Political Theory after Deleuze by Widder Nathan;

Author:Widder, Nathan;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Published: 2019-11-22T16:00:00+00:00

5

Micropolitics

The story behind the organization of the 2004 European Social Forum is useful for illustrating a ubiquitous political problem.1 It begins with a proposal to hold the event in London, which was put forward at the European Preparatory Assembly in 2002 by members of Globalise Resistance, NGO War on Want and the Newcastle branch of Unison. The initiative surprised many UK activists, who felt they should have been consulted, and this feeling was reinforced when London Mayor Ken Livingstone and the Greater London Assembly were approached for support, some activists being wary of such government involvement. An early meeting meant to bring together interested parties was held on a working day, which hindered representatives from smaller organizations whose unpaid positions meant they had to hold other jobs, and little information was circulated ahead of time, seemingly because this was considered unnecessary by those managing the process. With larger organizations putting forward substantial funds and having significant leverage during negotiations, and with many aspects of the UK Organizing Committee’s meeting agendas seemingly decided ahead of time by a small cabal, many felt excluded from the process, and objected in ways that led to their being labelled disruptive malcontents. Some who felt disenfranchized left the official organizing process and planned autonomous spaces to run alongside and independent of the ESF. The Organizing Committee did ultimately recognize these autonomous spaces as part of the official event and listed them in the programme, but the animosities that developed during this time were still evident when the ESF was finally held.

As one can imagine, those disenchanted with the official process turned to the internet. In January 2004, Stuart Hodkinson sent a message to the ‘Democratize the ESF’ email list making a distinction between ‘Horizontals’ and ‘Verticals’. This may not have been its first usage, but regardless, after the email the binary opposition was quickly adopted by self-styled ‘Horizontals,’ who, wanting to distinguish themselves from those who in their minds were imposing strict hierarchies of governance and control, claimed to hold more egalitarian and open organizational principles. Those they called ‘Verticals’ certainly did not accept the label, and had their own rather condescending names for these ‘Horizontals.’ There was a decided absence of Nietzschean nobles on both sides of this divide.

There was certainly no necessity behind the adoption of this opposition – the email could simply have gone unnoticed. But once it became part of the political discourse among groups in the dispute, it had definite political effects. It organized different activists into two broad camps, setting at least in part the direction of future individual and collective statements and actions. As a form of discourse, it was obviously also a form of knowledge and power. But it was also enormously limited. Members of one group did not really share anything beyond a general antagonism towards those deemed to belong to the other, and they did not necessarily even share the same reasons for their antagonism. And nothing prevented those within one group from being at

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.