The Counter Globalisation Movement As Multitude –

Hope and Abundance: The counter globalisation movement as multitude – breaking the logic of pathological modernity By James Arvanitakis A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy School of History of Philosophy and Science University of New South Wales, 2006 ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’ Signed ……………………………………………........................... ii Abstract Using the theoretical work of Hardt and Negri’s Empire and Beck’s Risk Society, I define current experiences of modernity as ‘pathological’. The term ‘pathological modernity’ is used because it portrays a modernity dominated by ‘spirals of crisis’ that are aggravated by the solutions proposed to solve them. Like the ‘war on terror’ and environmental degradation, I argue that many crises facing the world today reflect the characteristics of capital as they globalised, branded, hybridised, boundless and endless. ‘Pathological modernity’ has various dimensions including a Cartesian logic underscored by an ‘eternal truth’, free-market fundamentalism, certainty in decision making, and a scientism which believes all challenges can be overcome. Additional dimensions include an operational form of biopower, pathological reflexivity, and a frontier disposition that continually encloses non-commodified spaces (or commons) creating a crisis of scarcity. Despite its dominance, pathological modernity is being challenged on many fronts. Amongst these is the ‘counter-globalisation’ movement (CGM). A heterogenous movement, it represents a qualitatively different form of globalisation and logic that brings it into conflict with pathological modernity. Using participatory research I investigate this movement grounding it within Hardt and Negri’s (2004) ‘multitude’. Extending Hardt and Negri’s descriptions, I propose that the multitude ‘works in common’ to establish new commons in both the physical and cultural spheres. Concentrating on the ‘cultural commons’ I argue that these represent a new form of biopolitics and promote abundance where scarcity once existed. The four cultural commons identified are hope, trust, safety and intellect. Based on the work of Marcel Mauss, I argue that the reciprocal, free and open exchange and sharing of these cultural commons creates ‘authentic’ communities based on iii openness, alterity and abundance. While the CGM works to establish new commons, pathological modernity encloses and commodifies them, turning hope into material aspirations; trust into anxiety; safety into security; and intellect into intellectual property. iv Acknowledgements A central theme that emerges in this thesis is that the non-commodified and reciprocal exchange of commons is the key to establishing ‘authentic’ communities. In this way, central to a decent ‘academic community’ is the open and non-commercial exchange of ideas and intellect – a process that leads to innovation and the expansion of knowledge. Accordingly, I would like the reader to recognise that this thesis has developed in the same way. There are many academics, activists, friends and strangers who have contributed to this work. Without their input, this thesis would not have been possible. All they have asked in return is a reciprocal relationship – an exchange of my knowledge in the same non-commercial way. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge the following: • Firstly, my supervisor Dr Stephen Healy, who continually motivated, inspired and pressed me to produce work that could be considered, in his words, ‘scholarly, robust and acceptable’. I have much to thank him for. • There were a number of other academics who openly shared their ideas including Dr Paul Brown, Dr James Goodman, Dr Virginia Watson, Dr Donna Green and Duncan McDuie. I would also like to thank Paul, James and Virginia for offering me employment within academia that allowed me to both support this work and expand my knowledge as ‘a teacher’. • My friends who edited all or parts of this work including Dr Inga Brasche and Jeff Sinclair. • The many activists around the world who shared their experiences with me and guided my thoughts. I would particularly like to thank the activists who risked their safety to assist me, those involved with AID/WATCH and Oxfam’s International Youth Parliament. v • My many friends who were just there for me including the family I get to choose, Marky, Victoria, Camarooni, Ming, Davey, Scotty, May-May, KB, Nicole, Angela, Melanie, JAZ Rees, Duncs, Nadine (Bluey), Shannon, Daisy, Wahid, Mim, Barbara, Roddy and my family, the Arvanitakis clan, who supported me in their own special way. • Finally, I would like to thank Jacki Hayes who provided me with motivation, inspiration, friendship and endless support. Quite simply I could not have done it without her and it is something for which I will be forever indebted. While I mention a handful of people here, there are many that I do not… I would also like to thank you. vi Table of Contents ORIGINALITY STATEMENT...................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ V TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. VII LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ XII CHAPTER 1: PREFACE................................................................................................. 1 1.1 CONTEXTUALISING THIS THESIS: A TIME OF GLOBALISATION ............................... 5 1.2 AIMS OF THIS THESIS............................................................................................ 8 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS THESIS ................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 12 2.1 THE PROBLEMATIQUE ........................................................................................ 12 2.2 WHY PATHOLOGICAL MODERNITY? ................................................................... 17 2.3 ANOTHER ‘MODERNITY’ OR A TOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH?............................. 19 2.4 PATHOLOGICAL MODERNITY – A PROVISIONAL DIAGNOSIS ............................... 23 2.5 RESISTANCE AND THE COUNTER-GLOBALISATION MOVEMENT........................... 26 2.6 CONCLUDING COMMENTS .................................................................................. 29 CHAPTER 3: PATHOLOGICAL MODERNITY ...................................................... 30 3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 30 3.2 A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................ 31 Contextualising Hardt and Negri’s ‘Empire’ ........................................................... 32 Beck’s ‘Risk Society’................................................................................................. 34 3.3 CARTESIAN LOGIC.............................................................................................. 37 Certainty and the eternal right ................................................................................. 38 Science as the answer ............................................................................................... 41 Free market fundamentalism and hyper-commodification....................................... 43 Globalising the Cartesian logic................................................................................ 47 vii 3.4 BIOPOWER ......................................................................................................... 49 Understanding ‘operational’ biopower .................................................................... 49 Normalisation and the eternal right ......................................................................... 51 Pathological modernity and operational biopower.................................................. 54 3.5 PATHOLOGICAL REFLEXIVITY ............................................................................ 55 An internal contradiction… sounds like Marx?........................................................ 56 Pathologically reflexive ............................................................................................ 58 3.6 CONCLUDING COMMENTS .................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER 4: THE COMMONS .................................................................................. 62 4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 62 4.2 DEFINING THE COMMONS..................................................................................

Load more