Beyond the Network? Occupy London and the Global Movement
Beyond the Network? Occupy London and the Global Movement
复制标题
超越网络？
DOI：
10.1080/14742837.2012.708835
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
S. Halvorsen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Halvorsen
本文认为，关注占领运动的空间性，特别是领土的作用，表明网络的主导隐喻可能不足以理解当代社会运动的多样化空间策略。提出这一论点的目的既是为了具有挑衅性，也是为了认真对待占领运动的“提问政治”，而不是回避提出具有挑战性的问题。它首先向读者介绍占领伦敦运动及其非等级组织的自治倾向，并亲自参与政治。然后，它将占领伦敦运动归入更广泛的运动，并将其与另一场全球化运动相提并论，后者是一场全球社会经济正义运动的类似例子。有人认为，通过网络逻辑理解后全球化运动的自主政治不仅有用，而且限制了将非层级组织概念化的潜力。本文的其余部分将思考占领运动可能正在如何超越网络，成为一种占主导地位的组织形式和政治目标。具体地说，它借鉴了提交人在国际聚会和占领伦敦国际委员会工作组中的经验，并辩称，领土和领土重新受到关注。这并不意味着激进主义的网络空间已变得不那么重要，而是引发了关于网络思维对于当代对全球运动的理解的中心地位的质疑。作为结论，这篇文章向对占领运动感兴趣的活动人士和学者提出了问题。
This article argues that paying attention to the spatialities of the Occupy movement, and in particular the role of territory, suggests that the dominant metaphor of the network may be insufficient to understanding the diverse spatial strategies of contemporary social movements. The aim of presenting this argument is both to be provocative and also to take seriously the Occupy movement's ‘politics of asking’, not shying away from asking challenging questions. It starts by introducing the reader to the Occupy London movement and its autonomous tendencies of non-hierarchical organisation and do it yourself politics. It then places Occupy London within the wider movement and compares it to the alter-globalisation movement, a similar example of a global movement for socio-economic justice. It is argued that understanding the autonomous politics of the alter-globalisation movement through the logic of networking is not only useful but also limiting in its potentials for conceptualising non-hierarchical organising. The remainder of the essay considers how Occupy may be moving beyond the network as a dominant organisational form and political goal. Specifically, it draws on the author's experiences at international gatherings and in the international commission working group of Occupy London and argues that there has been a renewed attention to territory and territoriality. This does not imply that networked spatialities of activism have become less important but raises questions over the centrality of networked thinking to contemporary understandings of global movements. By way of conclusion, this articles poses questions for activists and academics interested in Occupy.