Collective action for political change
May. 29th, 2014 10:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzulaEr, this started out as a book rec for frayadjacent, but it kind of...grew? The book I wanted to rec isn't available in English, so I ended up summarizing the whole thing in about 5000 words. Although this is for my own reference, too.
The book is The Hidden Disciplining of Society - Power and Counter-Power (Den dolda disciplineringen - Makt och motmakt), by the Norwegian author Thomas Mathiesen. It was written in the early 1980's and is a summary of lessons learned by the Scandinavian political left and other alternative movements during the 1970's. I really like it because it introduces so many useful theoretical concepts, and at the same time is so easy and clear to read and so applicable to concrete political struggles.
Clearly some of this might be dated and/or not applicable outside Scandinavia, but while reading it I am constantly struck by how relevant it still is.
Introduction:
The purpose of this book is to show that collective action for political change is desirable and possible. To do this, it is important to understand the ways in which the system works against you, and to understand how you can organize to counteract those forces.
Capitalism during the 19th and 20th centuries has moved away from direct violence as a method of coercion (which was used widely during feudalism) in favor of hidden social disciplining. Violence is still used, but it is used in the "periphery": in wars in the third world, against marginal groups in society, and at moments of crisis. The hidden social disciplining depends on your position within a structure (an elementary example is that if you are part of the working class, you are coerced to work not by physical violence, but by economic pressure).
The hidden social disciplining is:
- structural
- part of everyday life
- hard to put your finger on
- quiet in the sense that it is not seen as "news" the way an instance of violence is
- dynamic and changes to adapt to new conditions.
Concrete techniques used in the hidden social disciplining are:
- absorbtion: criticism of society is integrated into the system in such a way that it does not threaten the material interests of those in power. Example: absorption of women's rights to mean "(some) women, too, can climb in the corporate structure and earn lots of money!"
- system placement: groups who may represent a threat to the system are placed in a position meant to neutralize them. Example: the way that unemployed people are made to spend their days applying to jobs they won't get and going to various pointless coaching/educating/etc activities.
- professionalization: people who might represent threatening opinions are turned into experts, who are educated into a non-threatening worldview. Example from my own experience: forest activists go to university to become biologists/foresters and then get jobs within forest companies or the state forestry service, where they are neutralized.
- legalization: formulating issues in legal language, which turns an open political conflict into a seemingly neutral and technical legal issue.
- masking: changing the terms so that social disciplining appears in a more positive light.
Physical violence is still available as a method and is still used. But the very fact that the majority of the population is not subjected to it makes it harder for those who are subjected to it to gain support from the majority, because it is not a part of the majority's experience. There is a seeming sharp divide between "ordinary daily life" and the margin.
The hidden social disciplining leads to self-censorship in the individual and in groups, and makes it hard to turn short-term practical goals into long-term system criticism. To counteract this, when you are organizing it is important to 1) continually discuss goals and means, 2) continually connect your short-term goals to long-term goals, and 3) continually return to your moral principles. More about this later.
The Hidden Disciplining
When flaws in a system are pointed out, these are methods used (in the media and from the state) to ensure that the public does not question the system itself. I'll use an example from my own experience: say a forest company has cut down an old-growth forest.
- individualization: Reducing the problem to just one isolated instance, not part of a system. "This is just an accident, and it won't happen again."
- normalization: Saying that the event is to be expected and is a regrettable, but normal, consequence of the status quo. This seemlingly contradicts the first one, but they are often used together. "With all the logging going on in Sweden, there are bound to be mistakes sometimes."
- encapsulation: Anticipating criticism by saying that clearly the existing routines to prevent events of this kind need to be improved. This will direct criticism away from larger issues. "There's nothing wrong with company policy, but clearly the people actually doing the logging need more education."
- joining in: If the criticism grows strong enough, the authorities might join in, and say that yes, clearly there is something wrong here, and we will look into it in a responsible fashion (while in fact not doing much).
- shifting of responsibility: Perhaps the person in charge of the event is fired, or responsibility for future logging plans is shifted to another department.
If critics of the system introduce positive alternative ideas, for example: "We should develop alternative sources of energy rather than fossil fuels," these are counter-strategies used to neutralize such alternative ideas:
- impossibility: Claiming that the idea is impossible to go through with.
- obstruction: If the idea has gained enough traction that it can't be claimed to be impossible, it is claimed that the idea is more expensive, complicated, and/or risky than the status quo.
- depreciation: Claiming that the idea is not worthwhile in the first place, because we would lose the benefits of the current system.
- parallellization: Implementing the idea in a limited form alongside the status quo. Often the full benefits of the alternative idea are not seen in this limited form, and this is taken as another reason to claim that the idea does not work.
- absorbtion: If the pressure grows strong enough, the new idea may replace the old one, but in such a way that the new idea serves the same material interests as the old one.
All these strategies are used to try to keep the public from being disturbed by thoughts of long-term problems ("what will we do when the oil runs out?"). If they do not work, more direct repression from the authorities may be necessary.
A method of bringing the hidden disciplining to public notice can be to provoke such acts of direct repression from the authorities, which in the public's eyes can de-legitimize the authorities. This can backfire and lead to a reactionary outcome, and is also morally reprehensible, when it goes as far as acts of terrorism. But it can be a good strategy when it does not harm third parties and when it is combined with an effectively communicated and documented analysis of the repression.
Many movements with otherwise different (but non-conflicting) goals have a common interest in that they are all subjected to hidden social disciplining (labor unions, feminism, LGBT rights, the environmental movement, etc). These movements can work together to resist it.
Disciplining Within Systems
These are reasons why it is difficult to change a system/organization from the inside, even though you may enter it with the best of intentions:
- Non-cooperation leads to loss of marginal benefits. Example: a social worker in a prison may on principle refuse to take part in decisions on the punishment of the inmates. But if they don't participate, they lose any chance, however slim, to influence those decisions. This operates on many levels of the system, pulling you further in.
- Opposition leads to loss of marginal benefits. Example: a social worker may want to protest police violence against street kids, but if they do, the police may take it out on the kids.
- Those who represent the "clients" of a system are in the minority where decisions are made. Example: say you are the student representative at a university and you're working to improve conditions for the students. In the actual committees where decisions are made, many different interests are represented and you will be in the minority. This leads to a tendency to "lie low", especially as things are often in practice decided in preliminary meetings where there is no presence from others who can support you.
- Opposition is channeled into side issues. What seems like one clear issue is split into many different ones, which often turn into merely symbolic issues or parts in a long chain of issues leading one to the other.
Apart from these there are the psychological consequences of working closely with people who oppose you:
- You will be inducted into organizational secrets. These can be official or unofficial secrets, and every time you keep them, you will be more loyal to the organization.
- Your perspective will shift when you are on the inside. You will be aware of how you are dependent on the people who oppose your cause, and how it will affect you yourself if you protest.
- You will become partly responsible for the decisions made by the organization. Since you have taken part in the decisions, and perhaps you have even sometimes voted with the majority against your own convictions as part of some internal strategy, you will be partly responsible. It is easy to become defensive of these decisions in the face of outside criticism.
These are some roles in bureaucratic organizations which are often taken by former opposers:
- radical alibi: You can voice your opposition, but only in an ineffective way, which leads the organization to be perceived as open and tolerant.
- fake bridge builder: You keep in contact with the opposition outside and appear to build bridges between it and the system, but in a way that neutralizes the opposition's demands.
- professional technician: You tell yourself that your own limited profession is not actually relevant to what the rest of the system is doing.
- resigned deserter: You still keep some of your youthful ideals, but you tell yourself that it's unrealistic to act on them at work.
- active turncoat: You abandon all traces of your earlier ideals and join the system.
Wow, that was depressing. So here are some counter-strategies:
- Become aware of the hidden disciplining.
- Be very selective about which systems you choose to enter.
- Organize together with others inside the system who also oppose it, to avoid being divided and conquered.
- Organize together with people who oppose the system from outside, to give you a political "anchor" and give you strength in your opposition, and give them your knowledge of the system. This is often an effective strategy.
- When you organize, it is best not have an organization consisting only of professionals or experts, since professionals are often de-radicalized by their education and position in the system. They need contact with non-professionals to counteract this and bring fresh perspectives.
[Skipping a couple of essays after this. They are mostly case studies or treat tangential subjects.]
Power and Counter-power
By "power" we mean "enforcing your will over someone else's".
Power is often masked in our society and is often not seen as what it actually is. It is masked by:
- Being seen from the outside. If we are too far from the people who are subjected to power, it can be hard to see what they are experiencing. Example: It may not seem like a prison guard has much power to reward or punish a prisoner, because the prisoner has already lost their freedom. But in fact the small things, like what kind of food the prisoner gets, have a much larger impact on their life when seen from the inside.
- Being seen through ideology: A psychiatric rehabilitation facility might seem like a place where you are less subjected to power than a prison. But in fact a psychiatrist may subject you to even more power than a guard, especially when combined with the power of the guards.
- Being seen from above: The person in power often thinks they have less power than the one being subjected to it. We must choose the perspective of the person subjected to power. Example: A doctor trying to rehabilitate a prisoner may think they don't have much power, because the rewards/punishments they can deal out often fail to make the prisoner do what the doctor wants. OTOH, the prisoner feels that the doctor has a lot of power over them, precisely because of the rewards/punishments they can inflict.
- Being seen as bureaucracy: If we introduce another layer above the person in power, so that they are ordered to do something to someone else, is that person still exerting power? Yes, because in principle they could make another choice. So bureaucracy is another way that power is hidden from view.
- Being seen as structural necessity: If you are structurally forced to do something, are you still exerting power? Yes, because in principle you could make another choice. Example: A capitalist is structurally forced to give low wages to the workers, because otherwise they would go bankrupt and cease to be a capitalist.
It is important to see all these as power, because defining them as bureaucracy ("just following orders") and structural necessity, etc, leads to political resignation.
The Conditions of Counter-Power: Collective Action against Power
The opposite of power is not powerlessness, but counter-power.
Powerlessness is the experience of not seeing any way out; not seeing any ways or means to change or improve one's situation (which does not mean that none exist). Power rests on and relies on the powerlessness and passivity of the people who are subjected to power.
Counter-power means finding collective means to resist. Individual action is often futile, for example when you are subjected to power in a bureaucratic system or power based on structural necessity.
Collective action can be discouraged in two ways:
- By making the collective aspect futile. Individual actions are then seen as independent of each other or at each other's expense.
- By making the action futile, which makes people passive.
The struggle between power and counter-power occurs in three places: in the public sphere, the normative sphere, and the socio-material sphere.
The Public Sphere: Defining in and defining out
Disstenting groups are defined in with the intention of making them part of the establishment and thus destroying them as a collective, for example with the following tactics: telling them
- to be responsible and sensible and not "rock the boat", and that this is the attitude that will lead to results
- to focus on practical and down-to-earth issues
- to work on short-term improvements within the existing system
- that cooperation with those in power is what leads to results
- that one must work in the political center, where the power is, to obtain results.
Corresponding to these are some strategies used to define out groups, so that they become isolated and action seems meaningless: presenting them as
- irresponsible and dangerous radicals
- irrelevant theoreticians with their heads in the clouds who don't know anything about practical reality
- not caring about short-term benefits or even being against such benefits
- an internally divided group who can't get along within themselves
- an extreme political sect far from the political center
These strategies often work in tandem: threats of being "defined out" work to "define in" groups instead, and vice versa. It is especially hard to defend yourself from being defined out, since the claims of the establishment will automatically seem more trustworthy and more like objective information.
I am sure you can all think of tons of examples here! A recent Swedish example is when an anti-racism protest was attacked by neo-nazis, and the kids and families in the protest were physically defended by anti-fascist activists (there were too few police there to defend them). The group organizing the protest was exhorted in the media to dissociate itself from the "violent and extreme leftist groups", in order to define one group in and define the other group out.
Here are some counter-strategies:
Arena break-out:
This strategy can be used when you are inside an established system, so that you can't be defined out, but at the same time you break some of the rules and conventions of the system, to spread awareness of some issue to the public. Conditions for this to work are:
- that the rules are formalized so that your position is assured, but still allow leeway for a break-out
- that there is a sharp boundary between your arena and the general public sphere, so that your break-out will draw attention
- the arena should contain an openly authoritarian structure so that the break-out is obvious
- the one doing the breakout should be organized with others both for their own psychological support and for spreading the information better.
Examples:
- a lawyer using a court case to draw attention to an issue and bring politically sensitive information to public attention (in this case it is important to be aware of the difference between winning the court case and winning in the public eye--the latter can often be more important in the long run, but it is easy to be drawn into paying more attention to the former).
- a priest or other religious figure using their position to speak out on a political issue
- arena break-outs from within a political party (more difficult because politics is the business of a party and you will be in danger of being neutralized).
Information-wrenching:
This is a way of avoiding the choice between focusing on practical, down-to-earth issues and abstract theory, by doing both. You work with concrete issues and at the same time you document the way that the system you are focusing on works against your efforts. This material can be put into a theoretical framework, and then you can 1) spread it in the media, and 2) use it within your organization for education/training.
Information-wrenching can be done in several ways:
- Through messengers from within the system who have access to internal information. The messenger has to be careful because they may be subjected to repression if they are exposed. It's a good idea to filter the information through an organization on the outside, both for the anonymity of the messenger and because an organization will be able to act more effectively.
- Through provocation from outside, which can take the form of asking provoking questions in the media or more direct attack. Representatives of the system will react to this, and their reactions can be analyzed and presented to the public.
Debate in the public arena will affect the "inner arena" of the system, as the people on the inside become aware that matters that were previously internal are now exposed to criticism.
Agency-building:
This is a way of avoiding the choice between focusing on short-term benefits and being accused of not caring about such things. The idea is to choose a short-term benefit to work for which will also strengthen one's position in the system.
Example 1: workers demanding the right to form a union. This is a short-term benefit which will also make it possible to organize and grow stronger.
Example 2: homeless people demanding money to make their own newspaper. This is a short-term benefit which will also make it easier to share information.
A possible danger of this strategy is that the system may co-opt your initiative and take charge of carrying it out, thus making it more "watered down". Another danger is that the system may accede to your demands, but only a piece at a time, with promised further improvements that never arrive. This will likely lead to conflicts within your organization, with those who worked for the reform defending it against those who argue that it is of no use.
Issue prioritizing:
This is a way to avoid cooperation with the system, while also avoiding internal division, by concentrating on one issue. If your group is being defined out and accepts the view of itself as on the outside, it may try to formulate a total alternative to the system. If that happens, people will inevitably have differing opinions on many issues. A way of avoiding this is to concentrate on one or a few issues on which there is agreement within your group.
Premise formulation:
This is a way to avoid being caught between adopting a "balanced" view close to the political middle and being defined as a political extremist. A solution is to formulate critical arguments which build on premises which are well worked through and which are hard to dismiss as extremist. If successful, this will mean that representatives of the system are forced to debate on your terms, and you will have siezed a part of the public sphere. This is hard to do, and depends on thorough preparation beforehand and, for example, presenting experts who speak for your cause.
The dangers are: 1) you are dependent on the interest of the media and on the general political climate, 2) representatives of the system may counter what you are doing.
Formulation of an alternative:
This is a more general strategy to neutralize the double bind of being defined in or out. It does not mean formulating an alternative plan of action, but building an alternative public sphere. This is an extension of premise formulation. If you succeed, debate will happen on your terms, and if representatives of the system do not debate with you, their absence will be conspicuous. It will become "politically impossible" for the system to act against your demands. But just as important, building an alternative public sphere will strengthen the members of your group emotionally, refine their political analysis, and draw new members. An important historical example is how the liberals in France built an alternative public sphere that out-competed the feudal public sphere of the court.
To conclude the chapter on the public sphere: 1) all these strategies work together and should not be seen in isolation, 2) working in the public sphere would not be possible without a grounding in the normative and the socio-material spheres, which are the subject of the upcoming chapters.
The Normative Sphere:
Collective action for social change is strengthened by emotional support and solidarity. The first is a positive and warm reaction towards others in the movement that we know and work with. The second is a positive and warm reaction towards people who are strangers to us, just because they belong to a certain category (for example, in a worker's union the category is obviously workers).
Collective action is weakened by the calculating norm and the conformity norm. The first of these dictates that actions and opinions should be formed through calculating the advantages to oneself. This norm is strengthened by capitalism, and it counteracts solidarity and the idea of oneself as part of a collective. The second is the norm which says: don't think you're worth anything; don't stand out from the crowd. It counteracts the ability to act and makes you passive. The first norm is stronger among the middle-class, and the second stronger among the working-class.
Here are examples of some strategies for neutralizing the calculating and conformity norms and building counter-norms:
Key contact:
This means reaching out to certain key groups who themselves have contact with larger groups that you want to reach, and providing them with information and influencing their political interpretation of this material. Example: reaching out to teachers in order for them to influence students.
Deeper contact:
This means reaching out yourselves toward the larger groups that you want to reach. This is not a one-way influence, but an open process where both parties learn something and new questions arise. Example: organizing seminars for students or other groups.
Weaving in:
A less formalized and deeper collaboration with groups that you want to work with. This is related to "participatory observation" in sociology. If you do this, you should disclose your own interests and political motivations. You should also be very clear about not just foisting your own ideas on people and having all the answers, but participating in a dialogue. The example in the text is about social workers and former alcoholics working with homeless alcoholics in Oslo in the '70:s.
Possible roles to take are:
- Example: This could be a former alcoholist who is now sober, for example.
- Canalizer: Someone who helps to relay demands, communicates with authorities, speaks with the press, etc. Often taken by a social worker in the example. Here there is a risk of taking too much power upon yourself.
- Stimulator: Someone who stimulates others to take such roles, for example relaying contacts to the press.
- Responsibility builder: Making your own role unnecessary by helping others in the group take over the responsibility for driving the political work.
These last roles can be quite difficult.
Concentrated actions:
When a group makes a concentrated action on a particular question, and also seeks outside support in this. The example in the text is local people including indigenous groups trying to stop a dam in the Alta-Kautokeino river in Norway. It is important that the people coming in from outside to support the cause can do so because they have a direct interest in it themselves, and not just to support the locals (in this case the direct interest could be that society's increasing exploitation of nature affects us all). So the goal is to expand the group who have an interest in joining in. Your opponents will try to define out the "outsiders" as having no legitimate say, and if it fails might use police or other means of direct power against you.
On the other hand, there might be internal power issues between the locals and people coming in from outside. If this happens it is very important that the local group should "own" the issue and have the final say.
Parallell action:
When a concentrated action has reached far enough, it can be extended to other similar struggles. An example is the current Swedish struggle against mines: in several places in the country companies are trying to establish mines which there are serious environmental concerns about, and in many of these places there is local resistance.
A concern is that the support from outside must be large enough to handle several local struggles at once. The power balance between locals and outsiders must also be taken into account. Another difficulty is that it can be hard to get the media to pay attention a second time, so creativity and variation are needed.
Parallell action is important because it is a good balance between focusing too much on one particular action/place and neglecting others, and making sweeping generalizations which are hard to gain support for and which your opponents can adopt in watered-down versions. It connects struggles which are similar and reminds you of the larger context.
Value anchoring:
The creation of alternative community norms which counteract the dominant norms of society. This can only be done in part as long as we also exist and struggle in society. These alternative norms can be opposite to society's or reshaped versions of society's norms. Examples of movements which have succeeded in this is the African-American movement in the US and the feminist movement.
The Socio-Material Sphere:
In this sphere, collective action can be neutralized through our structural positions as either:
- Producers, who participate in production and also contribute added value to those who buy their labor. Producers have potential power in being able to deny this added value. There are also people who do not sell their labor but still make necessary contributions to the system, like women who do more housework and child-rearing. But as a producer you are also a part of the process of production, and you are tied to it both psychologically, socially, and materially. If you act against it, you are also acting against yourself, in a way. Collective action can then appear unprofitable, because you are threatening the very system on which you base your existence.
- Functionless people are not part of the system. Withdrawing from it leaves you are freer to act ('60:s hippie culture is an example). But on the other hand you can't threaten to withdraw your contribution and thus have less power, so that action appears meaningless.
Some people move back and forth between the categories, like precariously employed workers. But our late stage of capitalism tends to deepen the divide and you are either included and woven into the system as a producer or excluded as functionless. Producers are also defined in in the public sphere and tend to use the calculating norm, while functionless people are defined out and subjected to the conformity norm, and in either case you are silenced.
In counteracting these structural positions, the producers can threaten to withdraw their contribution (mass strikes are a main example of this) and functionless people can signal that something is wrong in a way that others can hear and identify with (political strikes and hunger strikes are an example of this). Ideally the latter should be short and concentrated to reach the media. Producers can also use signal tactics, for example when their demands do not have support in the whole group.
Instead of sketching further concrete stategies, the book then discusses some principles (and argues that further concrete strategies must be worked out in practice):
The alternative to inclusion/exclusion can be seen as the as yet unformed, that which is in the process of becoming. It lies between reform and revolution, between short-term and long-term goals, and between theory and practice. To be alive and expanding, a political movement must oppose the fundamental premises of the dominant system, or those premises will set the limits for the goals and methods of the movement. This is more difficult and more important the more inclusive the dominant system is, because of the risk of being defined in and becoming part of the dominant system.
To expand, a political movement must also successfully compete with the dominant system, meaning that people in the movement have to present it to potential new members as being a more desirable alternative. If this is not successful, then the movement can't grow. This is more difficult and more important the more exclusive a system is, because of the risk of being defined out and withering away.
These things must be done at the same time: we must successfully oppose in a way which speaks to other people. We must avoid the choice between working outside or inside the system and do both, or we will be lose one of the conditions of success. We must fight concrete problems that are relevant to people and thus successfully compete, but do it in a way that it becomes apparent that to fully win, we must oppose the premises of the system.
frayadjacent, but it kind of...grew? The book I wanted to rec isn't available in English, so I ended up summarizing the whole thing in about 5000 words. Although this is for my own reference, too. The book is The Hidden Disciplining of Society - Power and Counter-Power (Den dolda disciplineringen - Makt och motmakt), by the Norwegian author Thomas Mathiesen. It was written in the early 1980's and is a summary of lessons learned by the Scandinavian political left and other alternative movements during the 1970's. I really like it because it introduces so many useful theoretical concepts, and at the same time is so easy and clear to read and so applicable to concrete political struggles.
Clearly some of this might be dated and/or not applicable outside Scandinavia, but while reading it I am constantly struck by how relevant it still is.
Introduction:
The purpose of this book is to show that collective action for political change is desirable and possible. To do this, it is important to understand the ways in which the system works against you, and to understand how you can organize to counteract those forces.
Capitalism during the 19th and 20th centuries has moved away from direct violence as a method of coercion (which was used widely during feudalism) in favor of hidden social disciplining. Violence is still used, but it is used in the "periphery": in wars in the third world, against marginal groups in society, and at moments of crisis. The hidden social disciplining depends on your position within a structure (an elementary example is that if you are part of the working class, you are coerced to work not by physical violence, but by economic pressure).
The hidden social disciplining is:
- structural
- part of everyday life
- hard to put your finger on
- quiet in the sense that it is not seen as "news" the way an instance of violence is
- dynamic and changes to adapt to new conditions.
Concrete techniques used in the hidden social disciplining are:
- absorbtion: criticism of society is integrated into the system in such a way that it does not threaten the material interests of those in power. Example: absorption of women's rights to mean "(some) women, too, can climb in the corporate structure and earn lots of money!"
- system placement: groups who may represent a threat to the system are placed in a position meant to neutralize them. Example: the way that unemployed people are made to spend their days applying to jobs they won't get and going to various pointless coaching/educating/etc activities.
- professionalization: people who might represent threatening opinions are turned into experts, who are educated into a non-threatening worldview. Example from my own experience: forest activists go to university to become biologists/foresters and then get jobs within forest companies or the state forestry service, where they are neutralized.
- legalization: formulating issues in legal language, which turns an open political conflict into a seemingly neutral and technical legal issue.
- masking: changing the terms so that social disciplining appears in a more positive light.
Physical violence is still available as a method and is still used. But the very fact that the majority of the population is not subjected to it makes it harder for those who are subjected to it to gain support from the majority, because it is not a part of the majority's experience. There is a seeming sharp divide between "ordinary daily life" and the margin.
The hidden social disciplining leads to self-censorship in the individual and in groups, and makes it hard to turn short-term practical goals into long-term system criticism. To counteract this, when you are organizing it is important to 1) continually discuss goals and means, 2) continually connect your short-term goals to long-term goals, and 3) continually return to your moral principles. More about this later.
The Hidden Disciplining
When flaws in a system are pointed out, these are methods used (in the media and from the state) to ensure that the public does not question the system itself. I'll use an example from my own experience: say a forest company has cut down an old-growth forest.
- individualization: Reducing the problem to just one isolated instance, not part of a system. "This is just an accident, and it won't happen again."
- normalization: Saying that the event is to be expected and is a regrettable, but normal, consequence of the status quo. This seemlingly contradicts the first one, but they are often used together. "With all the logging going on in Sweden, there are bound to be mistakes sometimes."
- encapsulation: Anticipating criticism by saying that clearly the existing routines to prevent events of this kind need to be improved. This will direct criticism away from larger issues. "There's nothing wrong with company policy, but clearly the people actually doing the logging need more education."
- joining in: If the criticism grows strong enough, the authorities might join in, and say that yes, clearly there is something wrong here, and we will look into it in a responsible fashion (while in fact not doing much).
- shifting of responsibility: Perhaps the person in charge of the event is fired, or responsibility for future logging plans is shifted to another department.
If critics of the system introduce positive alternative ideas, for example: "We should develop alternative sources of energy rather than fossil fuels," these are counter-strategies used to neutralize such alternative ideas:
- impossibility: Claiming that the idea is impossible to go through with.
- obstruction: If the idea has gained enough traction that it can't be claimed to be impossible, it is claimed that the idea is more expensive, complicated, and/or risky than the status quo.
- depreciation: Claiming that the idea is not worthwhile in the first place, because we would lose the benefits of the current system.
- parallellization: Implementing the idea in a limited form alongside the status quo. Often the full benefits of the alternative idea are not seen in this limited form, and this is taken as another reason to claim that the idea does not work.
- absorbtion: If the pressure grows strong enough, the new idea may replace the old one, but in such a way that the new idea serves the same material interests as the old one.
All these strategies are used to try to keep the public from being disturbed by thoughts of long-term problems ("what will we do when the oil runs out?"). If they do not work, more direct repression from the authorities may be necessary.
A method of bringing the hidden disciplining to public notice can be to provoke such acts of direct repression from the authorities, which in the public's eyes can de-legitimize the authorities. This can backfire and lead to a reactionary outcome, and is also morally reprehensible, when it goes as far as acts of terrorism. But it can be a good strategy when it does not harm third parties and when it is combined with an effectively communicated and documented analysis of the repression.
Many movements with otherwise different (but non-conflicting) goals have a common interest in that they are all subjected to hidden social disciplining (labor unions, feminism, LGBT rights, the environmental movement, etc). These movements can work together to resist it.
Disciplining Within Systems
These are reasons why it is difficult to change a system/organization from the inside, even though you may enter it with the best of intentions:
- Non-cooperation leads to loss of marginal benefits. Example: a social worker in a prison may on principle refuse to take part in decisions on the punishment of the inmates. But if they don't participate, they lose any chance, however slim, to influence those decisions. This operates on many levels of the system, pulling you further in.
- Opposition leads to loss of marginal benefits. Example: a social worker may want to protest police violence against street kids, but if they do, the police may take it out on the kids.
- Those who represent the "clients" of a system are in the minority where decisions are made. Example: say you are the student representative at a university and you're working to improve conditions for the students. In the actual committees where decisions are made, many different interests are represented and you will be in the minority. This leads to a tendency to "lie low", especially as things are often in practice decided in preliminary meetings where there is no presence from others who can support you.
- Opposition is channeled into side issues. What seems like one clear issue is split into many different ones, which often turn into merely symbolic issues or parts in a long chain of issues leading one to the other.
Apart from these there are the psychological consequences of working closely with people who oppose you:
- You will be inducted into organizational secrets. These can be official or unofficial secrets, and every time you keep them, you will be more loyal to the organization.
- Your perspective will shift when you are on the inside. You will be aware of how you are dependent on the people who oppose your cause, and how it will affect you yourself if you protest.
- You will become partly responsible for the decisions made by the organization. Since you have taken part in the decisions, and perhaps you have even sometimes voted with the majority against your own convictions as part of some internal strategy, you will be partly responsible. It is easy to become defensive of these decisions in the face of outside criticism.
These are some roles in bureaucratic organizations which are often taken by former opposers:
- radical alibi: You can voice your opposition, but only in an ineffective way, which leads the organization to be perceived as open and tolerant.
- fake bridge builder: You keep in contact with the opposition outside and appear to build bridges between it and the system, but in a way that neutralizes the opposition's demands.
- professional technician: You tell yourself that your own limited profession is not actually relevant to what the rest of the system is doing.
- resigned deserter: You still keep some of your youthful ideals, but you tell yourself that it's unrealistic to act on them at work.
- active turncoat: You abandon all traces of your earlier ideals and join the system.
Wow, that was depressing. So here are some counter-strategies:
- Become aware of the hidden disciplining.
- Be very selective about which systems you choose to enter.
- Organize together with others inside the system who also oppose it, to avoid being divided and conquered.
- Organize together with people who oppose the system from outside, to give you a political "anchor" and give you strength in your opposition, and give them your knowledge of the system. This is often an effective strategy.
- When you organize, it is best not have an organization consisting only of professionals or experts, since professionals are often de-radicalized by their education and position in the system. They need contact with non-professionals to counteract this and bring fresh perspectives.
[Skipping a couple of essays after this. They are mostly case studies or treat tangential subjects.]
Power and Counter-power
By "power" we mean "enforcing your will over someone else's".
Power is often masked in our society and is often not seen as what it actually is. It is masked by:
- Being seen from the outside. If we are too far from the people who are subjected to power, it can be hard to see what they are experiencing. Example: It may not seem like a prison guard has much power to reward or punish a prisoner, because the prisoner has already lost their freedom. But in fact the small things, like what kind of food the prisoner gets, have a much larger impact on their life when seen from the inside.
- Being seen through ideology: A psychiatric rehabilitation facility might seem like a place where you are less subjected to power than a prison. But in fact a psychiatrist may subject you to even more power than a guard, especially when combined with the power of the guards.
- Being seen from above: The person in power often thinks they have less power than the one being subjected to it. We must choose the perspective of the person subjected to power. Example: A doctor trying to rehabilitate a prisoner may think they don't have much power, because the rewards/punishments they can deal out often fail to make the prisoner do what the doctor wants. OTOH, the prisoner feels that the doctor has a lot of power over them, precisely because of the rewards/punishments they can inflict.
- Being seen as bureaucracy: If we introduce another layer above the person in power, so that they are ordered to do something to someone else, is that person still exerting power? Yes, because in principle they could make another choice. So bureaucracy is another way that power is hidden from view.
- Being seen as structural necessity: If you are structurally forced to do something, are you still exerting power? Yes, because in principle you could make another choice. Example: A capitalist is structurally forced to give low wages to the workers, because otherwise they would go bankrupt and cease to be a capitalist.
It is important to see all these as power, because defining them as bureaucracy ("just following orders") and structural necessity, etc, leads to political resignation.
The Conditions of Counter-Power: Collective Action against Power
The opposite of power is not powerlessness, but counter-power.
Powerlessness is the experience of not seeing any way out; not seeing any ways or means to change or improve one's situation (which does not mean that none exist). Power rests on and relies on the powerlessness and passivity of the people who are subjected to power.
Counter-power means finding collective means to resist. Individual action is often futile, for example when you are subjected to power in a bureaucratic system or power based on structural necessity.
Collective action can be discouraged in two ways:
- By making the collective aspect futile. Individual actions are then seen as independent of each other or at each other's expense.
- By making the action futile, which makes people passive.
The struggle between power and counter-power occurs in three places: in the public sphere, the normative sphere, and the socio-material sphere.
The Public Sphere: Defining in and defining out
Disstenting groups are defined in with the intention of making them part of the establishment and thus destroying them as a collective, for example with the following tactics: telling them
- to be responsible and sensible and not "rock the boat", and that this is the attitude that will lead to results
- to focus on practical and down-to-earth issues
- to work on short-term improvements within the existing system
- that cooperation with those in power is what leads to results
- that one must work in the political center, where the power is, to obtain results.
Corresponding to these are some strategies used to define out groups, so that they become isolated and action seems meaningless: presenting them as
- irresponsible and dangerous radicals
- irrelevant theoreticians with their heads in the clouds who don't know anything about practical reality
- not caring about short-term benefits or even being against such benefits
- an internally divided group who can't get along within themselves
- an extreme political sect far from the political center
These strategies often work in tandem: threats of being "defined out" work to "define in" groups instead, and vice versa. It is especially hard to defend yourself from being defined out, since the claims of the establishment will automatically seem more trustworthy and more like objective information.
I am sure you can all think of tons of examples here! A recent Swedish example is when an anti-racism protest was attacked by neo-nazis, and the kids and families in the protest were physically defended by anti-fascist activists (there were too few police there to defend them). The group organizing the protest was exhorted in the media to dissociate itself from the "violent and extreme leftist groups", in order to define one group in and define the other group out.
Here are some counter-strategies:
Arena break-out:
This strategy can be used when you are inside an established system, so that you can't be defined out, but at the same time you break some of the rules and conventions of the system, to spread awareness of some issue to the public. Conditions for this to work are:
- that the rules are formalized so that your position is assured, but still allow leeway for a break-out
- that there is a sharp boundary between your arena and the general public sphere, so that your break-out will draw attention
- the arena should contain an openly authoritarian structure so that the break-out is obvious
- the one doing the breakout should be organized with others both for their own psychological support and for spreading the information better.
Examples:
- a lawyer using a court case to draw attention to an issue and bring politically sensitive information to public attention (in this case it is important to be aware of the difference between winning the court case and winning in the public eye--the latter can often be more important in the long run, but it is easy to be drawn into paying more attention to the former).
- a priest or other religious figure using their position to speak out on a political issue
- arena break-outs from within a political party (more difficult because politics is the business of a party and you will be in danger of being neutralized).
Information-wrenching:
This is a way of avoiding the choice between focusing on practical, down-to-earth issues and abstract theory, by doing both. You work with concrete issues and at the same time you document the way that the system you are focusing on works against your efforts. This material can be put into a theoretical framework, and then you can 1) spread it in the media, and 2) use it within your organization for education/training.
Information-wrenching can be done in several ways:
- Through messengers from within the system who have access to internal information. The messenger has to be careful because they may be subjected to repression if they are exposed. It's a good idea to filter the information through an organization on the outside, both for the anonymity of the messenger and because an organization will be able to act more effectively.
- Through provocation from outside, which can take the form of asking provoking questions in the media or more direct attack. Representatives of the system will react to this, and their reactions can be analyzed and presented to the public.
Debate in the public arena will affect the "inner arena" of the system, as the people on the inside become aware that matters that were previously internal are now exposed to criticism.
Agency-building:
This is a way of avoiding the choice between focusing on short-term benefits and being accused of not caring about such things. The idea is to choose a short-term benefit to work for which will also strengthen one's position in the system.
Example 1: workers demanding the right to form a union. This is a short-term benefit which will also make it possible to organize and grow stronger.
Example 2: homeless people demanding money to make their own newspaper. This is a short-term benefit which will also make it easier to share information.
A possible danger of this strategy is that the system may co-opt your initiative and take charge of carrying it out, thus making it more "watered down". Another danger is that the system may accede to your demands, but only a piece at a time, with promised further improvements that never arrive. This will likely lead to conflicts within your organization, with those who worked for the reform defending it against those who argue that it is of no use.
Issue prioritizing:
This is a way to avoid cooperation with the system, while also avoiding internal division, by concentrating on one issue. If your group is being defined out and accepts the view of itself as on the outside, it may try to formulate a total alternative to the system. If that happens, people will inevitably have differing opinions on many issues. A way of avoiding this is to concentrate on one or a few issues on which there is agreement within your group.
Premise formulation:
This is a way to avoid being caught between adopting a "balanced" view close to the political middle and being defined as a political extremist. A solution is to formulate critical arguments which build on premises which are well worked through and which are hard to dismiss as extremist. If successful, this will mean that representatives of the system are forced to debate on your terms, and you will have siezed a part of the public sphere. This is hard to do, and depends on thorough preparation beforehand and, for example, presenting experts who speak for your cause.
The dangers are: 1) you are dependent on the interest of the media and on the general political climate, 2) representatives of the system may counter what you are doing.
Formulation of an alternative:
This is a more general strategy to neutralize the double bind of being defined in or out. It does not mean formulating an alternative plan of action, but building an alternative public sphere. This is an extension of premise formulation. If you succeed, debate will happen on your terms, and if representatives of the system do not debate with you, their absence will be conspicuous. It will become "politically impossible" for the system to act against your demands. But just as important, building an alternative public sphere will strengthen the members of your group emotionally, refine their political analysis, and draw new members. An important historical example is how the liberals in France built an alternative public sphere that out-competed the feudal public sphere of the court.
To conclude the chapter on the public sphere: 1) all these strategies work together and should not be seen in isolation, 2) working in the public sphere would not be possible without a grounding in the normative and the socio-material spheres, which are the subject of the upcoming chapters.
The Normative Sphere:
Collective action for social change is strengthened by emotional support and solidarity. The first is a positive and warm reaction towards others in the movement that we know and work with. The second is a positive and warm reaction towards people who are strangers to us, just because they belong to a certain category (for example, in a worker's union the category is obviously workers).
Collective action is weakened by the calculating norm and the conformity norm. The first of these dictates that actions and opinions should be formed through calculating the advantages to oneself. This norm is strengthened by capitalism, and it counteracts solidarity and the idea of oneself as part of a collective. The second is the norm which says: don't think you're worth anything; don't stand out from the crowd. It counteracts the ability to act and makes you passive. The first norm is stronger among the middle-class, and the second stronger among the working-class.
Here are examples of some strategies for neutralizing the calculating and conformity norms and building counter-norms:
Key contact:
This means reaching out to certain key groups who themselves have contact with larger groups that you want to reach, and providing them with information and influencing their political interpretation of this material. Example: reaching out to teachers in order for them to influence students.
Deeper contact:
This means reaching out yourselves toward the larger groups that you want to reach. This is not a one-way influence, but an open process where both parties learn something and new questions arise. Example: organizing seminars for students or other groups.
Weaving in:
A less formalized and deeper collaboration with groups that you want to work with. This is related to "participatory observation" in sociology. If you do this, you should disclose your own interests and political motivations. You should also be very clear about not just foisting your own ideas on people and having all the answers, but participating in a dialogue. The example in the text is about social workers and former alcoholics working with homeless alcoholics in Oslo in the '70:s.
Possible roles to take are:
- Example: This could be a former alcoholist who is now sober, for example.
- Canalizer: Someone who helps to relay demands, communicates with authorities, speaks with the press, etc. Often taken by a social worker in the example. Here there is a risk of taking too much power upon yourself.
- Stimulator: Someone who stimulates others to take such roles, for example relaying contacts to the press.
- Responsibility builder: Making your own role unnecessary by helping others in the group take over the responsibility for driving the political work.
These last roles can be quite difficult.
Concentrated actions:
When a group makes a concentrated action on a particular question, and also seeks outside support in this. The example in the text is local people including indigenous groups trying to stop a dam in the Alta-Kautokeino river in Norway. It is important that the people coming in from outside to support the cause can do so because they have a direct interest in it themselves, and not just to support the locals (in this case the direct interest could be that society's increasing exploitation of nature affects us all). So the goal is to expand the group who have an interest in joining in. Your opponents will try to define out the "outsiders" as having no legitimate say, and if it fails might use police or other means of direct power against you.
On the other hand, there might be internal power issues between the locals and people coming in from outside. If this happens it is very important that the local group should "own" the issue and have the final say.
Parallell action:
When a concentrated action has reached far enough, it can be extended to other similar struggles. An example is the current Swedish struggle against mines: in several places in the country companies are trying to establish mines which there are serious environmental concerns about, and in many of these places there is local resistance.
A concern is that the support from outside must be large enough to handle several local struggles at once. The power balance between locals and outsiders must also be taken into account. Another difficulty is that it can be hard to get the media to pay attention a second time, so creativity and variation are needed.
Parallell action is important because it is a good balance between focusing too much on one particular action/place and neglecting others, and making sweeping generalizations which are hard to gain support for and which your opponents can adopt in watered-down versions. It connects struggles which are similar and reminds you of the larger context.
Value anchoring:
The creation of alternative community norms which counteract the dominant norms of society. This can only be done in part as long as we also exist and struggle in society. These alternative norms can be opposite to society's or reshaped versions of society's norms. Examples of movements which have succeeded in this is the African-American movement in the US and the feminist movement.
The Socio-Material Sphere:
In this sphere, collective action can be neutralized through our structural positions as either:
- Producers, who participate in production and also contribute added value to those who buy their labor. Producers have potential power in being able to deny this added value. There are also people who do not sell their labor but still make necessary contributions to the system, like women who do more housework and child-rearing. But as a producer you are also a part of the process of production, and you are tied to it both psychologically, socially, and materially. If you act against it, you are also acting against yourself, in a way. Collective action can then appear unprofitable, because you are threatening the very system on which you base your existence.
- Functionless people are not part of the system. Withdrawing from it leaves you are freer to act ('60:s hippie culture is an example). But on the other hand you can't threaten to withdraw your contribution and thus have less power, so that action appears meaningless.
Some people move back and forth between the categories, like precariously employed workers. But our late stage of capitalism tends to deepen the divide and you are either included and woven into the system as a producer or excluded as functionless. Producers are also defined in in the public sphere and tend to use the calculating norm, while functionless people are defined out and subjected to the conformity norm, and in either case you are silenced.
In counteracting these structural positions, the producers can threaten to withdraw their contribution (mass strikes are a main example of this) and functionless people can signal that something is wrong in a way that others can hear and identify with (political strikes and hunger strikes are an example of this). Ideally the latter should be short and concentrated to reach the media. Producers can also use signal tactics, for example when their demands do not have support in the whole group.
Instead of sketching further concrete stategies, the book then discusses some principles (and argues that further concrete strategies must be worked out in practice):
The alternative to inclusion/exclusion can be seen as the as yet unformed, that which is in the process of becoming. It lies between reform and revolution, between short-term and long-term goals, and between theory and practice. To be alive and expanding, a political movement must oppose the fundamental premises of the dominant system, or those premises will set the limits for the goals and methods of the movement. This is more difficult and more important the more inclusive the dominant system is, because of the risk of being defined in and becoming part of the dominant system.
To expand, a political movement must also successfully compete with the dominant system, meaning that people in the movement have to present it to potential new members as being a more desirable alternative. If this is not successful, then the movement can't grow. This is more difficult and more important the more exclusive a system is, because of the risk of being defined out and withering away.
These things must be done at the same time: we must successfully oppose in a way which speaks to other people. We must avoid the choice between working outside or inside the system and do both, or we will be lose one of the conditions of success. We must fight concrete problems that are relevant to people and thus successfully compete, but do it in a way that it becomes apparent that to fully win, we must oppose the premises of the system.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-29 11:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-30 08:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-02 01:44 am (UTC)I recently read a really interesting book that I highly recommend, about the roll of the professional class and professional training in maintaining the status quo. It's called Disciplined Minds, and in it he argues that the *only* way to really overcome the moderating effect that professional careers put on you is to organize in your workplace. Which I did in grad school (most grad students in the US are also employees of their university) but am frankly having a hard time imagining doing here. :/
I'd add that overt violence is still an important tool in disciplining people of color in the US, especially African Americans, whose rebellions, IMO, have historically been the biggest threat to the system. Right now that happens primarily through police brutality and the prison system. There is an interesting podcast from a few years ago that argues that US prisons exist mainly as a tool of social control (rather than as a mechanism for superexploitation of prisoners' labor, as many on the US left argue).
There is mention at one point in the piece that overt violence is still an important tool in the 3rd world. I think that, with globalization, it's becoming more important for leftists to take an internationalist perspective and be prepared to think about the impacts of different mechanisms of social control in different parts of the world. Also, it would be interesting to learn more about what methods of social control are being used in places like China and India, with expanding middle classes.
More later, I hope! :D
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-04 08:20 pm (UTC)Thanks for the book rec, it looks interesting! Yeah, I'm definitely organized, although the syndicalist union that I'm in only has 25 or so members at the university. Am trying to convince some friends to join, though. So what's different where you are now?
Yeah, the author actually talks a fair amount about the prison system that I didn't sum up--that seems to be his main area of research, although of course Scandinavia doesn't have a prison system on the same scale as the US does.
There is mention at one point in the piece that overt violence is still an important tool in the 3rd world. I think that, with globalization, it's becoming more important for leftists to take an internationalist perspective and be prepared to think about the impacts of different mechanisms of social control in different parts of the world.
*nods* That's probably where the text shows its age and also that its focus is explicitly Scandinavia, which has had a welfare state for quite some time (even if it's eroding) and thus less need for violence.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-05 07:55 am (UTC)Oh cool! I still haven't even finished your summary! /o\ But I really like the concepts and the straightforward language that you use to convey them.
Yeah, I'm definitely organized, although the syndicalist union that I'm in only has 25 or so members at the university. Am trying to convince some friends to join, though. So what's different where you are now?
Back in grad school I was a member of a closed-shop union but was also part of a grad student labor group that was independent of the union, because the local leadership were fairly conservative and pandered to the bosses and the most conservative members. (It was a union of Teaching Assistants, which varies from grading and running a weekly discussion section in large classes to teaching your own class, and Research Assistants, most of whom are science students working on federal research grants. Can you guess which members were the most conservative?)
And a lot of our organizing was linked with people in other sectors of campus who were fighting budget cuts, primarily the janitors and trades-workers (who are organized in a different union, and some of whom were also working outside the bounds of their union because it was also pretty conservative) and undergraduates, who I'm sad to say were some of the least politicized people on campus.
Now, as a postdoc, I'm not really in a union any more, or at least for purposes of trying to organize with my co-workers I'm not. I haven't met people I have any political affinity with, and as you might know, trying to organize people who identify as professionals has its own challenges that I haven't figured out yet. What's more, I have no sense of what's going on with other workers on campus; shifts are divided such that I rarely even see a janitor or plumber or landscaper, much less have a conversation with them. And frankly I think that my coworkers are kinda snobby and most of them would probably have zero solidarity with students or non-professional workers. I know I shouldn't write people off like that but it really puts me off the idea of trying to organize with them.
(By organize, in this context, I mean any kind of activity that can build a sense of solidarity between workers and against management. So, like if one of the PhD students in my departmetn has an advisor who's a total miser and won't ever pay for her to travel to conferences, and all the PhD students and postdocs got together and wrote and signed an open letter to him requesting that he pay for some specific number of conferences for her, I'd count that as organizing with my coworkers. Obviously a very small demand, but sometimes I think things like that can build more solidarity in a shop than going to a rally together. Though rallies can be good too!)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-09 05:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-09 10:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-31 07:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-31 11:18 am (UTC)