Social Science Research Council

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION
By Hermann Maiba

Abstract

How does the process of globalization affect social movement activism? The argument that I put forward is that there is a profound link between the macro-structural transformation that characterizes the globalization process and the logic, dynamics and mode of action of social movements today. I will interpret political activism of social movements by locating it in the larger contexts of social structures and historical locations, a perspective that Buechler coined "historical-dialectical-structurational analysis" (Buecher, 62). By selectively reviewing the globalization literature, this article attempts to highlight certain macro-structural processes and their perceived impacts on social movements.

My primary thesis is this: The process of globalization has altered socio-economic, political, cultural/ideological as well as technological conditions around the world. These changes, in turn, have facilitated greater transnational cooperation and coordination among social movement activists. The present article attempts two things. First, I sketch the macro-structural transformations and how those relate to social movement activism. Secondly, I propose dimensions of transnationality that should help to analyze the phenomenon of transnational cooperation and coordination within social movements.

Introduction

For many decades social movements have been understood from a state-centric perspective. In their historical research on French social movements, Tilly (1984) and Tarrow (1995) have forcefully demonstrated that with the consolidation of modern nation-states, social movement action has shifted from the local to the nation-state level. The main thrust of their argument was that the emergence, shape, and development of social movements was closely related to the development - in its scope, resources, and penetration - of the modern state. As national states aggregated power and resources, movements came more and more to target state authorities with demands for social change of existing societal arrangements. (Tilly, 1984; and Tarrow, 1995). In short, the modern nation-state structured social movement activism.

In light of the protest events of the last few years (Zapatista uprising in 1996, Seattle 1999, Washington, DC 2000, Quebec and Prague 2001, Genoa 2002, etc.), this state-centric perspective has became increasingly contested. On what has been called Global Days of Action, decentralized protest events in different parts of the world coincided with large-scale protests that took place parallel to the meetings of supra-national institutions. For example, on the day of the mass protest in Seattle, related solidarity demonstrations took place in over 100 cities worldwide.(1) "The Seattle protest challenged our understanding of state-social movement relations because they demonstrate how global-level politics affect a wide range of local and national actors. Scholars must ask how global economic, political, and social integration affect both mobilization and collective action" (Smith, 2001: 2).

The global anti-war demonstrations on February 15th provide only the latest instance of transnationally coordinated movement events. A range of publications on this topic has emerged, most of which argue for a theoretical adjustment of how we understand social movements today.(2) For example, Ray suggests that "in an age of globalization of economic and political structures it is no longer appropriate to analyze social movements solely at the level of nationally defined space" (Ray, 1993: XVII). Guidry et al. claim that "globalization has in fact brought social movements together across borders in a 'transnational public sphere', a real as well as conceptual space in which movement organizations interact, contest each other and their objects, and learn from each other" (Guidry et al, 2000: 3). In a similar vein Buechler argues that "contemporary social movement activism can be understood only in a global frame of reference. This premise has been sorely lacking in prevailing social movement theories, and they will remain impoverished until they can incorporate the diverse and subtle ways in which global dynamics and structures both enable and constrain the opportunities for social movement mobilization in different times and places" (Buechler, 2000: 78).

Despite the burgeoning literature on transnational social movements, we still lack of a coherent theoretical foundation for studying this phenomenon. In particular, the notion of the "transnational" has been used in many different ways. Some movement commentators have focused on the organizational features that connects activists in different countries, while others have applied it to the boundary crossing aspects of the Internet This article tries to integrate and synthesize the various theoretical contributions that have been made hitherto to the understanding of social movements in the age of globalization. More importantly, I will propose several dimensions of transnationality (networks, spaces, diffusion, political opportunity structure, identity & consciousness) that can help guide the empirical analysis of today's social activism.

Historiography of Globalization

As world system scholars have pointed out, the propensity of stretched social relations that encompass the whole globe has not just happened over the course of the last fifty years (Arrighi, 1994; Hirst and Thomson, 1996; and Wallerstein, 1998). According to Wallerstein, the incessant search of market expansion is an inherent characteristic of capitalism and globalization that dates back as far as the 15th century. I agree with Wallerstein on the inherent dynamics of capitalism to expand. However, his view neglects the accelerating dynamic that is manifested in the process of economic globalization. Even though Genoese merchants in the 15th century traded goods from far away, the increasing speed to innovate and revolutionize the means of production led to a qualitative transformation of worldwide social relations. Castells' and Arrighi's discoveries do account for this crucial fact. They argue that the informalization of societies, i.e., the growing importance of the generation and distribution of information, has enabled a qualitatively new form of global social relationships. Whereas two centuries ago it took weeks to get a letter from Asia to Europe, today it takes just a matter of seconds on the super-fast glassfiber and satellite-based infrastructure. This technical revolution in the telecommunication and transportation systems also has significantly altered the economic realm. The rising importance of worldwide trading in shares, bonds, futures and all kinds of financial products was made possible by the instantaneous availability of market information by means of the modern telecommunication infrastructure. Thus, I follow both Castells and Arrighi, who date the onset of the qualitatively different process of globalization with the revolutionary innovations in the 1970 in the communication industry. It is from this Marxian historical-materialist perspective of social development that I want to discuss the different dimension of globalization.

Economic Globalization

The capitalist economy is the driving force of globalization. In its incessant pursuit for new products, markets and cost-efficient ways of production, this economic engine has created the technological possibilities for global economic integration. The modern communication technologies are the backbone of today's global economic practices.

The technological revolution, centered on information technology, began to reshape the material basis of society at accelerated pace. Like the invention of the steam engine, which provided the technological means for the transition from the agrarian economy to industrialism, the new communication technologies need to be considered as the building block that made possible the transition to post-industrialism.(3) This paradigmatic shift not only affected the economic organization but the social order as a whole.

In order to understand the depth of this paradigmatic shift, I want to briefly discuss the transformation from feudalism to industrial capitalism. The introduction of the steam engine and the emergence of factories changed not only the social fabric of single societies but the entire world order. The feudal social system of pre-industrial societies disintegrated by tearing apart work and household (oikos) into two separate spheres of social life. The modern social system was characterized by the differentiation of societal subsystem (work, family, politics, culture) that followed their distinct Eigenlogik (cf. Luhmann). The hallmark of modernity, according to Max Weber, was its formal rationality that seemed to pervade all spheres of social life. Applied to the economy, this formal rationality appeared in the bureaucratic and hierarchical structuring of business enterprises embedded in their respective national economy that provided the legal as well as infrastructural framework for their practices. The basic unit of the economy was the formal business organization that was characterized by clear internal command structures among its different units (production, customer service, management, advertisement, etc.).

Modern communication technologies provided the technological means to circumvent the nation-state that regulated all inter and intra economic practices. The global flow of information enabled the expansion of the market on a worldwide scale that, in turn, led national economies across the world to become globally interdependent. Whereas formal organization was the prototypical social organization of modernity, networks became the ideal typical form of social organization in the post-industrial age. "The term 'informational' indicates the attribute of a specific form of social organization in which information generation, processing, and transmission become fundamental sources of productivity and power because of new technological conditions emerging in this historical period…. One of the key features of informational society is the networking logic of its basic structure" (Castells, 2000: footnote 31, p. 21).(4) According to Castells, these new information technologies unleashed the power of networking and decentralization and thus undermined the centralizing logic of one-way instructions and vertical bureaucratic surveillance.

In practical terms this meant that corporations started to outsource and to de-centralize their economic activities. Without modern communication technologies, all the necessary tasks (production and control) within companies were arranged in geographic proximity in order to assure supervision of the ordinary functioning of all these processes. Modern communication technologies allowed the geographic de-coupling of these tasks.(5) As a result, many companies have geographically separated the managerial function from the actual production process. Three prominent examples will suffice to make this point clear. In 2001 Boeing Corporation moved its world headquarters to Chicago, whereas its main production side still remains in Seattle. Another illustrative case of economic networks is Airbus Industries. Airbus' commercial airplanes are produced by a consortium of manufacturers from five different countries (UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France). Lastly, many companies re-organized their customer service units as call-centers. For example, if you make a call to Sears, you may talk to an agent based in a call center in India or Ireland where orders and complaints of Sears customers are now handled.

Further, because capitalism, in its search for profits, is driven to expand both its markets and to strive for cost reductions, production has been relocated to countries that are considered economically and strategically suitable environments - which in effect means low wages and taxation, stable political system, good infrastructure, and access to markets. It is not surprising then that many companies, which historically began in industrial societies, where relatively high wage standards and other cost inducing regulatory measures reduced the profit margin, eventually moved or sub-contracted their production sites to predominantly developing countries that offered a large and cheap supply of labor. Among other things this development manifested itself in the emergence of export processing zones (Maquilladoras) in China, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Mexico, El Salvador, et cetera.

Other indications of the global integration of the economy are the many mergers, alliances, and co-operations of corporations. It has become increasingly difficult to make out the national origins of multi-national corporations. Mergers and take-overs (friendly vs. hostile) of companies provide the advantage of economies of scale. For example, two previously separate companies can save resources by pooling tasks they had run independently (e.g., for research & development). A classical case of this type was the merger of Daimler and Chrysler. Companies that join alliances remain independent but they agree to centralize certain functions. Using the cost advantage of economies of scale, companies take advantage by reducing costs and by getting access to services or products that they previously had not offered. A case in point of such alliances is transnational cooperatives in the air travel industry. For example, the Star Alliance is a cooperative of twelve different air carriers. They not only coordinate their flight schedules and offer code-sharing flights but they also co-operate on several overhead tasks (e.g., frequent flyer programs and selling flights from the other airlines).

Another very important part of the global economy is the global finance market. The rise in importance of worldwide trading in shares, bonds, futures and all kinds of financial products has been made possible by the instantaneous availability of market information. Investing and withdrawing money can be done basically from every PC terminal with access to the Internet regardless its location. Global investment is matched by global disinvestments. Negative information about one company or the political situation in one country triggers investors around the world to withdraw their money at a whim and thus destabilizes entire societies. The volatility of the global finance market and its impact on the social order has been vividly demonstrated by the 1997 Asian financial crises.

To summarize my argument so far, economic practices today must be understood in reference to the entire globe. Not only is the economy globally integrated but also its mechanisms affect people throughout the world. Regardless if corporations actively engage in the global economy by outsourcing production, by participating in alliances and in the global market, etc., the terms of trade are determined by the rules and laws of the global capitalist economy.

Because of the capitalist need to exercise a competitive edge over the market, cost reduction moves by one competitor must be countered by similar moves by other economic players. Through the breakdown of trade barriers, particularly since the end of the systemic confrontation between capitalism and communism and spearheaded by the World Trade Organization (WTO), footloose capital is on the search for cost effective locations. The dynamics of cost minimization has taken on a new dimension under economic globalization because of country-specific differences in terms of labor costs, social and environmental standards and so forth. Different social standards are played off against each other. Politicians in different parts of the world try to lure companies to invest in their region/city by offering tax exemption, a huge and educated labor pool, low wages, and minimum of legal strangleholds for the corporations in terms of social security, work place safety, and environmental provisions.

This race-to-the-bottom dynamics levels out the stark country specific differences. People in the developed and developing world recognize that their fate is connected by the mechanism and dynamics of global capitalism. Fighting the downward pressure in the developed world, i.e., dismantling the welfare state, is linked to the same cause as struggles to improve the conditions in the developing countries (poverty, environment devastation and economic underdevelopment). The process of economic globalization produces winners and losers that can be understood neither by a Marxian working class analysis nor by the classical world-system perspective where the imperial industrialized countries exploit the developing world.(6) Farmers, indigenous people, female sweatshop workers, environmentalists, students, and rank and file unionists find themselves fighting side-by-side to improve their lot. Hardt and Negri's concept of "the multitude" tries to capture the confluence of a diversity of social groups that are negatively affected by capitalist globalization. Even though the concept lacks a certain clarity, it has become a popular metaphor in the so-called anti-globalization movement and the World Social Forum process.(7)

Despite the diversity of local struggles around the world (e.g., organized labor in the industrialized countries tries to defend the welfare state, farmers in India fight against the commodification of their agricultural products, indigenous communities struggle against the lost of their autonomy and the subjugation of their habitat to the global market), global capitalism is seen as the root cause of their problems.

What is more recent is the sense of common purpose that groups and movements have found as they realise that various modes of oppression are, in their contemporary forms, contingent upon a particular historical moment in which the contraction of state welfare and the rise of neoliberal privatism have had widespread negative effects. (Redden, 2003: 2)

The recognition that the disparate local and national problems are all elated to the mechanism of the global capitalist economy have provided the basis for transnational cooperation and coordination in the sense that "your struggle is our struggle." The notion that "the global is local and visa versa" expresses the fact that problems and their resolve must cross national boundaries.

This recognition of the interconnectedness of local struggles has created the basis for people to join together in a transnational movement whose guiding motto is "Let our resistance be as transnational as capital."(8) Despite the fact that problems do manifest themselves quite differently in various local and national contexts, the sense that struggles in one place are connected to those in another has made it possible for social movements throughout the world to become involved in transnational social movement networks.

Capitalist globalization has not only created socio-economic conditions that lend themselves to a common recognition of the interconnectedness of political struggles, but it has also provided the technological means - as an unintentional dialectic of this structural transformation - that enables the resistance struggles in different parts of the world to communicate with one another as well as to coordinate their activities. In order to learn about similar struggles in other parts of the world without the mediation of corporate or governmental controlled media, the decentralized mode of the Internet has provided a communication tool for activists. Modern communication tools, particularly the Internet (websites, list serves, video and audio streaming, chat rooms) have become available also for political activists, and they have used them very effectively.(9) Access to these communication technologies was essential for it has helped to sustain transnational social movement activism and proved to be an important tool for the creation and fostering of transnational movement networks.(10)

Movement activists from different parts of the world are connected in transnational movement networks. In my work I distinguish between two kinds of transnational movement networks: campaign-based networks (e.g., Jubilee 2000, Anti-War, and Anti-MAI network) and ideology-based networks of activists (e. g., ATTAC, Peoples' Global Action, and Via Campesina) who share a similar political vision. Movement networks are not a new phenomenon per se (cf. Melucci and Diani). However, the network form of organization seems to be the most conducive form of social organization in the age of globalization.

The creation of horizontal networks versus the establishment of a centralized mass organization takes advantage of the process of globalization and the information revolution…. the network concept is also being promoted as an effective and more democratic mode of organizing against globalization. (Burbach, 2001: 136f.)

It can be said that formal organizations require greater conformity from their members in order to achieve agreed upon organizing principles. Old-style international social movements were predominantly formal international organizations and their transnational activism was largely limited to international conferences, speaker tours, international petition drives and so on (cf. Rucht (2001).

Because of the vast differences that groups bring into transnational movement networks in terms of their ideological history, organizing mode, activist culture, etc., the looseness of the networks does not put that much pressure to conform to every aspect in order to collaborate (cf. Rucht (2001). For that matter, activist groups can plug into the activities of transnational networks. They participate in activities of the network when they deem it worthy and possible without subscribing to a host of formal procedures. This open and malleable nature of networks has produced a greater transnational repertoire of strategic actions.

Because of its loose and more flexible character, the social network is more adaptive and responsive to changing environments. As Keck and Sikkink (1998: 200) have pointed out, "…the agility and fluidity of networked forms of organization make them particularly appropriate to historical periods characterized by rapid shifts in problem definition." With the help of modern communication technology, a social movement can react instantaneously when a new political opportunity arises. For example, the global anti-war network is already prepared to circulate an emergency mobilization in case that the American government starts the war against the Iraq.(11)

Cultural Globalization

Cultural globalization refers to diffusion processes of cultural products to other societies. The appropriation of life-styles, ideas, cultural symbols, and customs from their original societal context, together with their adaptation, re-interpretation, and integration into existing practices is the subject matter of cultural globalization. The direction of cultural globalization is highly controversial. Some (Ritzer, Barber) portray globalization as the cultural homogeneization of Western cultural practices (mainly in its American version) that are being diffused and adopted around the world. Empirically they point to the spread of McDonalds, Starbucks, and GAP stores to all parts of the world. The idea of cultural homogeneization is best exemplified in Marshall McLuhan's "Global Village" metaphor. This metaphor tries to convey the pervasive spread of Western cultural images and practices to even the smallest village on this earth by means of the Western broadcast media.

Other scholars (Appadurai) reject the idea of global cultural homogeneity and argue for a more complicated account of global cultural processes. They argue that diffused cultural products take on different meanings in their new societal settings. To put their argument simply, McDonalds in the United States is not the same as McDonalds in China. They argue that the meaning that is attributed to dining at the "Golden M" may be very different in the two societies. This line of thought insists that cultural globalization does not proceed like a steamroller. Instead, despite the diffusion of cultural products, significant heterogenous cultural practices remain among countries.

There are clear examples of the existence of global flows of cultural practices. Migrants bring their folklore as well as their eating habits to their host society; ideas get exchanged via the Internet between like-minded folks and epistemic communities in chat rooms and list serves; and merchandise and life-styles become diffused by the global reach of transnational corporations and media networks. In my opinion, it would be a grave mistake to adopt an either/or position. By synthesizing the heterogeneity/homogeneity arguments, I propose that both processes occur simultaneously. Let me illustrate this by pointing to two global cultural processes, both of which I deem crucial in relation to social movement dynamics: one supports the homogeneization paradigm and the second the heterogeneization perspective.

The end of the systemic confrontation between communism and capitalism in the 1990s must be considered a world-historic shift in many respects. Communism as a systemic alternative to capitalism was discredited and capitalism seemed to be the only feasible societal order to work. The crumbling of communism as a political and economic alternative has been interpreted to signify the superiority of the capitalist economy. This historical development gave a big boost to the radical forces (market fetishists) that saw the unregulated market and the withdrawal of the state as the recipe for the success of capitalism. Scientifically driven by the macro-economic theories of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, the neo-liberal model became the new economic doctrine of the "post-Cold War period". This neo-liberal model had already been enacted by Ronald Reagan (Reaganomics) and Margaret Thatcher prior the collapse of the communism. Subsequently it diffused across the world as a macro-economic doctrine by several mechanisms.

The supranational institutions of the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization became important agents for the hegemony of the neo-liberal doctrine and its implementation. Without going into the detail about the constitution and the power structure within those institutions, the neo-liberal economic philosophy informed the policies of these institutions.(12) In other words, their policies are designed to foster privatization, reduce state-infringement on the economy, open more markets for world trade, and put the economic over the social. Indicative of this attitude for the neo-liberal policies is that they put economic development measures (reducing corporate taxes, privatization of utility companies, etc.) ahead of social security measures (equal and affordable access to elementary goods, such as water, energy, education, housing).(13) Where these principles were not adopted by governments by free choice, these institutions used structural force to move the defiant governments into "the right" direction via structural adjustment measures as in the case of debt-ridden countries (IMF structural adjustment measures) or by imposing penalties on countries not adhering to WTO rules. The extent of the global diffusion of the neo-liberal discourse and practice can be best exemplified by the entry of the former communist country China into the WTO in 2001.

The diffusion of neo-liberalism as the dominant economic paradigm provides the historical backdrop to the globalization process that triggered movement struggles in different parts of the world. Struggles begun in the Global South where the impact of its policies were felt most harshly.(14) Ten years after the Wall came down, the anti-neo-liberal opposition movement emerged in the Global North. The protest of Seattle represented the coming out party of the anti neo-liberal globalization movement in the Global North. This convergence of resistance of the neo-liberal doctrine provided the connecting bridge as well as common targets for the transnational cooperation of a broad spectrum of social movement organizations.

Now I want to turn to another aspect of cultural globalization that demonstrates the paradoxical nature of the globalization process. While better, faster, and cheaper technologies for communication and transportation provided the material infrastructure for world-wide economic exchanges and the spread of cultural products such as Big Macs, pizzas, symbols such as Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan, as well as images of all sorts to almost every corner of the world, these global flows have not just been restricted to corporate merchandise and images. People travel to far away lands as tourists, if they are affluent enough, for business or educational purposes, or as migrants and refugees.

Never before in human history have so many humans traveled so far so fast. At a time when travel over long distances was expensive and time consuming, the social life of the majority of the population was confined to a small geographical area. Their life-world was restricted to the immediate social surrounding and the possibilities of being confronted with people speaking other languages, practicing different customs, eating different food, was rare and considered to be exotic. The relative availability and affordability of long distance travel brought a greater portion of the population in contact with other cultures. With increasing frequency people today live a significant period of their lives in societies in which they were not born. People make friends from other societies, they learn and sometimes appreciate different cultural practices, they speak different languages and if people engage in such transnational exchanges frequently enough their home is neither here nor there. The notion of a transnational life-world captured this fact. The globalization of personal biographies has been aptly described by Beck:

Transnationale Ortspolygamie, das Verheiratetsein mit mehreren Orten, die verschiedenen Welten zugehören: das ist das Einfalltor der Globalität im eigenen Leben, führt zur Globalisierung der Biographie. ... Die Gegensätze der Welt finden nicht nur dort draußen, sondern im Zentrum des eigenen Lebens, in multikulturellen Ehen und Familien, im Betrieb, im Freundeskreis, in der Schule, im Kino, beim Einkaufen and der Käsetheke, Musikhören, Abendbrotessen, Liebemachen usw. statt (129).(15)

The exposure to different life realities also affects one's self-definition. People adopt ideas and practices they like regardless of the cultural backgrounds from which they stem. By assembling the best and personally most rewarding aspects of each culture, people create a patchwork of cultural practices. Their identities thus can best be described as hybrid. Mainly through personal contacts with people from other societies but also through travel and electronic communication, individuals and communities form social bonds and experiential empathy with individuals and communities around the world.

Core activists in transnational movement networks are, in effect, like itinerant movement entrepreneurs who have extensively traveled the world and lived in different societies for a substantial time. They speak multiple languages. Such core activists are best characterized by their transnational identity and their commitment to global solidarity. As Max Weber suggested in a different context, one has to look at movement leaders and the intellectual carriers of movements to understand movement dynamics and their trajectories. Not only do they diffuse the global orientation to the other movement participants, but such core activists link movements in different parts of the world where they have established personal contacts. Those individuals perform as though they were transnational spiders that weave transnational social movement networks.

The experience of different life-worlds also led to a greater cosmopolitan and tolerant attitude toward other cultures. It is particularly this aspect of openness toward different cultural practices that prompts many activists to show global solidarity with all people on earth. Despite cultural differences, people experience the common bond of humankind; every attempt to withhold humane treatment is considered an insult to all. This perception and attitude of global solidarity is a very crucial aspect for building and sustaining transnational cooperation. Furthermore, the feeling of transnational connectedness helps to shape a transnational collective identity that provides cohesion for transnational movement networks.(16)

Another paradoxical aspect of the globalizing process relates to modern communication technologies. Because they are relatively cheap if one considers the amount of information that can be obtained respectively distributed in relation to conventional techniques, particularly if one considers the ease by which to distribute information to far a way places. Activists master modern communication technologies, and, in so doing, they create their independent communication infrastructure. Like the swapping of mp3 files over the Internet, movement activists use the modern communication technologies so skillfully as to create the social movement version of the Napster phenomenon with its anarchic and decommodified propensity.

These transnational virtual spaces (mailing lists, website, e-mail, chat rooms, etc.) play an important role in the diffusion of information, ideas, resources, and tactics among social movement activists.(17) For example, the reports of the uprising of the Zapatistas was posted on the Internet, inspired the imagination of other activists around the world, and brought the world's attention to the conflict in the Jungle of Chiapas. The basic democratic decision-making procedure of the Zapatista movement influenced many activist groups around the world. Even the planning of large-scale protests in various movement meetings was fashioned after the basic-democratic model of the Zapatista's (Cleaver, Schulz). Examples abound of how movement ideas and tactics became diffused around the world. The anti-road movement that originally emerged in Great Britain - it organized critical mass bike rides and carnival-like street parties - inspired many movement activists. "Reclaim the street" parties are now organized all around the world. Likewise, the banging of pots, which became the hallmark of the Argentinian uprising in 1991, appeared at all major demonstrations outside Argentina. There are other campaigns where the Internet also proved very important. The distribution of the draft text of the WTO's proposed Mulilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) over the Internet started a broad-based mobilization campaign in different parts of the world that successfully derailed the MAI accord (Warkentin).

Political Globalization

The process of globalization also substantially changed the configuration of political power. As my socio-historical overview showed, the onset of modernity shifted power from local lords and nobility to nationally consolidated power structures. Since then every explanation of world historical significance has examined the transformations happening at the level of the involved nation-state in its inter-state relations. The nation-state became the master variable that any explanation had to address. If one needed an empirical case for the transformation of the inter-state system, the terrorist attack on September 11 was a demonstration par excellence. The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, showed that conflicts and confrontations not only are fought between nation-states but that non-state actors, organized in a transnational network as in the case of al-Qaeda, can forcefully challenge nation-states.(18)

But also in its domestic effects, the state-centric perspective argued that all internal affairs of a society are regulated by the political configurations prevalent in the particular nation-state. This state-centric perspective suggested that basically all domestic realms (national economy, education, social welfare, and so on) are controlled and shaped by domestic forces under the umbrella of the state apparatus. According to the conceptualization of Agnew and Corbridge, the state was perceived as the container of society.

This state-centric perspective and the primacy of the nation-state eventually became undermined by the overwhelming global flow of images, information, products, and people across state-borders. "State control over space and time is increasingly bypassed by global flows of capital, goods, services, technology, communication, and information" (Castells, 1997: 243). The nation-state became increasingly powerless in controlling monetary policies, organizing production and trade, collecting corporate taxes, and fulfilling its commitments to provide social benefits. As a result, the state lost its overarching sovereignty and its capacity to represent its territorially rooted constituencies. Because of the emergence of multiple actors (supra-national institutions, IGOs, TNCs, TSMOs, INGOs), some scholars argue that the nation-state has lost its overarching sovereignty (cf. Strange, Sassen). A few scholars (Albrow, 1997; and Ohmae, 1990) go so far as to predict the demise of the nation-state.

Even where individual nation-states attempted to restrict or prevent these global flows from circumventing their influence, as demonstrated by the Chinese government's effort to block certain websites, or to shore-up the border control to prevent the influx of migrants, such measures have produced paradoxical effects. First, there exist no absolute secure techniques to stop these elusive flows from happening. For example, despite the blocking of certain websites, Chinese cyber geeks created mirror websites that evaded governmental control. Second, even where the government is aware that the trans-border activities curtail its political power, it is also conscious that its political survival might depend on the participation in the global dynamic. For this very reason the Chinese government joined the World Trade Organization and opened the Chinese market and for foreign products.

Because of the increasing inability of the inter-state system to influence and direct these global flows, supra-national institutions became important actors in the realm of global politics. The globalization process accelerated the rise of supra-national institutions. The number of international governmental organizations (IGOs) rose in the period between 1909 and 1988 from 37 to 309 (della Porta et al., 1999: 14).

Another byproduct of the growth of supra-national institutions was the increase of international non-governmental organizations (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions) and transnational social movement organizations (i.e., Greenpeace and Amnesty International). Between 1953 and 1993 the number of transnational social movement organizations grew from 110 to 631 (Rucht: 211). The growth was particularly connected to the international conferences within the UN system. The creation of supranational governance structures provided a crucial stimulus and a new transnational political opportunity structure for social movements to influence and target these institutions. David Held observes, for example, that

there is a distinct connection between historical patterns of socio-economic globalization and historical patterns of political globalization. The development of international agencies and organizations has led to significant changes in the decision-making structure of world politics. New forms of multilateral and multinational politics have been established involving governments, IGOs and a wide variety of transnational pressure groups and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). (Held et al., 1999: 53)

There seems to be consensus among movement analysts about the emergence of a transnational political opportunity structure (cf. Hilson, 2002; Marks and McAdam, 1996; Marks and McAdam, 1999; Passy, 1999; Smith, 1999; Smith, Pagnucco and Chatfield, 1997; Keck and Sikkink, 1998). I would like to propose that we distinguish analytically three crucial aspects of transnational political opportunities: (1) Supra-national institutions and IGOs as allies; (2) Supra-national institutions, IGOs and TNCs as targets for political protest; and (3) transnational spaces around supra-national institutions.

There is already a well-established literature on the impact of the international system of the United Nations for transnational activism. The elaboration of global norms, such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, provided the normative basis along which to rally support from the UN and supportive national states. For the most part the UN became an important ally for transnational social movement networks to pressure other national governments. Where the domestic opportunity structures are closed for social movements at the local and national levels, the movements link themselves to international social movement organizations in order to put pressure on their government from outside. Keck and Sikkink discuss this mechanism as a "boomerang effect," and Putnam talks about the "two-level game" (Putnam, 1988) where movements pursue a double strategy on national and transnational levels.(19)

It can be further argued that the UN system became predominantly an ally for reform-oriented social movements and an important provider of resources. The UN facilitated the institutional framework that has been employed by reform-oriented activists, a framework that helped to form the transnational movement network. The UN system emerged as a field where global policies have been shaped, and many transnational social movement organizations (TSMOs) gained access to the UN forums by achieving consultative status and thus were able to exert certain leverage to influence the global rules. Because of the relative openness of the UN system to reform-oriented social movement organizations, many activists groups have been accredited by the UN and thus became eligible for institutional funding. Since the first UN conference in Stockholm on the environment, about 1,500 NGOs have become accredited by the UN. Furthermore, under the umbrella of the UN summits, movement activists were able to build and sustain transnational networks. These transnational spaces have been enormously important for networking, information sharing, and strategizing. Face-to-face encounters at these parallel summits have facilitated the establishing of new ties and the fostering of existing ties between individual activists and groups they represent.

On the other side, certain inter-governmental and supra-national institutions such as the IMF, WB, WTO, G8, etc., which are far less open to social movement organizations, have become ready targets for popular protests. In the last couple of years, no meeting of any of these institutions could occur without encountering popular protest. The summit meetings of these institutions provided the occasion for activist groups around the world to converge in counter summit protests at the official summit meeting site, or to organize coordinated de-centralized solidarity protests in other parts of the world. One reason for targeting the official summit meetings was the heightened media interest that accompanied these meetings. Because of the presence of the mainstream media, the protestors could assume that images of their demonstrations and marches would find their way into living rooms across the world.

This centralized counter summit protests also furnished a transnational space for skill sharing, education, and networking. The time preceding the protest has been used for teach-ins, media work, puppet and banner making and for networking among activists and groups.

Transnational corporations (TNCs) form another set of influential actors impacting global level politics. Because of their economic might, TNCs emerged as powerful new actors on the global level. As the World Bank's annual publication World Development Report shows, some TNCs have bigger budgets than many nation-states (also cf. Barnet and Müller). TNCs use their economic power as a leverage vis-à-vis national states and supra-national institutions. TNCs have been identified as promoters of the neo-liberal agenda. Given this background it is not surprising that TNCs have been perceived as the epitome of evil and thus became targets for protests. To target a common enemy provided a common ground for activists in different parts of the world to coordinate their activities. For example, there have been global campaigns against labor practices of McDonalds and Taco Bell restaurants as well as a very successful campaign against Shell to dismantle an oil platform in the North Sea.

Conclusion

This essay has sought to shed some light on the paradoxical nature of the macro-structural transformations that have been triggered by the process of globalization. By adopting a macro-structural perspective, I have tried to delineate and establish some correlations between certain macro-structural shifts and their perceived impacts on social movement activism. The process of globalization has created not only new constraints but in turn it has also opened novel opportunities for social movement activists to resist the very processes that produced these grievances. It has been argued that in the age of globalization social movement activities cannot be merely understood from a state-centric perspective but any social movement analysis must also account for structures and processes that occur above the nation-state level. Theorizing social movements in the age of globalization means that we need to grasp the transnational dynamics of today's movement activism. This article in particular highlighted several dimensions of transnationality (identity and consciousness, political opportunity structure, diffusion, networks, and spaces) that I deem crucial for understanding these phenomena.

____________

Notes:

1. For a compiled list, see http://www.indymedia.org and http://www.agp.org.

2. For a prominent exception see Neidhardt and Rucht (1999) who argue that despite the obvious fact of transnational integration, social movements still frame their issues in national terms. In similar fashion, Koopman contends that social movement activities still run through the powerful filter of the nation-state (in della Porta et al. 1999).

3. For an excellent discussion on this paradigmatic shift from industrialism to post-industrialism/information society, see Toffler, Harvey, and Castells (1997).

4. For a similar argument see Rheingold (2002) who argues that the widespread availability and usage of wireless technology has profound effects on the overall social organization throughout the world.

5. Gary Gereffi contributed an important distinction between buyer-driven and producer global commodity chains for world-spanning economic practices.

6. Zygmund Bauman (1998: 9) argues that mobility becomes one of the most important human resources in a globalizing world.

7. For example, it is not clear whether the authors would consider the terrorist network of al-Qaeda as being included in the multitude.

8. See http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiaiv/agp/en/PGAInfos/bulletin4/index.html.

9. Activist collectives established their own server portals that made them independent from commercial service providers, which facilitate activists with the communications tools for political activism, such as free e-mail service, spaces for websites and mailing lists.

10. Prominent examples of the activist media networks are Znet, A-Infos, IndyMedia, and ProtestNet.

11. Even the mainstream media picked up on the importance of global social movement networks. See Jennifer 8 Lee. "How the Protesters Mobilized," New York Times, 23 February 2003).

12. Illustrative in this respect are the writings by the former chief economist and vice president of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, who has joined the anti-globalization critics.

13. "By setting up the WTO, countries and governments discovered that they had set up a legal system that enshrined the priority of free trade above every good - above the environment, justice, equity, and community" (Bello, 2002).

14. A brochure published by the International Forum on Globalization provides a comprehensive list of popular protests that occurred in the last two decades. It also shows that the resistance against economic globalization started in the Global South and shifted at the end of the century to the Global North.

15. "Transnational locational polygamy, having bonds with several locations that belong to different worlds is the intrusion of globality in one's life and it leads to the globalization of biography.… the contradiction is taking place not only out there, but in the center of our lives, in multicultural marriages and families, at the workplace, in our friendship circles, in the school, the cinema, and if we go shopping at the cheese counter, when we listen to music, or eating our supper and when we make love, etc." (Own translation.)

16. "By facilitating flows of information across national boundaries, organizations with transnational ties cultivate movement identities that transcend nationally-defined interests and identities" (Smith 2001).

17. As Redden mentions in his article, the activist online magazine Zmag receives over one million hits a week (39).

18. To which extent the current American foreign policy is a reversal of this trend cannot be evaluated at this time.

19. Hoekman and Kostecki illustrated the "two-level game" on interest groups that "use domestic advocacy and consultative processes to get their views reflected in national policies. […] However, NGOs and other lobbies have clear incentives to exert direct pressure at the 'global' level as well, including at the WTO, in an attempt to complement national efforts to influence global rules of the game" (Hoekman and Kostecki, 2001: 461-2).

References:

Albrow, Martin. 1997. The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Agnew, John, and Stuart Corbridge. 1995. Mastering space: hegemony, territory and international political economy. New York: Routledge.

Arrighi, Giovanni. 1998. "Globalization and the Rise of East Asia." In: International Sociology 13 (1) (March): 59-77.

Arrighi, Giovanni 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso.

Barber, Benjamin. 1995. Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Random House, Inc.

Barnet, Richard J., and Ronald E. Müller. 1975. Global Reach: The Power of Multinational Corporations. London: Jonathan Cape.

Beck, Ulrich. 1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Bello, Walden. 2002. "From Melbourne to Prague." http://www.zmag.org/melbourne_to_prague.htm (30 September 2002).

Buechler, Steven M. 2000. Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd Edition. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, Manuel. 1997. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume II: The Power of Identity. Malden: Blackwell Publishers

Cleaver, Harry. 1998. "The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the Rise of an Alternative Political Fabric." Journal of International Affairs 51 (2): 621-40.

Diani, Mario.1995. Green Networks: A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental Movement. Cambridge: The University Press.

Diebert, Ronald. 2000. "International Plug 'n Play? Citizen Activism, the Internet, and Global Public Policy." International Studies Perspectives (1): 255-72.

Gereffi, Gary. 1996, "Commodity Chains and Regional Divisions of Labor in East Asia." Journal of Asian Business 12 (1): 75-112.

Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Guidry, John A., Michael D. Kennedy, and Mayer N. Zald. 2000. Globalization and Social Movements: Culture, Power, and the Transnational Public Sphere. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origin of Cultural Change. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Held, McGrew, and Perraton Goldblatt. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hirst, Paul, and Grahame Thomson. 1996. Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibility of Governance. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Hoekman, Bernard, and Michel Kostecki. 2001. The political economy of the world trading system: the WTO and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.

International Forum on Globalization. 2001. Does Globalization Help the Poor? Independent self-print.

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Koopman, Ruud. 1999. "Globalization or Still National Politics? A Comparison of Protests against the Gulf War in Germany, France, and the Netherlands." In Social Movements in a Globalizing World, eds. D. della Porta, H. Kriesi, and D. Rucht. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc.

McCarthy, John. 1997. "The Globalization of Social Movement Theory." In Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State, eds. J. Smith, C. Chatfield, and R. Pagnucco, 243-59. New York: Syracuse University Press.

Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Neidhardt, Friedhelm, and Dieter Rucht. 1999. "Protestgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1950-1994." In Eine lernende Demokratie. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik Deutschland, eds.M. Kaase, and G. Schmid, 129-164. Berlin.

Ohmae Kenichi. 1990. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. New York: Harper Business.

Porta, della Donatella, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Dieter Rucht, eds. 1999. Social Movements in a Globalizing World. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc.

Ray, J. Larry. 1993. Rethinking Critical Theory: Emancipation in the Age of Global Social Movements. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

Redden, Guy. Networking dissent: the Internet and the anti-globalization movement. http://www.arts.uwa.au/MotsPluriels/MP1801gr.html (4 March 2003).

Ritzer, George. 1996. McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Rucht, Dieter. 2001. "Transnationaler politischer Protest im historischen Längsschnitt." In Globalisierung-Partizipation-Protest, eds. A. Klein, R. Koopmans, and H. Geiling. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.

Stiglitz, Joseph. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontent. New York: W.W. Norton.

Strange, Susan. 1997. "The Erosion of the State." Current History 96 (November), 365-69.

Seidman, Gay W. 2000. "Adjusting the Lens: What Do Globalizations, Transnationalism, and the Anti-apartheid Movement Mean for Social Movement Theory." In Globalization and Social Movements: Culture, Power, and the Transnational Public Sphere, eds. J. Guidry, M. Kennedy, and M. Zald, 315-57. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Smith, Jackie. 2001. "Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the Future of Social Movements." Mobilization 6 (1) (Spring). Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, Charles. 1986. The Contentious French. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Toffler, Alwin. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Random House.

Walk, Heike and Nele Boehme. 2002. Globaler Widerstand: Internationale Netzwerke auf Der Suche nach Alternativen im globalen Kapitalismus. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

Wallerstein, Immanuel M. Utopistics, or, Historical Choices of the Twenty-First Century. New York: New Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel M. 1974. Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the 16th Century. San Diego: Academic Press.

Warkentin. 2001. Reshaping world politics: NGOs, the Internet, and global civil society. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Hermann Maiba is a doctoral student at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a 2002 GSC Dissertation Fellow currently residing at the Informal Secretariat of People's Global Action in Berlin, where he is researching and training for his dissertation project entitled "Transnational Grassroots Mobilization Against Globalization." His Ph.D. dissertation attempts to understand the interaction between macro-structural transformation that characterizes the process of globalization and its impact on the working of the informal spectrum of the current social movement activism. Feedback is encouraged. Please send your correspondence to hmaiba1@uic.edu.