No Alternatives? Protest in the Alter-Globalisation Movement between Opposition and Dissidence

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Since the so-called Battle of Seattle in 1999 protests of the Alterglobalisation Movement have accompanied every major summit meeting of the world economic institutions. These recurring and partly even violent protests exemplify a radical resistance of part of transnational civil society against international institutions and their policies. But while the movement may be united in its critique of a neoliberal or capitalist dominated globalisation and the international institutions associated with it, it is most heterogenous regarding the aims and strategies of the movement groups that coalesce in the movement. Some movement groups pursue their aims within the established channels of political participation, acting like a form of opposition. Others reject these channels and violate the accepted rules of political participation and sometimes even use violence to further their aims, thus displaying a form of dissidence. The reasons for these differences are little-known. Research on radicalisation processes has often focused on the movement level and especially on national movements while transnational movements and movement groups have not been at the center of attention. The project wants to close this gap by analysing radicalisation processes within and between four different movement groups in the Alterglobalisation movement context (Attac, Tute Bianche, Peoples Global Action, CrimeThink) in order to understand which factors drive transnational protest into dissidence and which factors make them leave dissident strategies behind. Following the different paths of movement groups (from opposition to dissidence and vice versa), the project investigates whether external factors such as resources and political opportunities or internal factors, i.e. discursive dynamics within the groups drive radicalisation and in how far these factors interact. To do so, the project employs interviews with former activists, and extensive content analysis of documents from the groups concerning their strategy and mission discourses and compares those with secondary data on resources, political opportunities and interaction patterns (with the police/ counter-movements).