I'm not quite finished reading Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, but I have a couple of ideas about their notion of plural democratic movements I wanted to jot down. To begin with, I have a lot of problems with Laclau and Mouffe, and feel that their text lacks a real sense of concrete praxis. They offer a lot of theory and description, but very little action. I also totally agree with Chris' post about the valorization of consumer difference as a false start for social change. Getting your coffee at Espresso A Mano instead of Starbucks doesn't pose a real threat for consumer capitalism (even if it does get you some great coffee).
That being said, I think there are some great jumping off points in Laclau and Mouffe's text that can lead to innovative ways of thinking about social change. I'm at once attracted and repulsed by their notion that the left is increasingly fragmented and further from class-based struggle in the West. But it remains a fact that most activism and policy change since the 60s has been driven by independent social movements. Instead of a unified front, we see a diversity of small culturally based groups struggling for rights and recognition before the state. This has been a constant thorn in the side of left traditionalists trying to regain the fervor and clout that a unified front can gain.
But then I started thinking about the internet and new ways of doing things that have arrived. Of course, L&M were writing before the widespread availability of the internet, but they seem to prefigure some important movements in society. For one thing, I think that we can re-read the fragmentation of the left into identity politics as a hyperlinked movement. It is not that feminist groups do not care about poverty or racial equality at all; there's a long history of crossover between these movements and mutual support. And even if the Human Rights Campaign doesn't have a lot to say about the rights of students with disabilities, there is an underlying connection and cohesion between the two struggles, and few (if any) contradictions. If we conceive of the fragmented social movements current today on the "left" (if we can simplify it to that anymore) we can see potential for real support between and among groups. By dividing the struggle into small campaigns, there is a chance to focus on specific changes and struggles. The real challenge is connecting disparate groups into a cohesive collection of hyperlinks, groups co-sponsoring policy changes and moving towards a contingent, changing definition of justice.
If you look at the case of the Republic Windows and Doors factory in Chicago, there were not just labor agitators standing in solidarity with the workers. When the workers went on strike, a vast network of activists connected and showed up in support, bringing food and bodies to help the efforts. I knew queer activists, anarchists, feminists and immigrant rights activists who showed their support in a variety of ways. The success of the striking workers did not depend only on the efforts of labor power (though the workers deserve a HUGE amount of credit), but on a diffused network of concerns that recognized their common ground.
This model is scary, though. Without a clear plan or strong leaders, it's easy to see the whole damn thing going down in flames pretty fast. But that's one of the dangers inherent in democracy: you never know what the people are going to do. That being said, we live on the verge of new technologies and new ways of looking at the world. And despite predictions to the contrary, I don't think that a fragmented left is all that bad. It escapes the essentializing and bureaucratizing tendencies of a unified "party" and remains open to modification and change. Is there a change we can believe in? Probably not, but there might be a lot of little changes that we can support, and that starts to add up.
No comments:
Post a Comment