experience man-
aged to foster a wider sense of an autonomous collective identity at the move-
ment level. Within the broader movement network, the action represented an
important moment in a shared movement history. The shared frustration with
the Disobedience Lab and the CSE combined with a whetted appetite for
direct action forged alliances between activists and led to the creation of the
nal case examined here, the EHCG.
The Horizontal Space against War (EHCG): A Participatory and Effective
Assembly
The EHCG did not suffer either of the distortions of the Disobedience
Lab or the CSE. Specically created to generate anti-militarist direct actions,
during its 4 years of existence, it managed to generate a sustained level of
activity including numerous non-violent direct actions. The EHCG also orga-
nized various workshops on civil disobedience and antimilitarism in squatted
social centers and popular adult schools and produced a free radio show, com-
plete with an anti-militarist soap opera and interviews with activists around
the world. It also participated in organizing a state-wide social movement
encounter held in 2003 and 2004.
One of the founding members described its genesis:
... with the war against Iraq I began talking to people and the EHCG was born out of that,
because it was clearly antimilitarist, against the war, upholds civil disobedience and nonvio-
lent direct action as a legitimate form of struggle, and on the other hand I didnt want to be
in a platform where everything is resolved by shouting and in the ...half hour before the
meeting where we decide whats going to be approved and what isnt. (Xurxo)
Carolina explained her decision to join and stay in the EHCG:
Theres really a lot of things I like about it, for one thing they live up to the name horizon-
tal and the rhythm is really doable, and besides we come up with really different actions
than what has always been done here in Madrid.
The group produced a document explaining the EHCG:
We felt the need ...to organize ... nonviolent direct action in the heat of the imminent massa-
cre in Iraq but without falling into the traps of the Left in Madrid: we were eeing from
coordinating bodies... that [were] nothing more than an accumulation of acronyms with very
little grassroots work behind them and where the only objective seems to be political
prot in the short-term; from the never ending commissions formed to elaborate texts
which end up satisfying no one; from sterile ghts over political legitimacy...; and nally
from hierarchies and authoritarian behaviors.... We try to work following a methodology of
assembly (asamblearismo) which for us means: consensus decision-making, rotating tasks,
not allowing leaders (formal or informal), actively seeking to not fall into authoritarian
and or patriarchal behaviors. Too often the climate in political meetings in Madrid ... is so
aggressive... that for those activists who believe that feelings and activism are inseparable
the climate ... makes them uncomfortable and excluded, and they usually ee, never to
return.
The EHCG beneted from the experience of seven members who had
been in the CSE and ve who had been in the Disobedience Lab and from the
presence of other activists experienced in deliberative politics. A shared
history of having weathered difcult or frustrating assemblies together, often
expressed through humor and jokes, created a strong bond between a core
group of members and contributed to the forging of a collective identity
(Flesher Fominaya 2007b). Despite very limited resources, the EHCG devel-
oped its activities mostly outside the framework of the institutional left and
the fundamental tension between institutional and autonomous actors did not
signicantly affect the internal dynamics of the assembly. Members were
unconcerned with navigating the intricacies of power balances with the institu-
tional left nodes.
15
Unlike the CSE and the Disobedience Lab, the EHCG did
not aspire to leadership in the movement or to the establishment of a larger
network. They did not see themselves as a vanguard, intellectual or otherwise,
but rather had a keen sense of humor about their own limitations.
Rather than the institutional left vision of unitary spaces agglutinating
actors under a coordinating body, members shared a vision of a network of
small afnity groups that work together on specic projects or actions. They
focused on relatively small actions that were feasible given the resources
available and the interest of the activists involved.
Xurxo expressed this philosophy this way:
Would it be great if more people joined the EHCG? Sure, but it would be even more great
if people in Leganes
16
set up their own EHCG, and that we knew each other and did things
together.
The EHCG did not attempt to create a permanent organization, but
instead had a constant notion of its own contingency. The practicality princi-
ple was fundamental: as long as the group was working for its members, it
would continue, when it ceased to do so, it would dissolve.
Unlike the previous two cases, the EHCG worked along horizontal
assembly principles and this had crucial ramications for both the latent and
visible aspects of collective action. Although certain members had a leadership
role, this did not work to paralyze the participation of other members of the
group. Tasks and responsibilities were more widely shared than in Disobedi-
ence Lab or the CSE. Although deep political discussions were rare, they were
not avoided and the assembly periodically organized debates on civil disobedi-
ence and political issues.
The collective identity of the group took shape over time and was consti-
tuted through the generation of a consensus about the underlying autonomous
principles that fueled the group and shared experiences of activism, through
the effective use of techniques that weeded out inputs that went against auton-
omous philosophy. The following example illustrates this. In a planning
meeting for the 15-F (2003) anti-war protest, a proposal from a group called
Aguascalientes Madrid to create an autonomous block was opened for
discussion. Arturo, who was also active in groups formed to protest against
the Prestige oil spill, red an opening salvo:
I dont think this proposal seems very serious...and I insist, Im sorry but I insist [unless the
Prestige is included], we will not collaborate with this, and I speak in the name of Marea
Humana and the Plataforma Gallega Nunca Mais... Besides if they dont include the Prestige
the whole thing smacks of political opportunism!
His comments were typical of the rhetoric of old left politics: speaking in
the name of the platform (in order to bolster the weight of his demand) instead
of giving his own opinion; putting conditions on the form of political partici-
pation; and characterizing Aguascalientes as political opportunists. This was
out of line with the dominant feeling in the space. Instead of directly criticiz-
ing his comment, Juan asked for a round of opinions on the proposal. People
offered the following comments:
I dont think we can really dictate to others how they need to express themselves politically.
It sounds like Aguascalientes is open to incorporating whatever elements we want and are
just hoping for those of us who do not identify with the platform and their manipulations
and who are like-minded to come together and try to do something interesting and visually
strong in the protest.
Instead of us sending a message to them stating our position, as if we had delegates or
something-wouldnt it be much better if we all got together and created something together?
Why dont we invite them to come to the next meeting and we can all work on it together?
(Nodding heads around the table)
Ive talked with people from Aguascalientes and they seem to me to be about as far from
political opportunists as you can imagine. They were extremely open and humble. They are
few, we are few, Marea Humana is few, but together we can do something, so why not get
together?
By the end of the round Arturos original hard-line posture had been neu-
tralized and everyone was in agreement. None of the comments were direct
enough to cause Arturo to lose face, but all served to reafrm the autonomous
principles that underpinned the political space: taking responsibility for ones
own participation, not speaking in the name of others, not having delegates or
hard and fast positions, not dictating to others how they should participate and
being open to working with like-minded people wherever they came from.
EHCG assemblies were both participatory and effective and this dynamic
spilled over into social cultural arenas, where actors got to know each other
better and solidarity was developed. Group members routinely had drinks and
dinners together and participated in movement camps and parties as a group.
Shared mobilizations such as a (failed) attempt to put out the unknown sol-
diers eternal ame, painting a war monument pink, or invading a military
base dressed as clowns on roller skates gave meaning and direction to the
group and worked to develop trust and a collective history. The EHCG forged
a collective identity based on shared experiences of direct action, shared and
collectively developed principles of autonomy, and attention to the affective
and social aspects of political practice:
...as time passes you have more shared stories, more things in common, more difcult situa-
tions that you have overcome together. There is afnity, a similar discoursewe have com-
mon objectives and personal chemistry, which is really important because that is how
networks are created. You ...get to know each other, go to actions together, get beaten up
together...And then you have a basis to reach out to other groups and connect with them like
the dinners that we organize with the Nodo. (Txema)
The EHCG supports Meluccis (1996) argument that collective identity is
a learning process that passes through various stages that lead to the unied
empirical actor we can identify as a social movement. As the process devel-
ops, the collective actor develops the capacity to resolve problems posed by
the environment and becomes increasingly independent and autonomous in its
capacity for action within the networks of relationships within which it is situ-
ated. The process of collective identity is thus the ability to produce new de-
nitions by integrating the past and the emerging elements of the present into
the unity and continuity of the collective actor (p. 75). The EHCG drew on
its past experiences in the network to redene its practice and increase its
autonomy in relation to other actors in the network, which worked to
strengthen the group. Ultimately, problems with a police inltrator and a gen-
eral feeling it had outlived its usefulness led to its dissolution, with most
members immediately creating a new group on similar lines.
Conclusion
Empirically grounded analysis of activist spaces allows for the examina-
tion of specic factors that foster or hinder collective identity formation in
social movement groups. For groups based on autonomous principles, the
assembly is the core around which new projects are generated with important
ramications for the latent and visible moments of collective action and there-
fore for the process of collective identity formation. The cases presented here
suggest that assemblies must be participatory and effective in order to gener-
ate the feedback loops into latent arenas of social interaction and to generate
meaningful activities that give purpose and fulllment to participants and pro-
vide cohesion. The CSE and the Disobedience Lab suffered from inexperience
with effective methodologies that hampered their ability to generate a
dynamic that would sustain activist commitment. Melucci argued that unless
collective action is represented, it becomes fragmented and dispersed; at the
same time, because it is never fully capable of representation, it reappears
later on new ground, with changed objectives and altered strategies
(1989:7172). The inability of the CSE and the Disobedience Lab to nd a
coherent expression led to the fragmentation and dispersal of those spaces; at
the same time the energies and investments made in those spaces, while not
able to reach representation to the degree hoped for, reappeared later on new
ground, as activists carried their experiences and redened objectives into
new movement spaces, such as the EHCG. Contemporary autonomous move-
ment represents a continual balance between these tensions, neither retreating
into the pre-political (life-style politics separate from the rest of society)
nor solely advancing public-oriented instrumental objectives, nor operating
solely on a (counter) cultural terrain. The feedback model presented here is a
potentially fruitful way to analyze collective identity formation in other social
movement networks.
Beyond the specic implications of this analysis for autonomous move-
ments, the process of collective identity formation in these groups suggests
some additional theoretical insights. First, the process of collective identity
should not be confused with the collective identity product or visible pub-
licly projected identity of the movement. Visible mobilizations are only one
arena in which collective identity formation takes place. Studying collective
identity formation as process allows one to reveal the tensions, contradictions,
and negotiations in the latent moments that generate the seeming unity of
movement in its visible moments of protest or mobilization.
Second, it is important to recognize that although it is mainly an intra-
movement phenomenon, the process of collective identity construction is
embedded in a wider political eld. Collective identity is not formed in isola-
tion from structural factors. The relation between autonomous groups and
institutional left groups in this network had a clear impact on the internal
dynamics of these three groups. Whereas the CSE suffered from an over-
compensation to institutional left politics, the Disobedience Lab undercompen-
sated, unintentionally reproducing institutional left practices that seriously
impeded the possibility of putting autonomous principles into practice. The
EHCG managed to carve out a free space for autonomous practice but bene-
ted from earlier experiences in the other groups. Boundary work in the
assemblies revolved around dening the spaces in opposition to institutional
left practices. The development of a collective autonomous identity was
clearly conditioned by the limitations and opportunities of the political eld.
Third, the cases show that activists continually assess their decision to
remain in a group or space based on both affective and rational grounds
and these are intertwined in complex ways that vary between individuals. The
experience of the assembly is an important point of reference in this
assessment. Actors in the CSE recognized that from an instrumental perspec-
tive the group was not fullling their expectations, but satised important
emotional needs that formed an integral part of their political participation:
the creation of a political arena free of hostility and the shared commitment to
maintaining and nurturing that arena. Given their priorities it was rational to
stay. Likewise, some activists chose to leave the Disobedience Lab early on,
long before it was apparent it would be unable to generate signicant actions,
precisely because they were unwilling to accept the hostile environment of the
assemblies. Others stuck with the Disobedience Lab because they were com-
mitted to organizing at least one direct action in Madriddespite the hostile
assembly, for them, the ends justied the means. Their decision to stay or
leave was framed not in terms of issues, ideologies, or individual identities,
but in reference to how well the group worked: they stayed or left because of
or in spite of the dynamic in assembly. Yet the CSE lasted much longer than
the Disobedience Lab, despite being equally ineffective. This sustained com-
mitment in the face of failure suggests that emotions play an even greater
role in collective identity than might be expected, but the hostile context of
the network and lack of alternatives undoubtedly inuenced this outcome. Had
there been more effective and equally positive alternative assemblies with sim-
ilar objectives available the group may have dissolved sooner. As Cox (2009)
and Brown and Pickerill (2009) point out in relation to activists personal sus-
tainability, emotions need to be contextualized within specic places, cultures,
and times. The group with the strongest collective identity (EHCG) managed
to successfully combine the satisfaction of members affective and rational or
strategic needs through an effective and participatory assembly.
Finally, these cases show that even failed experiments at the group
level can lead to a strengthening of movement collective identity through
building up a shared history of having weathered difculties together, a pos-
sibility overlooked in the literature. The negative consequences for move-
ment networks of strong collective identity at group level have been
considered (Saunders 2008; Snow 2001) but not the reverse: the positive
consequences of weak collective identity at group level for movement collec-
tive identity. The experience of having weathered the CSE or the Disobedi-
ence Lab created a shared history and a bond between activists that lasted
even as they moved into other projects. They also carried the lessons of
their failed experiments into new groups: much of the success of the EHCG
rested on this shared commitment to not repeating past mistakes. Even a sin-
gle direct action in the Disobedience Lab, which by any objective mea-
sure could be seen as a failure in fact worked to foster a collective identity
at the movement level. Individuals shared a reciprocal recognition of each
other as direct action activists who formed part of a larger direct action
network linked to a global direct action movement. This case also suggests
that movement success should not be judged solely by the achievement of
explicit political goals (Adams 2003). The cases also highlight the usefulness
of distinguishing between collective identity at group, network, and move-
ment levels while recognizing the important overlaps between them (Snow
2001). Although I have argued that even failed actions and groups can have
positive benets at movement level, I am not arguing that this is always the
caseas any participant or observer of social movements knows all too
well, failure can foster mistrust, burnout, and disintegration.
.
But movement
success or failure is often treated in the literature as an all or nothing propo-
sition: either movements meet their objectives or they fail (Rupp and Taylor
1987). These cases suggest that if our focus shifts from movement outcome
to development, the relation between failure and success becomes more com-
plex and raises the possibility that scholars should consider what seems to
be an oxymoron: the possible benets of failure for social movements.
ENDNOTES
*Thanks to Celia Valiente and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and to
William McDonald and Sam Marullo of Georgetown University for providing me with a quiet
place to write. Please direct correspondence to Cristina Flesher Fominaya, Department of Sociol-
ogy, University of Aberdeen, Edward Wright Building, Dunbar Street, Aberdeen, AB24 3QY,
Scotland, UK; e-mail: c.esher@abdn.ac.uk
1
The many names given to the movement also reect this: Global Justice Movement,
Anti-capitalist Globalization movement, Anti-globalization Movement or the movement of
movements, among others. In Spain it is mostly known as Movimiento Anti-globalizacion.
2
For a more detailed discussion of methods see Flesher Fominaya (2007a).
3
An emphasis on consensus reects the inuence of U.S. movements, particularly among
eco-radical groups in the UK or Ireland, or anti-militarist or pacist groups inuenced by U.S.
counterparts.
4
As Polletta (2002) shows for the U.S. case, interpretations of democracy have specic histo-
ries behind them and are not universal.
5
This tension is often characterized as between horizontals and verticals. For discussions
of this tension in the anti-globalization movement see Cox (2007), Abramsky (2001), Euromove-
ments (2007), Flesher Fominaya (2007a); Notes from Nowhere (2003); Harvie, Trott, and Watts
(2005); and Polet and CETRI (2003). For earlier portrayals of this tension in European autono-
mous movements, see Katsiacas (1997); between NSMs and European Institutional Left, see
Laclau and Mouffe (1985), Offe (1985), and Poguntke (1989). They also show that consensus is
essentially a non-issue.
6
These tensions play out in the UK between direct action activists and the SWP [see Brown
and Pickerill (2009), Drury et al. (2005), Wombles (2004) and the classic Monopolise Resis-
tance by Schnews (2001)].
7
In interviews activists highlighted the experiences of the Platform against the War in
Afghanistan (Plataforma Paremos la Guerra 2001), the state assembly in Zaragoza (Asamblea Esta-
tal contra la Globalizacion y el Capitalismo November 2325, 2001), and the state assembly in
Orcasitas I (September 89, 2001) as being highly charged, divisive assemblies with strong
tensions between more institutional and more autonomous activists.
8
Brown and Pickerill (2009) discuss how in a similar way, Australian activists feel geograph-
ically marginalised yet identify with distant global actions for a feeling of connection with the
wider movement.
9
Clearly, this highlights that, as Gamson (1995) and Haunss (2000) have argued, collec-
tive identity is not to be found in the self-denition of the individual activists, but rather
in the construction of reciprocal identication, solidarity, commitment, and boundaries of
exclusion.
10
These features reect autonomous principles within the global movement but may also be
a reection of the perception of the weakness of the network in Madrid and its embryonic nature.
Under these circumstances, activists may be more inclined to adopt a beggars cannot be choosers
mentality. Stronger and more consolidated networks are likely to manifest stronger identity cul-
tural friendship based inner-circle barriers than emerging networks. (For example, see Polletta
(2002) for a discussion of the limitations of friendship-based networks in SDS.) Tarrow (1998:
Chapter 7) suggests that exclusionary identities predominate when a movement is at the end of its
protest cycle to help sustain the commitment of those activists still sticking with the political
project, clearly not the case here.
11
Occupations included students, unemployed, artists, drivers, carpenters, construction work-
ers, journalists, computer specialists, scientists, secretarial administrative, farmers, medical doc-
tors, social workers, remunerated movement political activity, teachers, professors, translators,
and union and university employees.
12
All names are pseudonyms.
13
Getafe is a satellite city of Madrid.
14
The action involved taking over the Internet cafe, attempting to install free software on
the computers, leaetting the locale, and reading a manifesto denouncing Telefonicas corporate
practices in Latin America. An account of the action written by a participant is available at
<http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/70915.php>.
15
At the time these were the Foro Social de Madrid (FSMMadrid Social Forum) and the
Asamblea Contra la Globalizacion Capitalista y la Guerra (ACGCG-Assembly Against Capitalist
Globalization and War).
16
A satellite city of Madrid.
REFERENCES
Abramsky, Kolya (ed.). 2001. Restructuring and Resistance: Diverse Voices of Struggle in
Western Europe. UK: Resresrev.
Adams, Jacqueline. 2003. The Bitter End: Emotions at a Movements Conclusion. Sociological
Inquiry 73(1):84113.
Anonymous (eds) 2001. On Fire: The Battle of Genoa and the Anti-Capitalist Movement. London:
One-Off Press.
Barr, Dermot and John Drury. 2009. Activist identity as a Motivational Resource: Dynamics of
(dis) Empowerment at the G8 Direct Actions, Gleneagles, 2005. Social Movement Studies
8:24360.
Breines, Wini. 1980. Community and Organization: The New Left and Michels Iron Law.
Social Problems 27(4):41929.
Brewer, Marilynn and Michael Silver. 2000. Group Distinctiveness, Social Identication, and
Collective Mobilization. Pp. 15371 in Self, Identity, and Social Movements, edited by
Sheldon Stryker, Timothy Owens, Robert White. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Brown, Gavin and Jenny Pickerill. 2009. Space for Emotion in the Spaces of Activism.
Emotion, Space and Society 2:2435.
Cox, Laurence. 2007. News from Nowhere: The Movement of Movements in Ireland. Pp. 210
29 in Social Movements and Ireland, edited by Linda Connolly and Niamh Hourigan.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
. 2009. Hearts with One Purpose Alone? Thinking Personal Sustainanbility in Social
Movements. Emotion, Space and Society 2:5261.
Della Porta, Donatella. 2005. Making the Polis: Social Forums and Democracy in the Global
Justice Movement. Mobilization 10(1):7394.
Downton, James and Paul Wehr. 1991. Peace Movements: The Role of Commitment and
Community in Sustaining Member Participation. Research in Social Movements, Conict
and Change, 13:11334.
Drury, John and Stephen Reicher. 1999. The Intergroup Dynamics of Collective Empowerment:
Substantiating The Social Identity Model of Crowd Behaviour. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations 2:122.
. 2005. Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study of collective action and
psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology 35:3558.
Drury, John, Stephen Reicher and Clifford Stott. 2003. Transforming the Boundaries of
Collective Identity: From The Local Anti-Road Campaign to Global Resistance? Social
Movement Studies 2:191212.
Drury, John, Christopher Cocking, Joseph Beale, Charlotte Hanson and Faye Rapley. 2005. The
Phenomenology of Empowerment in Collective Action. British Journal of Social
Psychology 44:30928.
Epstein, Barbara. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the
1970s and 1980s. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Euromovements. 2007. Useful Guide for Social Transformation in Europe. Retrieved June 10,
2010. <http://www.euromovements.info/english/index.htm>.
Evans, Sara and Harry Boyte. 1986. Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America.
New York: Harper and Row.
Fantasia, Rick. 1988. Cultures of Solidarity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Flesher Fominaya, Cristina. 2007a. Autonomous Movement and the Institutional Left: Two
Approaches in Tension in Madrids Anti-globalization Network. South European Society
and Politics 12(3):33558.
. 2007b. The Role of Humour in the Process of Collective Identity Formation in
Autonomous Social Movement Groups in Contemporary Madrid. International Review of
Social History 52:24358.
Gamson, Joshua. 1995. Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma. Social
Problems 42(3):390407.
Gamson, William A., Bruce Fireman and Steven Rytina. 1982. Encounters with Unjust
Authorities, Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Goodwin, Jeff. 1997. The Libidinal Constitution of a High-Risk Social Movement: Affectual Ties
and Solidarity in the Huk Rebellion. American Sociological Review 62:5369.
Harvie, David, Ben Trott and David Watts. 2005. Shut Them Down! The G8, Gleneagles 2005
and the Movement of Movements. Dissent! Autonomedia.
Haunss, Sebastian. 2000. What Exactly Is Collective Identity? Delimitations and Approaches to
a Widely Used Concept in Social Movements Research. Pp. 112 in Sixth International
Conference on Alternative Futures and Popular Protest, Vol. I, edited by Colin Barker,
Mike Tyldesley. Manchester: The Manchester Metropolitan University.
Hirsch, Erich. 1990. Sacrice for the Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment, and Commitment in
a Student Social Movement. American Sociological Review 55(2):24354.
Hunt, Scott and Robert Benford. 2004. Collective Identity, Solidarity, and Commitment.
Pp. 43360 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David Snow, Sarah
Soule, Hanspeter Kriesi. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Jasper, James M. 1998. The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around
Social Movements. Sociological Forum 13:397424.
Katsiacas, George 1997. The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements
and the Decolonization of Everyday Life. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press
International.
Klandermans, Bert. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McDonald, Kevin. 2002. From Solidarity to Fluidarity: social movements beyond collective
identitythe case of globalization conicts. Social Movement Studies 1(2):10928.
Melucci, Alberto 1989. Nomads of the Present. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
. 1995. The Process of Collective Identity. Pp. 4163 in Social Movements and Culture,
edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Notes from Nowhere. 2003. We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anti-capitalism.
London, New York: Verso.
Offe, Claus. 1985. New Social Movements: Challenging The Boundaries Of Institutional
Politics. Social Research 52:81768.
Poguntke, Thomas 1989. The New Politics Dimension In European Green Parties. Pp.17594
in New Politics In Western Europe: The Rise And Success Of Green Parties And Alternative
Lists, edited by Ferdinand Muller-Rommel. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Polet, Francois and CETRI. 2003. Globalizing Resistance: the State of Struggle, London: Verso.
Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social
Movements. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Polletta, Francesca and James Jasper. 2001. Collective Identity and Social Movements. Annual
Review of Sociology 27(1):283305.
Rupp, Leila J. and Verta Taylor. 1987. Survival in the Doldrums: The American Womens
Movement, 1945 to the 1960s. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 1999. Feminist Identity in an International Movement: A Collective Identity Approach
to 20th-Century Feminism. Signs 24:36386.
Saunders, Clare. 2008. Double-Edged Swords? Collective Identity And Solidarity In The
Environment Movement. British Journal of Sociology 5\9(2):22753.
Schnews. 2001. Monopolise Resistance. Available at: <http://www.schnews.org.uk/monopresist/
monopoliseresistance/index.htm>.
. 2004. Schnews at Ten. Brighton: Schnews.
Seel, Ben. 1997. Strategies of Resistance at the Pollok Free State Road Protest Camp.
Environmental Politics 6:10839.
Smith, Jackie. 2001. Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the Future of Social
Movements. Mobilization 6:119.
Snow, David. 2001. Collective Identity and Expressive Forms. University of California, Irvine
eScholarship Repository. Retrieved September 18, 2004 from <http://repositories.cdlib.org/
csd/01-07>.
Starr, Amory. 2005. Direct Action: A Guide to the Global Revolt Against Corporate Globalization.
London: Zed Books.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.
Cambridge: University Press.
Taylor, Verta and Nancy Whittier. 1992. Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities:
Lesbian Feminist Mobilization. Pp. 10429 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited
by Aldon D. Morris, Carol. M. Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Valiente, Celia. 2006. El feminismo de Estado en Espana: El Instituto de la mujer (19832003).
Valencia: Universitat de Vale`ncia, Institut Universitari dEstudis de la Dona.
Wombles. 2004. Beyond ESFA Short Analysis Of The Socio-Political Role of the WSF-ESF.
Available at: <http://www.wombles.org.uk/article20060453.php>.
Yuen, E., D. Burton-Rose and G. Katsiacas (eds). 2004. Confronting Capitalism: Dispatches
from a Global Movement. New York: Soft Skull Press.

Collective Identity and Global Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collective Identity and Global Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creating Cohesion from Diversity: The Challenge of

Collective Identity Formation in the Global Justice

You might also like