Anarchism in the Web of
Transnational Social Movements
Christopher Chase-Dunn, Joel
Herrera, John Aldecoa,
Ian Breckenridge-Jackson and
Nicolas Pascal
For presentation at the annual meeting of the International Studies
Association, Atlanta, Georgia, March 19, 2016. SC73:
Anarchist Perspectives on the Capitalist World Economy
Institute for Research on World-Systems
University of California-Riverside
Draft 3-12-16; 8307 words
This is IROWS Working
Paper #107
available at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows107/irows107.htm
Abstract: Anarchists and anarchism have played a
visible role in global civil society since the 19th century and in
the New Global Left since it began to emerge in the 1990s. Horizontalism and social
libertarianism have been central components of the World Revolution of 20xx,
and were important aspects of the world revolutions of 1968 and 1989. Self-professed anarchists have participated
in the Social Forum process at the global, national and local levels and have
had an important influence on the emerging character of the contemporary world
revolution. We use surveys taken at a succession of Social Forum gatherings to
examine how self-identified anarchist activists are similar to, or different from,
the other attendees at these events and to investigate the links that this
movement theme has with other social movements. We note that some anarchist
ideas are more important in the discourse of the New Global Left than would be
suggested by the number of activists who say they are anarchists. We find that self-identified anarchists are
more radical, younger, more likely to be males and more likely to see the local
terrain of struggle as more important than national or global terrains in
comparison with other attendees at Social Forum events.
Anarchists and
anarchist ideas have been important elements of the New Global Left and the
current world revolution since the Zapatista rebellion in Southern Mexico
against the neoliberal North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994.The World
Social Forum process has been an important venue for the formation of a New
Global Left since 2001 (Santos 2006; Reitan 2007;
Smith et al. 2014). The founding of the World Social Forum in 2001 was a
reaction to the exclusivity of the World Economic Forum held in Davos,
Switzerland since 1971. The emergence of the World Social Forum signaled the
coming together of a movement of movements focused on issues of global justice
and sustainability. The social forum process has since spread to all the
regions of the world. [1]
The
Transnational Social Movement Research Working Group at the University of
California-Riverside[2]
began conducting paper surveys of the attendees at Social Forum meetings at the
world-level meeting held in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2005. Similar surveys were
mounted at the United States Social Forum held in Atlanta, Georgia in 2007, the
world-level Social Forum held in Nairobi, Kenya in 2007 and the U.S. Social
Forum meeting held in Detroit, Michigan in 2010. The surveys included questions
on demographic characteristics, levels of activism, political attitudes and
involvement in a long list of movement themes[3]
(Chase-Dunn et al. 2007 Coyne et al. 2010; Reese et al.,
2008, 2012). In this article we use the Social Forum survey data to examine the
ways in which Social Forum
attendees who claim to be actively involved in anarchism are similar or
different from other attendees and from other attendees who also are actively
involved in other movements. We also use
our survey data to examine the connections that anarchists have with other
social movements based on their assertion of active involvement in other
movements.
Anarchism
in the geoculture and in the New Global Left
Individualism
and personal liberty have a long and complicated history. Many foraging
(hunter-gatherer) societies make it the responsibility of each person to find
particular spiritual allies and to cultivate a personal relationship with these
allies so that they may be called upon to provide power and medicine when
needed. But this kind of foraging individualism is embedded in a kin-based mode
of production in which individual persons are understood to be importantly
linked and co-dependent upon nature and other family members. These small-scale
societies highly value egalitarianism and the autonomy of rather small polities
(Flannery and Marcus 2012; Bettinger 2015; Scott
2009). The emergence of complex and hierarchical societies produces a new kind
of individualism beginning with the allegedly unique qualities of chiefs and
kings, and eventuating in the idea that each human is a unique being that is
endowed with important rights [little gods as John W. Meyer (2006: xxx) puts it.] Taoism in
ancient China asserted the individual’s right to contravene all social
institutions in pursuit of harmony with the force (Bender 1983). But Taoism is
very different from those versions of modern anarchism that demand heroic
action. Bringing the self into harmony with the force proscribes heroic action
(Raphals 2001).
Human rights emerged with the appearance of
confessional world religions in the Iron Age with the focus on each
individual’s personal relationship with god.
Secular humanism and modern citizenship are extensions of this idea of a
powerfully constituted unique person with great capabilities and
responsibilities. Anarchism as an
explicit political ideology emerged in the context of the English revolution,
employing a philosophy of radical Protestantism. Gerard Winstanley
and the True Levelers challenged property rights and the authority of both the
king and parliament. This kind of radical egalitarianism in religious
contestation had been a recurrent theme in Europe since medieval times (Cohn
1957).
Thus anarchist ideas are very old
and something reproduces them so that they reemerge again and again in somewhat
different forms. Some think that human biological nature is inherently
individualistic, (e.g. Turner and Maryanski 2008)
whereas others see a dynamic in which all forms of hierarchy and authority produce
reactions against themselves that legitimate a strong desire for autonomy and
the assertion that individual persons are capable of deciding important issues
for themselves. It is our observation
that, despite the fact that anarchists conceive of themselves, and are
perceived by others, to be oppositional figures within an emerging global
culture, their actions and ideas are importantly sanctified and reproduced by
global culture itself. The modern moral
order sanctifies radical individualism in profound ways. It is now commonly
believed that each individual has the right and obligation to construct a
unique sexual and gender identity rather than allowing the larger moral order
to assign conventional gender roles. Not
everyone agrees that this is a good thing, but many think that the old
authorities should not be allowed to interfere with a person’s rights and
duties with regard to identity construction.[4]
But anarchism is not just reproduced
in every generation. Its significance in
the
World Revolution[5]
of 20xx is much greater than the number of activists who identify as anarchists
or who are actively involved in anarchist movements. So this radical form of individual autonomy
has great appeal in the context of a powerful modernity that legitimates
individualism.
Robert
Schaeffer (2014) notes that social movements have learned from Roberto Michels’s analysis of the oligarchical tendencies of
political parties. The social movement literature has long observed that most
movements go through a life cycle in which they begin as inchoate, spontaneous
and unorganized mass movements and then turn into more institutionalized
organizations. When they get to the organizational phase they often become more
interested in the survival of the organization than in the pursuit of the
original goals of the movement. This observation has been confirmed by the
observation of what happened to the movements of the 19th and 20th
centuries, and social movement activists have devised methods for trying to
prevent the oligarchical tendencies. Mao Zedong mobilized the Red Guards
against the Chinese Communist Party to try to prevent the restoration of
capitalism in China (unsuccessfully). Anarchists abjure participation in
electoral politics and devise methods for direct democracy such as those
developed by the Occupy Movement. They also abjure hierarchical organizational
structures and prescribe horizontalism. The
autonomists in Europe abjure support from formal governments and advocate
independence from official resources. The Zapatistas in Southern Mexico refuse
to participate in Mexican electoral politics. The anti-statist ideas that were
proclaimed by the New Left in the world revolution of 1968 have found broad
support in the global justice movement. And the debacle of Syriza
in Greece reinforces the idea that involvement in electoral politics leads to
the sacrifice of radical alternatives to institutionalized structures.
Schaeffer (2014) also contends that
social movements that use violent tactics are less likely to be supported by
women. The World Social Forum Charter
proscribes movements that advocate armed struggle from sending representatives.
There has been a shift away from violent tactics in the New Global Left after
the terrorist antics of some leftist groups in the 1970s. And anarchists, who
used to advocate “propaganda of the deed,” have generally moved away from
assassination in the direction of property destruction. The debate about
tactics was heated in some locations of the Occupy Movement, especially Oakland,
California, but the direction has generally been toward non-violent forms of
confrontation. Beheadings and suicide
bombings are left to the radical Islamists.
Dana Williams (2016) notes that anarchists often display a greater
degree of hypermasculinity than other movements, and
our survey results show that anarchists
are significantly more likely to be male (58.0%) than the other
movements (42.3%). The reputation of the
Black Bloc would seem to confirm this, but the stress on property destruction
rather than injury to people implies that the anarchists are part of the larger
trend on the left away from violence as a tactic.
And
anarchism does not suffer as much as socialism and communism do from the
perceived heritage of what happened in the 20th century. Socialists
were major agents of the construction of the welfare state in the core, and
Communists took state power in the semiperiphery. Anarchists do not bear the
brunt of the perceived failures of the 20th century to the same
extent as Socialists and Communists do.
This allows them to plausibly claim that their political formulae have
not yet failed because they have not yet really been tried, except in small and
little known contexts. Important
anarchist political principles include participatory democracy, delegation
instead of representation, consensual decision-making, and refusal to
participate in electoral politics and other institutionalized political
mechanisms. Anarchists believe that formalized states with legal and coercive
powers over people are bad and unnecessary.
As a matter of principle, they do not participate in state institutions.
Of course, there are many different kinds of anarchism, and the history of
anarchist movements, though a global history, differs greatly from place to
place and has diverse meanings for contemporary political activists.
Nevertheless the responses we got in the four different survey venues are
generally consistent with one another.[6]
Who
are the anarchist activists in the Social Forum Process?
We have used survey responses from the four Social Forum meetings at which surveys were mounted to see how many attendees identified themselves as either strongly identified with, or actively involved in, anarchism. We also looked to see whether or not anarchist activists were similar to, or different from, other attendees regarding demographic characteristics and attitudes toward political issues.[7] The survey question was worded as follows:
Check all of the following movements with which you:
(a) strongly identify (b) are actively involved in:
In the Porto
Alegre 2005 survey this was followed by a list of 18 movement themes, including
“Anarchist.” In the other surveys the list included 27 movement themes.
|
|
Porto Alegre 2005 |
Nairobi 2007 |
Atlanta 2007 |
Detroit 2010 |
All |
|
Strongly identify with anarchism |
66 (11.7%) |
23 (5.5%) |
77 (14.7%) |
121 (25.9%) |
287 (14.5%) |
|
Actively involved in anarchism |
20 (3.6%) |
6 (1.4%) |
41(7.8%) |
46 (9.8%) |
113 (5.7%) |
|
Total
Number of Attendees surveyed |
563 |
422 |
524 |
468 |
1977 |
Table 1: Anarchism and activism in the Social Forum Process
Table 1 shows
the numbers and percentages of those who identified themselves as identifying
with, or being actively involved in, anarchism at each of the four venues.
A number of important observations are implied
by the findings in Table 1. Each of the surveys included around 500
respondents, but we are not entirely sure how representative our samples were
of all the people who attended the Social Forum meetings and so we are not sure
how well we can generalize to the whole group of attendees. A truly random
sample would have required a complete list of participants, which we did not
have. In order improve the representativeness of the sample, the surveys were
distributed at a variety of locations where people congregated at each meeting
(e.g. registration lines, workshops, food stalls, etc.). Combining the results
from all of the surveys increases the number of respondents to 1977, which is
useful for this study because we are examining a group that is small minority
among the whole sample of attendees. There are difficulties involved in
combining the results from the different surveys because in some cases the
wording of questions was somewhat different, and also because anarchism may not
have a uniform global meaning. It very likely means something different in
Brazil and Kenya from what it means in the United States. And self-identified anarchists who chose to
participate in Social Fora may differ in motivation and orientation in
different regions of the world. Our surveys were done in the major languages
that were used at the different venues (English, Portuguese, Spanish, French
and Swahili).
Table 1 shows that only a small
proportion of respondents report active involvement in anarchist movements—about
6% across all four meetings. These proportions are especially small in the
global meetings where only 3.6% and 1.4% of respondents said they were actively
involved anarchists (Porto Alegre and Nairobi, respectively). Although still
small, there were proportionately more anarchists at the U.S. Social Forum,
where close to 8% and 10% of respondents at the Atlanta and Detroit meetings,
respectively, were actively involved in anarchism. Table 1 also shows that
there were proportionately more attendees who say they strongly identify with
anarchism than who say they are actively involved in anarchism – from twice to
three times as many. Comparing rows 2 and 3 shows the large drop-off from
“strongly identify” to “actively involved”. We have found this same large
drop-off for all social movement themes in all of our surveys (e.g. Chase-Dunn
and Kaneshiro 2009). It is not unique to the anarchist movement. It means that
attendees take seriously the difference between sympathizing with a movement
and actually doing work for that movement.
Table 1 also shows that more than
one fourth (26%) of the surveyed attendees in Detroit say they strongly
identify as anarchists. And the
percentage that says they are actively involved was higher than at any of the
other venues (9.8%) including Atlanta.
We are not sure why there were proportionately more anarchists at the
Detroit meeting, but it might have to do with the increasing radicalism after
the financial crisis of 2008.
The following
tables compare, across the four venues, actively involved anarchists with all
other attendees and with all other attendees who were also actively involved in
at least one of the other social movement themes. We include other “actively
involved” because some of our findings imply greater radicalism on the part of
the anarchists activists, but we want to know if this is related to the focus
on anarchism, or is just a feature of all those who are actively involved. It
is generally known from social movement research that higher participation by
individuals is related to greater concern and we suspect that this may also be
related to greater radicalism.
Similarities
and Differences between anarchists and other attendees at the Social Fora
|
AGE |
|
Total |
||||
|
Not actively involved |
Actively involved (any) |
Anarchist |
||||
|
|
17 and under |
|
3 |
19 |
2 |
24 |
|
|
1% |
2% |
2% |
2% |
||
|
18 - 25 |
|
88 |
245 |
46 |
379 |
|
|
|
36%1 |
24% |
53%1 |
28% |
||
|
26 - 35 |
|
54 |
251 |
26 |
331 |
|
|
|
22% |
25% |
30% |
25% |
||
|
36 - 45 |
|
42 |
147 |
8 |
197 |
|
|
|
17% |
15% |
9% |
15% |
||
|
46 - 55 |
|
28 |
148 |
3 |
179 |
|
|
|
11% |
15% |
3% |
13% |
||
|
56 - 65 |
|
26 |
130 |
1 |
157 |
|
|
|
11% |
13% |
1%2 |
12%2 |
||
|
65 and over |
|
3 |
59 |
1 |
63 |
|
|
|
1% |
6% |
1% |
5% |
||
|
Total |
|
244 |
999 |
87 |
1330 |
|
1Z-value: 18-25 anarchists vs total --- (z= 4.81, p< .001) ***
2Z-value: 56-65 anarchists vs total --- (-3.06, p< .001) ***
Table 2: Age composition of anarchists
at the Social Fora
Anarchist activists are significantly younger than other
activists and than the whole sample of attendees. Fifty-three percent of the anarchist
activists are in the 18 to 25 year age group, whereas only 38% of the attendees
are in that group. And whereas 12% of the attendees were between 56 and 65
years old, only 1% of the anarchist activists are that old.
We also found that much less
likely to be religious than other attendees and that they are more than twice
as likely to say that they are radicals than the other activists. And as we
mentioned above, more of the anarchists activist are male than are the other
activists (58% vs. 42% (sig. P<.05).
Table 2 shows the racial/ethnic
composition of the actively involved anarchists compared with the racial/ethnic
breakdown of the other Social Fora attendees.[8]
|
|
Porto Alegre 2005 |
Nairobi 2007 |
Atlanta 2007 |
Detroit 2010 |
All |
|
Actively involved in anarchism |
|||||
|
White or Caucasian |
6 (33%) |
0 (0.0%) |
25 (66%) |
23 (60%) |
54 (54%)1 |
|
Black, African |
2 (11%) |
4 (68%) |
1 (3%) |
1 (3%) |
8 (8%)2 |
|
Latina/o |
3 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
4 (10%) |
5 (13%) |
13 (13%) |
|
Mixed or multi-ethnic/racial |
3 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
6 (16%) |
3 (8%) |
13 (13%) |
|
Arab/Arabic/Middle Eastern |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
Asian |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
4 (10%) |
4 (4%) |
|
Indigenous |
1 (6%) |
0 (0.0%) |
1 (3%) |
1 (3%) |
3 (3%) |
|
Other |
3 (17%) |
0 (0.0%) |
1 (3%) |
1 (3%) |
5 (5%) |
|
Total |
18 (18%) |
6 (6.0%) |
38 (38%) |
38 (38%) |
100 (100%) |
|
NOT actively involved in anarchism |
|||||
|
White or Caucasian |
147 (39.8%) |
94 (33.0%) |
193 (50.5%) |
181 (54.2%) |
615 (44.9%)1 |
|
Black, African |
54 (15%) |
117 (41%) |
51 (13%) |
33 (10%) |
255 (18.6%)2 |
|
Latina/o |
23 (6%) |
10 (3%) |
53 (14%) |
51 (15%) |
137 (10%) |
|
Mixed or multi-ethnic/racial |
33 (9%) |
10 (3%) |
38 (10%) |
34 (10%) |
115 (8%) |
|
Arab/Arabic/Middle Eastern |
3 (1%) |
6 (2%) |
7 (2%) |
3 (1%) |
19 (1%) |
|
Asian |
25 (7%) |
30 (10%) |
17 (4%) |
17 (5%) |
89 (6%) |
|
Indigenous |
7 (2%) |
9 (3%) |
2 (0.5%) |
3 (1%) |
21 (1%) |
|
Other |
77 (21%) |
9 (3%) |
21 (5%) |
12 (4%) |
119 (8%) |
|
Total |
369 (27%) |
285 (21%) |
382 (28%) |
334 (24%) |
1370 (100%) |
|
Strongly identify with anarchism |
|||||
|
White or Caucasian |
17 (39%) |
5 (31%) |
42 (65%) |
50 (62%) |
114 (56%) |
|
Black, African |
6 (14%) |
8 (50%) |
2 (3%) |
7 (9%) |
23 (11%) |
|
Latina/o |
3 (7%) |
0 (0.0%) |
6 (9%) |
10 (12%) |
19 (9%) |
|
Mixed or multi-ethnic/racial |
3 (7%) |
0 (0.0%) |
7 (11%) |
7 (9%) |
17 (8%) |
|
Arab/Arabic/Middle Eastern |
0 (0.0%) |
1 (6%) |
0 (0.0%) |
1 (1%) |
2 (1%) |
|
Asian |
4 (9%) |
1 (6%) |
1 (1%) |
2 (2%) |
8 (4%) |
|
Indigenous |
1 (2%) |
1 (6%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
4 (2%) |
|
Other |
10 (23%) |
0 (0.0%) |
6 (9%) |
2 (2%) |
18 (9%) |
|
Total |
44 (21%) |
16 (8%) |
65 (32%) |
80 (39%) |
205 (100%) |
|
1: z=2.05, p< .05; 2: z= -3.11, p< .001 |
|
||||
Table 3: Racial/ethnic
composition of anarchists at the Social Fora
The majority of
anarchist both actively involved and strongly identified anarchists in our
entire combined sample identify as white (54% and 55%), which is considerably
larger than the proportion of whites that are not actively involved anarchists
(44%). This difference also holds for
the Atlanta and Detroit surveys, but not for the Porto Alegre or Nairobi surveys. So whiteness is related to anarchism in the
U.S. but not at the global meetings. In the combined sample actively involved
anarchists are less likely to be black (8% versus 18.6%) and so are strongly
identified anarchists (11.2% vs. 18.6%) and this difference holds for Atlanta,
Detroit and Porto Alegre, but not for Nairobi.
In Nairobi both the actively involved and the strongly identified
anarchists were more likely to be black and less likely to be white. The next two largest racial/ethnic groups are
Latinos and mixed-race persons—both at 13%. Both are slightly overrepresented
in comparison to non-anarchists and strongly identified anarchists but these
differences are not statistically significant.
We also found that more anarchists say they are working class (38%) than other activists (27%), and more anarchists claim that they are lower class (20%) than do other activists (10%).
|
Table 4 Attitude toward
capitalism |
||||
|
Non-activist |
Activist |
Anarchist |
All |
|
|
Reform it |
179
(56%) |
558
(41%) |
19
(18%) |
756
(42%) |
|
Abolish it |
105
(33%) |
726
(53%)2 |
81
(76%)1, 2 |
912
(51%)1 |
|
Neither |
35
(11%) |
80
(6%) |
6
(6%) |
121
(7%) |
|
Total |
319 |
1364 |
106 |
1789 |
|
1Z-value: 5.088*** 2Z-value: 4.624*** *p
< .05 (two-tail), **p < .01 (two-tail), ***p < .001 (two-tail) |
||||
The results in Table 4 suggest that
anarchists are radically anti-capitalist in comparison to other activists as
well as non-activists. Fewer anarchists want to reform capitalism, and
three-fourths of the anarchists think capitalism should be abolished only one
half of the other actively involved and one third of the non-activists want to
abolish capitalism. Z-tests show that these differences are statistically
significant.
|
Table
5 Attitude toward the World Bank In
the long run, what do you think should be done about these existing global
institutions: World Bank |
||||
|
Non-activist |
Activist |
Anarchist |
All |
|
|
Reform |
110 (52%) |
322 (34%) |
7 (8%) |
439 (35%) |
|
Replace |
30 (14%) |
204 (21%) |
19 (23%) |
253 (20%) |
|
Abolish |
58 (27%) |
406 (42%)2 |
54 (66%)1, 2 |
518 (41%)1 |
|
Do
Nothing |
14 (7%) |
27 (3%) |
2 (2%) |
43 (3%) |
|
Total |
212 |
959 |
82 |
1253 |
|
Notes:
This table does not include respondents at the Porto Alegre meeting. 1Z-value: 4.362*** 2Z-value: 4.131*** *p
< .05 (two-tail), **p < .01 (two-tail), ***p < .001 (two-tail) |
||||
Table 5 shows
the pattern of responses to a question about global institutions, specifically
the World Bank. The Porto Alegre survey is not included because this question
was not asked in a way that clearly separated the World Bank from the
International Monetary Fund and the United Nations in the Porto Alegre survey.
The results in Table 4 indicate that 66% of the actively involved anarchists
are in favor of abolishing the World Bank, whereas only 42% of the activists in
other movements want to abolish the World Bank.
The differences between these proportions and between anarchists and the
overall sample are statistically significant. The same differences were found
in response to questions about the International Monetary Fund and the World
Trade Organization.
|
Table
6 Attitude toward the United Nations In
the long run, what do you think should be done about these existing global
institutions: United Nations |
||||
|
Non-activist |
Activist |
Anarchist |
All |
|
|
Reform |
158 (74%) |
713 (76%) |
37 (46%) |
908 (74%) |
|
Replace |
17 (8%) |
122 (13%) |
19 (23%) |
158 (13%) |
|
Abolish |
14 (7%) |
57 (6%)2 |
24 (30%)1, 2 |
95(8%)1 |
|
Do
Nothing |
23 (11%) |
49 (5%) |
1 (1%) |
73 (6)% |
|
Total |
212 |
941 |
81 |
1234 |
|
Notes:
This table does not include respondents at the Porto Alegre meeting. 1Z-value: xxxxxx 2Z-value: xxxxxx *p
< .05 (two-tail), **p < .01 (two-tail), ***p < .001 (two-tail) |
||||
A similar
pattern is found in responses to a question about the United Nations, but there
is also interesting difference. As with the other international institutions
discussed about, anarchists are more likely than other attendees to favor
abolition and less likely to favor reform.
But in comparison with the other international institutions (the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization)
anarchists are much more supportive of the United Nations. Only 30% of the
actively involved anarchists want to abolish the U.N. whereas 66% want to
abolish the World Bank.
|
Table
7 Democratic World Government Do
you think it is a good or bad idea to have a democratic world government? |
||||
|
Non-activist |
Activist |
Anarchist |
All |
|
|
Good
idea and plausible |
126 (39.7%) |
497 (38.8%) |
32 (33%) |
655 (38.6%) |
|
Good
idea but not plausible |
106 (33.4%) |
450 (35.1%)2 |
17 (17.5%)1, 2 |
573 (33.8%)1 |
|
Bad
idea |
85 (26.8%) |
334 (26.1%)4 |
48 (49.5%)3, 4 |
467 (27.6%)3 |
|
Total |
317 |
1281 |
97 |
1695 |
|
1Z-value: -1.104 2Z-value: -1.133 3Z-value: 4.566*** 4Z-value: 4.893*** *p
< .05 (two-tail), **p < .01 (two-tail), ***p < .001 (two-tail) |
||||
The surveys also asked Social Fora attendees about their attitude
toward the idea of a democratic world government. Table 7 shows that anarchist
activists are more likely to think that a democratic world government is a bad
than those who are not involved in anarchist movements and this is not related
to active involvement in general. These differences are statistically
significant.
|
Table 8 Best Level for
Solving Problems Out of the following,
which level is most important for solving the majority of contemporary
problems? |
||||
|
Non-activist |
Activist |
Anarchist |
All |
|
|
Communities/sub-national |
177
(59%) |
730
(59.1%) |
76
(78%) |
983
(60.2%) |
|
Nation-states |
27
(9%) |
126
(10.2%) |
4
(4%) |
157
(9.6%) |
|
International/global |
96
(32%) |
380
(30.7%) |
17
(18%) |
493
(30.2%) |
|
Total |
300 |
1236 |
97 |
1633 |
|
1Z-value: 3.495*** 2Z-value:
3.666*** *p
< .05 (two-tail), **p < .01 (two-tail), ***p < .001 (two-tail) |
||||
The surveys also asked about which level is
most important for solving the majority of contemporary problems: communities,
nation-states, or international/global. Table 8 shows that 78 percent of
anarchist activists indicated that the community level is most important and
this percentage was higher than for those who were actively involved in other
movement themes (59.1%). The differences in proportions are statistically
significant according to the z-test.
|
Table 9 Global Social
Movement? Do you consider yourself
to be a part of a global social movement? |
||||
|
Non-activist |
Activist |
Anarchist |
All |
|
|
No |
88
(38.3%) |
141
(14.2%) |
7
(7.6%) |
236
(18%) |
|
Yes |
142
(61.7%) |
851
(85.8%)2 |
85
(92.4%)1, 2 |
1078
(82%)1 |
|
Total |
230 |
992 |
92 |
1314 |
|
Notes:
This table does not include respondents at the Porto Alegre meeting. 1Z-value: 2.6141** 2Z-value: 1.8092 |
||||
But the local
focus indicated by the results in Table 8 is somewhat contradicted by the
results in Table 9. The surveys asked attendees whether or not they think of
themselves as involved in global social movement. Ninety-two per cent of the
anarchist activists said yes, and this was a higher percentage than those that
were actively involved in other movement themes and with the total sample. The
difference between anarchists and other activists is not statistically
significant according to the z-tests reported in Table 9, but the difference
between anarchists and the total sample is.
The
connections that anarchist activists have with other social movements
Social movement
organizations may be integrated both informally and formally. At the
formal level, organizations may provide legitimacy and support to one another,
and strategically collaborate in joint action. Informally, they are connected
by the choices of individuals who are active participants in more than one
movement. Such informal linkages enable learning and influence to pass among
movement organizations, even when there may be limited official interaction or
leadership coordination. The extent of formal cooperation among movements
within “the movement of movements” both causes and reflects the informal
connections. In the analysis below we assess the extent and patterns of
informal linkages among social movement themes based on the responses we got
from our four surveys of attendees at the four Social Fora meetings we studied.
