COLLECTIVE IDENTITY AND CONTRACTUAL COOPERATION: AN ACTIVIST RESEARCH APPROACH
By Josephine Barraket
thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy
University of New South Wales
1999 I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published of written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has 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 not 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 fromothers in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.
Signature ...... -·· ...... d . Name ...... Jo.s.l. f.�.i�.. &.r r�!...... Date ...... i./1.f.9.1 ...... Acknowledgements
The production of this thesis would not have been possible without the participation of the members of Alfalfa House Community Food Cooperative, and to each and every one of them I am grateful. In particular, my thanks to the following Alfalfans for their support, contributions, and friendship during the time of researching this thesis: Jude Bellicanta; Elyse Callaghan; Suzanne Fraser; Bruce Fry; Kathy Grattan; Di Gulson; Shane Higoe; Laveana McNamara; Trish McEwan; and Phil Maher. The Alfalfa House community is ever changing, so my thanks, too, to those who continue to be sources of support and friendship 'beyond' the thesis.
Thank you to my excellent supervisor, Dr Eileen Baldry, who offered me all of the benefits of supervision, and none of the liabilities. Thanks also to my co-supervisor, Dr Damian Grace, who challenged me to be accountable for my ideas, and taught me never to apologise.
Special thanks to my friend, Warwick Moss, for his willingness to proofread, and his technical assistance.
Finally, my sincere gratitude to my family - both the one I was born into, and the one I chose for myself - for their support and endurance throughout the journey. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
ALL THAT MOVES IS NOT A MOVEMENT ...... 1
SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY - POSTMODERN POSSIBILITIES ...... 4
EXPLORING A CONSUMER COOPERATIVE IN THE LIGHT OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES ...... 5
ACTIVIST RESEARCH APPROACH - THE METHOD IS THE MESSAGE ...... 7
CONCLUSION ...... 9
CHAPTER ONE: POSTMODERN INFLUENCES ...... 10
THE POSTMODERN TURN: A BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10
The 'postmodern condition' ...... 12
Postmodern themes in the social sciences ...... 13
A note on power...... 15
LOCAL KNOWLEDGES, MULTIPLICITY, & SELF-REFLEXIVITY: POSTMODERN INFLUENCES IN THE
PRESENT STUDY ...... 16
Against grand narrative: the quest for local knowledges ...... 17
Searching for truths_: multiple meanings, varied voices ...... 19
Self-reflexivity as a postmodern strategy ...... 20
THE POSTMODERN PARADOX: DIVERGENCES IN THIS STUDY ...... 22
CONCLUSION ...... 25
CHAPTER TWO: SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY ...... 27
INTRODUCTION ...... 27
'SOCIAL MOVEMENT' & 'COLLECTIVE ACTION', - DEFINITIONAL DISTINCTIONS ...... 27
THEORY AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS - A POSTMODERN POSITION ...... 29
SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW ...... 31
THE NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT PARADIGM ...... 42
'New social movements' & 'postindustrial society': definitional categories or social reality? .... 42
New Social Movements, Participation, and Democracy...... 47
COLLECTIVE IDENTITY - A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO SOCIAL MOVEMENTS ...... 48
Multiplicity: ...... 51 Dynamism ...... 52
Self-Reflexivity ...... 53
Action Orientation ...... 54
'COMMUNITY': A SITE OF ACTION AND A SITE FOR STUDY? ...... 55
CONCLUSION ...... 63
CHAPTER THREE: CONTRACTUAL COOPERATION ...... 65
DEFINING TERMS ...... 65
'Cooperation' and 'Cooperatives' ...... 66
'Cooperativism ' ...... 67
'The cooperative movement' ...... 67
'Contractual Cooperation' - Organisational Types: ...... 68
ORIGINS OF MODERN COOPERATION ...... , ... 69
The 'first wave' - 1817 -1834 ...... 70
Birth of the modern cooperative - the Rochdale weavers ...... 73
Formation of the International Cooperative Alliance ...... 74
Directed cooperation - after World War Two ...... 76
The 'new wave': cooperation in the 1960s and beyond...... 77
COOPERATION TODAY: THE ICA STATEMENT ON THE COOPERATIVE IDENTITY ...... 78
IDEOLOGICAL ORIENT ATI ONS OF COOPERATION ...... 81
COOPERATIVISM- AN 'INVISIBLE' SOCIAL MOVEMENT? ...... 83
Focus OF THE STUDY: A PROFILE OF ALFALFA HOUSE ...... 88
History...... 89
Aims and objectives ...... 90
Pricing system ...... 95
Membership requirements: ...... 95
Organisational structure ...... 97
Membership ...... 97
Volunteer Coordinators ...... 97
Staff...... 98
Management Committee ...... 98
Working groups ...... 98
ALFALFA HOUSE-A 'NEW WAVE' COOPERATIVE ...... 99 COLLECTIVE IDENTITY & NEW WAVE COOPERATION: A LOCAL APPROACH ...... 100
NEW WA VE COOPERATIVISM & NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS ...... 101
CONCLUSION ...... 102
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY ...... 103
'METHODOLOGY' VS 'METHOD' ...... 104
A NOTE ON POSITIVISM ...... 105
CONCEPTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE & ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH ...... 106
ALAIN TOURAINE & 'INTERVENTION SOCIOLOGIQUE' ...... 108
ALBERTO MELUCCI'S EARLIER METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ...... 111
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (PAR) ...... 114
The limitations and complexities of PAR for the study of social movements ...... I 18
PAR: postmodern possibilities: ...... 123
THE COLLECTIVE IDENTITY APPROACH ...... 125
The role of the researcher ...... 127
Conceptualisation of Power in Research ...... 127
Context Specific Research ...... 128
Action Outcomes ...... 128
Reflection and Reflexion ...... I 29
THEORETICAL BACKDROP OF THE ACTIVIST RESEARCH APPROACH ...... 130
'DOING' ACTIVISTRESEARCH ...... 130
CONCLUSION ...... 131
CHAPTER FIVE: METHOD ...... 132
PHASE ONE- ORGANISATION OF THE PROJECT AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORKING CONTEXT ...... 132
Relocation ...... I 32
Participation ...... I 33
PHASE Two - IDENTIFYING THE RESEARCH PROJECT ...... 135
Conceptualisation of the Community Food Cooperative Development Project ...... 135
1996 Members' Survey ...... 136
PHASE THREE- DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ...... 137
Design of the 1996Alfalfa House Members' Survey ...... 137
Design of the Follow-Up Interviews ...... 137 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ...... 138
Administration of the written questionnaire ...... 138
Conducting Interviews ...... 138
Analysis of Results ...... 139
PHASE FIVE: DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PROJECTS ...... 140
PHASE SIX: SELF REFLEXION - WRITING UP THE STUDY ...... 140
CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS ...... 142
SUMMARY OF RESULTS- MEMBERS' SURVEY ...... 142
Response Rate ...... 142
Period of Membership of Alfalfa House ...... 142
Membership of Other Co-operatives and Like-Minded Organisations ...... 142
Alfalfa House Work Contributions ...... 144
Reasons For Not Working ...... 145
Member lnvolvement ...... 146
Requests for new products and discontinuation of current products ...... 147
Members' Likes and Dislikes ...... 147
Describing Alfalfa House ...... 150
Additional comments ...... 151
CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...... 153
ACTIVIST RESEARCH OBSERVATIONS: UNPACKAGED TOURS & MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DECISION
MAKING ...... 154
Unpackaged Tours...... 154
Management Committee Decision Making ...... 156
THE COMMUNITY FOOD CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: A BRIEF ANALYSIS ...... 158
THE 1996 MEMBERS' SURVEY AND FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS ...... 160
Results ...... 161
Service and Meaning: The Rationales of Contractual Cooperation? ...... 161
Service and Meaning: Members' motivations for involvement in Alfalfa House ...... 162
The 'Meaning' of 'Service': a collapsed distinction ...... 165
"Service and Meaning Rationales" vs "Economic and Social Philosophies" ...... 169
'Action', 'Collectivism', and 'Community': Collective Identity and Alfalfa House ...... 174 Cooperation as Collectivism ...... 174
'Community': Popularly cited, variously used...... 175
Community and Collective Jdentity ...... 178
Exclusion vs inclusion: Disruptions to Collective identity ...... 179
Cooperation as Action ...... 182
Co-operation & Collective Identity: A 'New Social Movement' Interpretation ...... 185
ALFALFA HOUSE AND NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Two INTERPRETATIVE POSSIBILITIES ...... 196
CONCLUSION ...... 198
CHAPTER EIGHT: REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION ...... 200
POWER, RESEARCH, AND REFLECTIVE 'PARALYSIS' ...... 200
Research participant control of the research ...... 201
Researcher Immobilisation ...... 202
THE RESEARCHER AS ACTIVIST: TENSIONS, CONTRADICTIONS AND POSSIBILITIES ...... 205
Possibilities ...... 205
Tensions ...... 206
Contradictions ...... 207
STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF THE STUDY: SOME 'LOCAL' CONSIDERATIONS ...... 210
Self-Reflexivity ...... 213
Action Orientation ...... 213
A NOTE ON IRREDUCIBILITY AND THE RESEARCH WRITE-UP...... 217
CONCLUSION ...... 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 223
APPENDIX ONE: ALFALFA HOUSE PRODUCT LIST ...... 232
APPENDIX TWO: 1996 MEMBERS' SURVEY ...... 236
APPENDIX THREE: REPORT TO THE ALFALFA HOUSE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
ON THE 1996 MEMBERS' SURVEY ...... 241 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE ONE ...... 91 FIGURE TWO ...... 92 FIGURE THREE ...... 92 FIGURE FOUR...... •.•...... •...... •...... •....•...... •...... 93 FIGURE FIVE ...... 93 INTRODUCTION
Movement implies change, a transformation of energy, a physical shift from one place to another, a progression or development. It may be a deliberate 'step forward' or a reaction ( or reflex) to external forces. Movement is not a 'thing', but a transformative process, which is fundamental to the continued existence of a living person and, equally, a living society (Baldry, 1992: 1). In an increasingly globalised society which is characterised by rapid technological development, the ability to move in reaction to external change - by transforming one's self or one's society - is viewed as both an advantage and a necessity. Deliberate movement for societal change, however, is by no means a contemporary phenomenon. Throughout known history, and across many cultures, so called, 'social movements' have influenced transformations in economic, political, and cultural spheres. These movements have been the subjects of analyses in a number of disciplines, including sociology.
All that moves is not a movement What is a social movement? Definitions of the term seem to be as varied as the sociological theorists who discuss it. The following definitions, by way of example, are a mere 'snapshot' from the literature.
Australian theorist, Jan Pakulski employs what he calls the "sociological definition" of social movement, that is, "recurrent patterns of collective activities which are partially institutionalised, value oriented and anti-systemic in their form and symbolism" (Pakulski, 1991: xiv). For Pakulski, social movements involve multiple numbers of individuals or groups, and have a recognisable 'form' which is distinguishable from mainstream political organisation.
In a discussion of social movement theory in a Latin American context, Foweraker (1995) takes up a different emphasis to Pakulski, stating that collective action is only a social movement when it exhibits:
a sense of collective purpose and the kind of political objectives (construed broadly) which require interaction with other political actors, very often state actors; and, unlike interest groups or. .. non-governmental organizations ... , it must also mobilize its supporters in pursuit of its goals (Foweraker, 1995: 4).
In Foweraker's definition, the 'collective' dimension of social movement is not simply a question of numbers, but a fundamental unit of meaning, a driving purpose. Foweraker also suggests that the political orientation of social movements requires at least some interaction with mainstream, or institutionalised politics.
In contrast, Claus Offe distinguishes between an 'old' and 'new' paradigm of social movements, and argues that contemporary, or new, social movements (such as the ecology, women's, sexual identity, and peace movements) specifically claim their space of action as noninstitutional politics, where the use of the word political implies: " ... that the actor make some explicit claim that the means of action can be recognized as legitimate and the ends of action can become binding for the wider community" (Offe, 1987: 69). In Offe's conceptualisation of social movement, direct interaction with institutional politics is not excluded, but is also not a necessity. Offe views new social movements as often being 'noninstitutional' in their orientation and forms, and as always challenging boundaries between institutional politics and civil society (Offe, 1987: 65).
While the definitions above vary in some of their details, what is common to them all is an assumption that social movements are discrete forms of collective action, which encompass a number of distinctive features. That is to say, these theorists talk about social movements as if they are finite and recognisable 'entities'. The very term, 'collective actor', which is used frequently by theorists in reference to social movement organisations or networks, personifies the collective activities encompassed by social movements, suggesting a unified 'identity' which acts in a deliberate and self-conscious way. Similarly, the word 'movement' implies change in one direction only at any one time, thereby assuming collective unity.
This thesis is an attempt to question the assumed unity of the collective activities known as social movements, by shifting the focus of analysis from 'what' a social movement is to 'how' the collective identity, which provides the foundation for 'social movement', forms and perpetuates within a field of action. The underlying
2 premise of the thesis is that traditional sociological understandings of what a social movement is have affected how we have investigated, and thus come to recognise, this apparently distinctive form of collective action. This argument assumes a certain circularity in the relationship between investigation and knowledge formation. That is, it postulates that presumptions about the social world shape the method of investigation, which in turn, predetermine, or at least influence, the resulting knowledge. Consequently, by reflecting on how we come to know 'social movements', we may be able to open up new ways of thinking about and explicating the multiplicity of activities, relationships, and discourses through which this 'type' of collective action is formed.
One of the primary objectives of this thesis, then, is to challenge the limitations of our existing understandings of social movement activity. The intention of this challenge is to further existing knowledge in a manner which makes both a scholarly contribution to current theoretical accounts, and a practical contribution to the collective activities which are the focus of my study. In this way, my thesis is an attempt to 'democratise' social movement theory, by making the process and outcomes of the research serve the collective aims of the activists involved, as well as making a contribution to the existing body of social movement theory.
In this study, I examine sociological theories of social movements in order to critically explore how these theoretical understandings have been shaped, and therefore limited, by the methodologies adopted to investigate the collective activities which are identified as social movements. Having discussed the ways in which our theoretical knowledge of social movements has been ordered by the research methods used to investigate them, I go on to develop an explicitly 'method led' research framework, the 'Activist Research Approach', which takes up certain features of the interdisciplinary method, Participatory Action Research (PAR), and action theorist, Alberto Melucci's, 'collective identity approach'. As a method led study, this thesis is as concerned with research processes as it is with research outcomes.
3 In developing one new approach to social movement studies, I do not discount existing sociological knowledge in this field altogether, but challenge some of the limitations of these theories when represented as universal explanations of the diverse and sometimes contradictory activities, networks and constructions of 'collective purpose' within a given field of action. Following on from the action research tradition introduced by Alain Touraine and Alberto Melucci, the aim of the Activist Research Approach is to provide us with a framework for investigating those so-called informal aspects of collective identity formation - through engagement with the activists concerned - which have been submerged, or rendered invisible by other theoretical and methodological approaches. I will be specifically concerned with an approach which operates in a localised context, and which focuses on the generation of research outcomes in collaboration with participating activists.
Social movement theory - postmodern possibilities The Activist Research Approach towards collective identity formation takes up a number of features of the broad ranging theoretical and practical orientation known as postmodernism. I discuss postmodernism, and its significance to this study in detail in the following chapter. Briefly here, adopting a postmodern approach to the study of social movements opens up a number of important possibilities. Postmodernism is primarily concerned with revealing the discursive construction of truth and knowledge. Consequently, a postmodern approach to the study of social movements compels us to question the underlying assumptions upon which social movement theories have been based. In so doing, this approach encourages us to explore how we have come to know what we know about these forms of collective activity, and thus, to reflect on the limitations of that knowledge.
Further, postmodernism premises an understanding of knowledge as culturally, historically, and ideologically contingent, rather than as mere reflection of a stable underlying 'reality'. The postmodern idea that knowledge is a product of dominant discourse implies that there is more than one way of 'knowing', or explaining, social phenomena such as social movements. This approach lends itself to the consideration of those explanatory frameworks and constructions of meaning which have not received recognition within existing theoretical accounts of social movement
4 formations. It encourages us to explore the gaps and silences which are necessarily instated by generalised observations of the social world.
In the particular case of social movement theory, postmodemism is suggestive of a research approach which focuses on two important issues. The first of these is the exploration of social movement activity beyond the formalised organisations and recognisable leaderships which render social movements 'visible', and which have thus been the foci of a number of leading theories. The second is the consideration of if and, if so, how a sense of collective purpose is developed and sustained by a network of individuals and groups with potentially diverse beliefs, interests, and needs. Both of these issues are of primary interest throughout this study. I will explore them in relation to a specific form of action which is of interest to me, that of contractual cooperation.
Exploring a consumer cooperative in the light of social movement studies In its most general sense, cooperation is understood to mean working together in some complementary manner in order to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. This may be implicit, or unconscious, or deliberately and explicitly established. Cooperation is a basic social process which has been variously theorised in relation to human beings as: a process of evolution; part of 'human nature' - that is, genetic predisposition; a result of socialisation; a strategy used for individual survival; a commitment to collective survival (for a comprehensive review of these theories, see: Alexrod, 1984; Argyle, 1991; Combs, 1992). Contractual cooperation, which is embodied by cooperatives, and which provides the field of action for this study, is of a formal and simultaneously voluntary nature, and is based on "an explicit agreement between individuals to work together towards the achievement of a common goal (Craig, 1993: 14). I provide a detailed discussion of cooperatives, their history and underlying philosophies, in Chapter Three.
In this thesis, I explore the possibilities of the Activist Research Approach in the context of a close study of and with a non-profit community food cooperative located in Sydney, Australia. I have chosen to focus on a community based food cooperative,
5 rather than another activity or organisation which is more recognised as being part of a 'social movement', for several reasons.
First, while contractual cooperation has been and continues to be identified as a social movement by cooperative historians and practitioners, it is rarely acknowledged in existing theoretical accounts of either 'old' or 'new' social movements. Indeed, any sociological understanding or recognition of contractual cooperation appears to be extremely limited. Claus Offe (1987), in fact, appears to be the only leading social movement theorist who addresses contractual cooperation at all. In his discussion of the 'old' and 'new' paradigms of social movement, he makes very brief reference to consumer cooperatives as an 'old' social movement, when suggesting that the major new social movements draw on and make positive reference to the old (Offe, 1987: 101). With the exception of this minor note, there is a dearth of references to contractual cooperation in social movement literature. In Chapter Three, I explore this issue in some detail. The point to make here is that I have chosen to focus my study on a cooperative in order to draw attention to, and begin to explore, a field of action which has been largely ignored by sociologists in general, and social movement theorists in particular.
The implication of such a focus is not to prove that an externally distinguishable and internally homogenous entity - the 'cooperative movement' - exists. Indeed, to do so would be to reinstate a generalised theory of social movements which this thesis seeks to challenge. However, cooperative activity has been reified as a 'social movement', both by its practitioners and its critics. This suggests that at least some forms of contractual cooperation offer sites for the formation of a sense of collective purpose or identity. In keeping with a postmodern commitment to exploring traditionally silenced voices, this study is an exploratory attempt to examine if and, if so, how members of a small consumer cooperative construct their collective identity.
The second reason for my focus on a community based food cooperative stems from the intended purpose of the activist research approach to contribute positively to the field of action being studied, as well as to the scholarly knowledge of that field. I come to this thesis having been involved in the development of community based
6 food cooperatives for several years. This involvement was precipitated by my participation in the ecology movement, where I found myself 'burnt out' by large scale campaigns (such as those against old growth logging and uranium mining), which often appear to have minimal effect for maximum effort. I became drawn to those small scale activities and projects (such as the establishment of cooperatives and community gardens) which lent themselves to the physical transformation of one's local environment, and in which my contribution seemed effective and was personally rewarding.
Since becoming involved with the cooperative movement, I have been a founding member of a university based food cooperative and a long term management committee member of a community food cooperative, as well as assisting a number of other groups in their own efforts to establish similar enterprises. I have an ongoing commitment to contractual cooperation, and an interest in furthering current theoretical and practical understandings of cooperatives in general, and community based consumer cooperatives specifically. This study was attempted with the explicit aim of facilitating relevant and useful research outcomes for the collectivity involved, while at the same time exploring contractual cooperation in the light of social movement theories.
Activist Research Approach - the method is the message The research approach developed in this study is not intended as a methodological blueprint for the study of all forms of activity underlying recognised social movements. Rather, the aim of the Activist Research Approach (ARA) is to provide a framework for the exploration of collective identity formation which is responsive to the specific context in which the research takes place. The framework I have developed draws on two existing approaches. The first of these is an interdisciplinary approach known as Participatory Action Research (PAR) which developed out of the work of psychologist, Kurt Lewin, in the 1940s. The second approach upon which I have drawn is Melucci's collective identity approach (Melucci, 1995), which is the methodological counterpart of his theoretical understanding of the process he has coined as 'collective identity'. I discuss the strengths and limitations of these
7 approaches, and the ways in which they have informed my own methodology in Chapter Four.
I have developed the ARA on the basis of my experiential understandings of collective identity formation, and in response to the limitations of other methodological approaches as identified in the literature and from my own analysis. The approach is underpinned by a postmodem emphasis on process. This emphasis is grounded in an understanding that research methods are not simply the value free tools by which we discover a stable underlying reality, but rather that the processes of discovery are shaped by our existing understandings of, and assumptions about, the very world we seek to know.
In the broadest terms, the main features of the ARA may be summarised as:
• a focus on highly contextualised research which renders specific, rather than generalisable, results;
• the radicalisation of the traditional role of the 'objective' or 'distant' researcher, in favour of the self reflexive researcher who analyses the process of research, and her/his own impact on the field of study;
• an intellectual and ideological commitment to collaborate with the collectivity involved in a manner appropriate to the priorities, and action and decision making frameworks of that collectivity;
• a dynamic approach which is responsive to shifts in the priorities and actions of the participating group or network;
• an explicit attempt to listen to silences and contradictions in collective identity formation, as well as to explore themes and commonalities;
• an explicit undertaking to achieve positive action outcomes.
8 The activist research approach, in the context of this study, is concerned with developing new understandings of the complex web of activities, relationships, and networks which underpin what we recognise as social movements. It does not assume the existence of a distinctive 'social movement' but, rather, focuses on the processes by which the sense of collective identity, the notion of common purpose, is developed and sustained. Simultaneously, the ARA is self reflexively concerned with the nature of investigation, and the impact which research methods have on our theoretical understandings of the fields of action known as social movements. For the activist researcher, the method, as well as the resultant knowledge, is indeed the message.
In the current study, the ARA is used to challenge some of the underlying sociological assumptions and understandings of collective activities known as social movements within a highly specific research context. To the extent that the principles of the ARA are oriented around working collaboratively with small scale collectivities in a context specific manner, however, this methodology has important implications for other fields of study and practice, including community work and community development.
Conclusion This thesis is concerned with the exploration of activist research techniques in the light of social movement theories, within the specific context of a community based consumer cooperative. The direction and substantive focus of my research have been informed ideologically by my own interests as an activist, and intellectually by the postmodern challenges to sociological theory which have emerged over the last three decades.
The discussion so far provides the 'broad brushstrokes' of the study, which I fill out in the following chapters. Let me commence this project now with a discussion of the underlying intellectual influence of the study - postmodern developments in the discipline of sociology, and the possibilities and limitations of postmodernism for the study of social movement activities.
9 CHAPTER ONE: POSTMODERN INFLUENCES
The purpose of this chapter is to contextualise my research by outlining the ideas which have influenced my thinking throughout the study, and which have consequently shaped both the substantive focus and process of this thesis. This chapter, then, provides an 'intellectual backdrop', drawing out some of the key theoretical and ideological assumptions which inform the study as a whole.
The postmodern turn: a brief literature review I refer to the intellectual orientation which underpins this thesis as the 'postmodem tum'. This may be described broadly as a response to the inadequacy of traditional 'modernist' discourses to account for contemporary experience, of which rapid social, economic, and technological change are predominant features. In terms of the social sciences, the postmodem tum may be traced to Europe and north America in the late 1960s, where it emerged as an intellectual equivalent of the social rebellions which were taking place at the time.
In this section, I give a brief overview of the characteristics which are often ascribed to the ideas and practices identified within the postmodem tum. The intention of this overview is not to offer a detailed analysis of postmodernism and its many implications for sociological theory, an exercise which is not central to this thesis. Rather, I am concerned here with reviewing the relevant literature, in order to broadly describe an emerging postmodern 'trend' in the social sciences, and the ways in which this trend has informed my own approach to the study of social movements. While I find a number of the arguments of postmodernism persuasive, my own position is not strictly congruent with a purely postmodem approach. I discuss these divergences in a later section of this chapter.
10 To speak of the postmodem tum1 is to identify a wide ranging field of thought and application rather than a distinctly unified and universal theoretical approach. In fact, the meaning and relevance of postmodernity are the focus of extensive ongoing debate (see, for example, Lyotard 1984; Lash 1990; Giddens 1990; Jameson 1991; Rosenau 1992) which transgresses disciplinary and professional boundaries. The discussion and exploration of postmodernism have been taken up in literary, sociological, and education theories, and architectural, media, musical, and advertising practices, to name a few. In its breadth and transdisciplinary nature, the debate itself is not easily characterised. It has ranged from disagreements over whether postmodernism offers revolutionary and emancipatory possibilities on the one hand (Lyotard, 1984), to whether it constitutes the malaise of late stage capitalism on the other ( Jameson, 1991 ), to analyses of what defines the postmodern era (as distinct from the modem), to arguments that postmodemism is dead, and that it never really existed at all. While there has, and continues to be, an ongoing dialogue about postmodernism, the subject of this dialogue has been multiply defined.
In a discussion of the postmodern debate within the discipline of sociology, Owen (1997) highlights this diversity of definitions by listing the various ways in which the postmodem challenge has been articulated:
1. Postmodernity as an epoch or social formation ( distinct from, and succeeding, modernity). 2. Postmodernization as the social processes leading from modernity to postmodemity ... 3. Postmodemism as the social and political ideology which corresponds to the process of postmodemization and is directed towards the achievement of the condition of postmodernity ...
1Since the emergence of dialogue over postmodernism in the late 1960s, it has found its focus almost exclusively in the west . To assert the existence of a postmodern turn in sociology, then, is to be bound to a specifically western interpretation of recent history (Seidman, 1994: 2).
11 4. Postmodernism as a set of social and cultural beliefs, values and forms of behaviour which express living under postmodernization or in postmodemity ... 5. Postmodernism as the critique offoundationalism ... (Owen, 1997: 14).
Clearly, postmodern challenges to sociological theory in particular, and the social sciences in general, have been multiply focused, and constitute a significant body of literature. For the purposes of brevity, the following discussion will focus on the anti foundational and ideological aspects of the postmodern turn, as it is these which are most relevant to my study. In order to contextualise these arguments, however, let me very briefly describe the contemporary period which, broadly, has been characterised as postmodern by various writers.
The 'postmodern condition' The 'postmodem condition' of contemporary western society is argued by a number of theorists to be inscribed in economic and cultural practices. In economic terms, the postmodern era may be characterised as a "period of revitalised capital accumulation based on globalisation, which has helped bring about and resulted from new forms of production, distribution, and consumption" (Edwards, 1997: 14 ). Through the process of globalisation, national economies are becoming increasingly integrated as they compete in the international market (Edwards, 1997: 14 ). Such globalisation leads to the domination of the market economy, and the spread of western culture and institutions (Edwards, 1997: 14). Further, as cultural goods become increasingly commodified, the boundaries between economics and culture become blurred (Edwards, 1997: 15).
While the forces of globalisation produce homogenisation of cultural commodities, they paradoxically bring about new pressures for local autonomy and identity in the cultural sphere. Quoting Kenway et al, Edwards suggests that the increasing homogenisation and commodification of culture simultaneously induces effects of cultural specificity by bringing about "a renaissance of place-bound traditions and ways of life" (Kenway et al in Edwards, 1997: 15). In this sense, the effects of the 'postmodern society' catalyse resistances to their very influences, bringing about
12 challenges to the dominant discourses and ideological underpinnings of globalisation, and its associated economic and cultural practices.
Postmodern themes in the social sciences We may characterise postmodern themes as they have developed in the humanities and social sciences as laying bare the constructedness of knowledge, truth, and reality. Brown states that the postmodern or 'rhetorical' turn recognises social and cultural reality and, indeed, the social sciences themselves, as linguistic constructions (Brown, 1994: 229)2. In this view, truth and reason are not simply communicated through language, but are formed by the very practice of representation and interpretation which constitutes language. This approach challenges the assumed division between thought and expression, viewing knowledge instead as "poetically and politically constituted, "made" by human communicative action that develops historically and is institutionalized politically" (Brown, 1994: 229).
Seidman argues that this view of knowledge as being shaped in and by rhetorical processes serves to disrupt or question those features of knowledge which have been traditionally accepted as inherent. One of the implications of such questioning has been a blurring of the boundaries between science and 'nonscience' (Seidman, 1994: 2), and a consequent renunciation of scientism, which equates science and knowledge rather than recognising science as one form of knowledge. In the postmodern view, traditional scientific knowledge has gained privilege over other forms of knowledge, and thus has become a powerful tool. Rather than viewing science as the source of objectively true knowledge, many postmodernists identify it as an exercise of power which conceals itself under a veil of epistemic privilege (Seidman, 1994a: 124 ).
2It is useful at this point to acknowledge a distinction between postmodemism and post-structuralism. While the terms are often used interchangeably, there have been a number of efforts made to distinguish them (see Smart, 1993; Huyssen, 1986; Callinicos, 1985). For the purposes of the present discussion, I interpret post-structuralism to be a set of intellectual practices which emerged in France in the late 1960's in response to social rebellions of the time. These practices, which originated in literary theory, understand language in terms of competing discourses, and thus, as a significant site of political struggle (Weedon, 1987: 24). In its concern for the textual production of meaning, post structuralism may be seen as participating in - but not constitutive of - the postmodem project, which is more broadly concerned with exploring cultural conditions across a number of disciplines, including the arts, humanities, and sciences (Fook, 1996: 196).
13 Part of this process of concealment is that, within the boundaries constructed by scientific discourse, scientific theories are necessarily self - referential. As Hubbard points out in a feminist analysis, every scientific theory may be viewed as a self fulfilling prophesy in that it orders experience into the framework which science has itself constructed (Hubbard, 1983: 46). Further, while scientists appear to formulate their 'own' hypotheses, these are generally "formulated within a context of theory, so that their interoperations by and large are sub sets within the prevailing orthodoxy" (Hubbard, 1983: 4 7). That is, in conforming to the 'rules' of scientific inquiry, the researcher is in tum 'constructed' by the research process (Rosenau, 1992: 113). This discussion of the limitations of scientific discourse will be expanded upon in Chapter Four.
To the extent that traditional sociological theory has modelled itself on scientific discourse, postmodernists argue that it too has become a significantly powerful authorial voice which is governed by it own rules of construction (Brown, 1994: 233). From a postmodern perspective, then, traditional sociological theory may be interpreted as little more than rhetoric which legitimises the continuation of traditional theoretical and empirical practices of the discipline (Seidman, 1994a: 122). This suggests that traditional theory both interpellates reality, and does so under the guise of simply describing reality and, in short, is constitutive of ideological practice.
The postmodern position which I have summarised in the above paragraph is an entirely critical one which suggests an image of sociological tradition as an all powerful and malignant force. At this juncture, I wish to distinguish the orientation of this thesis from such a position on the basis of two issues. First, any 'postmodem' criticism which clings to a definitive understanding of 'powerful' and 'powerless', 'good' and 'bad', is indeed undermining its claim to postmodernism, which is centrally concerned with deconstructing such binary discursive constructions in order to lay bare the gaps and silences which they conceal. Second, to issue blanket criticisms of sociological theory is to assume a metatheoretical position which renders the postmodern theorist immune from the criticisms which s/he is directing at
14 other theorists and perspectives. This approach, which is supported by some postmodernist writers under the guise of 'deconstruction', lacks the critical self reflexivity which I believe is a fundamental and positive feature of the postmodern turn. I return to these issues below. Before discussing these issues further, it is necessary to consider the closely related issue of power.
A note on power In my review of postmodernist arguments so far, I have focused on the constructedness of knowledge and its implications for postmodern practice. It is important in any exploration of postmodern understandings of knowledge to consider the closely related issue of power. I would like to briefly explore this issue by drawing on Michel Foucault's conceptualisation of power. While Foucault himself eschewed the 'label' of postmodernism, his work has been frequently cited in the exploration of postmodern themes. I have included this discussion for two reasons. First, I believe that Foucault's conceptualisation of relations of power is complementary to the postmodern arguments I have reviewed so far. Second, I utilise a Foucauldian understanding of power throughout this study. This is a brief discussion, which cannot encompass the full breadth of Foucault's work on differentiated forms of power (see Foucault 1979a; Foucault 1979b; Foucault 1980; Foucault 1981).
Foucault rejects the notion of 'power', in favour of the term, 'relations of power', because the reality of powerful and powerless groups exist only in their relationships to each other (Moreau, 1984: 43). A Foucauldian understanding of power relations is that they are both constituted in, and an effect of, discourse. That is, power cannot be viewed as a type of possession, which some people have and others do not, but rather as a process of drawing from various discourses as a means of legitimising or representing one's actions in an acceptable light (Burr, 1995: 64).
If we view knowledge as the dominant or prevailing discourse (the 'grand narrative') relating to an event in a specific culture at a particular moment, then power is intimately bound up with that knowledge. That is, the dominant discourse instates particular social practices at the expense of other 'alternative' ways of acting. As
15 such, the power to act in particular ways is contingent on the dominant discourses, the systems of knowledge, which exist at the given moment (Burr, 1995: 64).
In Foucault's analysis, however, the relational nature of power means that it is not a system of domination exercised by one individual or group over another. Nor is it simply a negative or repressive control. Rather, power does not exist without resistance. In fact, to the extent that these resistances are formed at the point where power relations are exercised, they are all the more effective. In Foucault's words:
... the resistance to power does not have to come from elsewhere to be real, nor is it inexorably frustrated through being the compatriot of power. It exists all the more by being in the same place as power; hence, like power, resistance is multiple and can be integrated in global strategies (Foucault, 1980: 142).
In short, a Foucauldian conceptualisation of power is that it is ever present, shifting, and perpetually accompanied by resistances. This understanding of power, which I take as my focus and definition, has a number of implications for social research which I explore throughout this thesis. It is important to note at this stage that a number of the theories and methodologies discussed throughout are based on different understandings of power and resistance. While I will seek to identify their various understandings of power, my own critical analysis is grounded in an acceptance of Foucault' s definition
Local knowledges, multiplicity, & self-reflexivity: postmodern influences in the present study Having given a brief account of the postmodern turn as reflected in the literature, I would like now to turn to those specific features of postmodern arguments which I take up in this study. In so doing, I am seeking to link my theoretical discussion of postmodernism to an explanation of the study at hand, in order to illuminate the ways in which the study is informed by postmodern strategies.
16 Against grand narrative: the quest/or local knowledges Within this thesis, I have focused my study within a highly specific field of action - that of a non-profit community food cooperative located in inner western Sydney, Australia, and known as Alfalfa House. This choice was, in part, influenced by a postmodern emphasis on the significance of local knowledges. In its focus on the discursive production of knowledge, the postmodern approach identifies knowledge not simply as an objective product, but as an inherently persuasive symbolic process (Brown, 1994: 231 ). The implications of this conceptualisation of knowledge for traditional theoretical truth is that it is not a fixed and universalised entity, but is produced in and by dominant discursive practices, and instated at the expense of other, less privileged discourses. In a critical discussion of the narratives instated by great modernist social theorists, Seidman offers the example of Marx's model of capitalism. As he points out, this model assumed that the fact that "different societies have divergent national traditions, geopolitical positions, and political, cultural, familial-kinship, gender, racial, and ethnic structures would not seriously challenge the utility of [the model] as setting out the essential dynamics and direction of human history" (Seidman, 1994a: 129). In making this assumption, Seidman suggests, Marx's model effaces the significant sociohistoric differences between western and non-western societies, and among European and Anglo-American societies (Seidman, 1994a: 129).
The above example is not included here to discount the use of Marx's model as an analytical or interpretative tool. Rather, my concern is to briefly highlight how the acceptance of totalising theories necessarily authorises the social truths implicit in those theories. Where such theories make claims to absolute truth (whether these claims are explicit or implicit), they fail to recognise the heterogeneous, multiple, and contradictory social strains and currents which make up the existence of any society (Seidman, 1994a: 131 ).
This critique of theoretical construction is based upon a definition of theory as being synonymous with what Jay describes as "an edifice of increasingly abstract generalizations about the world, which [defenders of theory] claim is normatively
17 embodied in natural scientific theorization" (Jay, 1996: 170). In challenging the totalising tendencies of traditional theoretical discourse, a postmodem approach calls for densely contextual theoretical accounts, which recognise both themselves and the events they describe as operating at a particular point in time and within a specific social space (Seidman, 1994a: 128).
Such an approach is not merely a strategy aimed at avoiding the pitfalls identified in traditional theoretical forms, but a deliberate attempt to redress the exclusions and silences imposed by these forms. As Foucault states, this approach:
entertain[ s] the claims to attention of local, discontinuous, disqualified, illegitimate knowledges against the claims of a unitary body of theory which would filter, hierarchise and order them in the name of some true knowledge and some arbitrary idea of what constitutes a science and its objects (Foucault, 1994: 42).
In taking up a broadly postmodern emphasis on local knowledge and meaning, the focus of my study takes on particular significance. By conducting research in the highly specific context of a Sydney based food cooperative, I am concerned with claiming attention for some of the voices of activists which are largely ignored by the abstractions and generalisations of existing theories of social movements. At first glance, such an approach may appear to be simply a revision of the intersubjective strategies which have in the past been employed in social movement research3• In fact, the current study is a significant digression from this tradition as it focuses on the ways in which participants identify and ascribe meaning to their collective activity, rather than seeking to test their claims against some theoretically produced 'external' reality. This study is concerned with the local and the particular, with difference as well as similarity, rather than with developing another grand theory which seeks to explain the 'true essence' of all social movements.
3This and other traditional approaches will be overviewed in the following chapter.
18 In this respect, the research conducted within the food cooperative described in this thesis does not represent a case study from which we can make generalised observations about the consumer cooperative 'movement'. The personal truths and knowledges explored here do not represent examples of typical phenomena or exceptions to identified collective patterns ( Clifford, 1994: 216). Rather than offer any 'new' generalised knowledge about collective activity, my emphasis is on new conceptions of knowing and being which, as Rosenau suggests, offer "complexity, interrelationships, and a focus on difference in the absolute sense, the unique, and the local..." (Rosenau, 1992: 172-1 73). This represents a significant shift away from most existing theoretical explanations of social movements, which have suggested that collective activity may only be defined as social movement when it encompasses an 'international' or 'cross-cultural' dimension (see, for example: Offe, 1987; Touraine, 1997; Pakulski, 1991 ).
Searching for truth~: multiple meanings, varied voices The postmodern challenge to the established legitimacy of traditional theory is characterised not only by an emphasis on local and highly specific knowledge, but also by the closely related assertion that truth and meaning are not absolute. Postmodernism refutes the existence of an underlying stable reality, and therefore eschews the position that the ultimate 'truth' of that reality is simply revealed by observation and analysis (Burr, 1995: 14 ). In a period in which the volume and variety of information and information sources has rapidly increased, greater uncertainty as to what constitutes 'truth' and 'knowledge' has emerged (Edwards, 1997: 3). As I have discussed above, the postmodernist position on established truth and knowledge is that they are not simply reflections of reality, but rather that they are partial and privileged views of the world. That is, 'truth' and 'knowledge' are understood as being both constitutive of, and perpetuated by, dominant discourses. A postmodern approach is therefore concerned with exploring the construction of accepted truth and meaning, and giving attention to the multiple claims to truth and knowledge, the tensions and contradictions, which are necessarily silenced by generalised statements of truth and fact.
19 In keeping with this postmodern understanding of multiplicitous meaning, my study is as concerned with the exploration of difference and contradiction within and between members' explanations of Alfalfa House as it is with accounting for their perceptions of the common beliefs and collective purpose which underpin the activity of the co-op. Such an approach is particularly revealing in the context of social movement studies as, by their very purpose, social movement theories are traditionally concerned with the explanation and analysis of 'sameness' - that is, a group of people acting collectively towards a common and explicit goal - rather than 'difference'. I return to this issue in some detail in the following chapter.
Having asserted that this study is oriented around an explication of difference and multiplicity of meaning, I do not wish to proclaim that my analysis of Alfalfa House is entirely devoid of discussion of apparent themes and trends in members' construction of meaning with regard to their cooperative. Indeed, to explore any form of self defined collective activity without reference to common meanings and knowledge would be both analytically impossible and intellectually arrogant. As Melucci points out, the reification of social movements is practically necessary for collective actors, their opponents and observers in order to be able to speak about the field of action. This 'objectification' is, Melucci states, "a basic feature of the operation of human cognition and also a means of cognitive economy employed in speaking about the world" (Melucci, 1996: 80). Rather than ignore if and how Alfalfa House members construct a 'shared reality' in their perceptions of the co-op, I wish to both acknowledge this reality and explore the plurality of meanings and relations which exist within it. In undertaking such an analysis, I also endeavour - through a process of self-reflexivity - to maintain an awareness of my own tendencies as a researcher to reify the field of action I am studying.
Self-reflexivity as a postmodern strategy In the course of developing this study, I give attention to both the possibilities and limitations of existing theoretical understandings of social movements, with a view to building on our current knowledge rather than rejecting it out of hand. My research is also characterised by a recognition of the cultural and historical contingency of my own claims to truth. In this sense, I take up the postmodern
20 theoretical approach which seeks to lay bare its own ideological practices through a process of self-reflexivity. As Lemert describes it, post-modern4 social theory is "discursive in th[e] sense of transgressing the subject matter it interprets by constantly reflecting on the necessity and nature of interpretation itself' (Lemert, 1994: 269). Rather than responding to the traditional agenda of theory and research - that is, explanation and verification of objective truths - postmodernism is centrally concerned with the processes by which those truths are discursively produced.
It is my premise that, within a broadly postmodern approach, self reflexivity compels us to acknowledge contradiction, to identify the ideological assumptions underpinning the project at hand, thus resisting a 'smoothing over' of the very position or method which has been adopted. That is to say, as a postmodern technique, self reflexivity acknowledges that any mode of discourse, including postmodernism, is informed and shaped by ideological assumptions. Concerned as they are with the processes of knowledge production, then, postmodern approaches are constructed as perpetual practices-in-progress, rather than universal reflections of an objective 'reality'.
By focusing on the 'how' rather than the 'what' of knowledge production (Brown, 1994: 231 ), the postmodern turn seeks process or method driven theoretical approaches. Rather than accept sociological methods as the innocent instruments by which we seek objective knowledge, postmodern approaches challenge us to view those methods as the very means of encoding what we take to be real, normal, and unquestionable, what we take to be true (Brown, 1994: 230). From this position of reflection, we are faced with redefining our very understandings of what theory and research are (Brown, 1994: 230), and, indeed, what they could be. Such reconceptualisations necessarily require a self-reflexive approach - that is, a recognition of our own participation in the construction of 'truth' - which I have discussed above.
4Lemert in fact refers to post-structural, rather than postmodern social science here.
21 This thesis is characterised by an explicitly self-reflexive approach, by which I seek to both reveal my own ideological assumptions, and question the ways in which they inform my implementation and analysis of the study. In a social research context, such self-reflexivity cannot be limited to the research outcomes, but must also focus on how those outcomes came about - that is, on the research process. While the substantive objective is the exploration of collective identity formation in a local community based food cooperative, then, the very process of that exploration is the subject of analysis and reflection throughout the study. Given the significance of self-reflexivity to this thesis, I return to it explicitly in my discussion of Melucci's concept of collective identity in the following chapter, and again in my consideration of methodological issues in Chapter Four.
I should note here that pure self-reflexivity is impossible to achieve, as to create such a state would involve a potentially infinite cycle of reflecting upon reflexion. At the other extreme, a peripheral exploration of some of the problems implicit in one's research, is simply sound traditional scientific practice, rather than an explicit attempt to interrogate the gaps, silences, and contradictions instated in one's own work. This study attempts deeper self-reflection than that which is associated with traditional scientific rigour, and seeks to openly acknowledge the impact of the researcher on the field of research. This is, necessarily, a perpetually incomplete and partial process.
The postmodern paradox: divergences in this study Having identified and discussed those aspects of the postmodem debate which have influenced my research, I now wish to briefly consider what I see as the fundamental paradox of the postmodem tum and, finally, where this study diverges from a strictly postmodem approach. While postmodemism is constructed by its proponents as an oppositional approach which challenges the limitations of dominant research and theoretical practice, there has been some acknowledgement in the literature that the postmodem project is itself limited by the extent to which it must engage with that practice in order to critique it. Kate Soper aptly describes this paradoxical position in relation to post-structuralism specifically, when she states:
22 in so far as we want to cling to some of the insights of post-structuralist theory, we seem caught up in ways of explaining and justifying this inclination in terms which, strictly speaking, only make sense if we are prepared to defend certain [modern] forms of truth, ethical value and political principle" (Soper, 1991: 124).
In their attempts to deconstruct dominant mythologies, then, post-structuralists and, more generally, postmodernists, necessarily reinstate some of the patterns of meaning which underlie those mythologies.
South (1997) extends this point even further in a specific discussion of calls to deconstruct the field of criminology, by suggesting that there is a tendency in postmodernism to falsely 'construct' unity in order to then 'deconstruct' it. Considering a influential essay by Carol Smart, he points out that, in order to critically deconstruct the "broad church" of criminology, she must begin by homogenizing the subject, unifying in an artificial manner a field of knowledge which is "quite legitimately capable of embracing a variety of positions and critical stances "South, 1997: 85). This commitment to 'deconstruction for deconstruction's sake' can lead to the construction of 'straw people', the superficial summation of complex fields of discussion and debate, simply in order to maintain an unequivocally critical position on all established forms of knowledge, on all thoughts 'modern'.
Postmodernists may argue that this use of deconstruction is not true to the postmodern purpose, nor to Jacques Derrida's original conceptualisation of the process, which was based on close textual analyses in order to reveal silences and contradictions (see Derrida, 1981). Nevertheless, I would argue that, in some cases, deconstruction has been employed in this manner in the name of postmodernism. Seidman's blanket criticism of sociological theory, which I discussed in my review of the literature above, is a case in point. As Edwards has pointed out, "postmodem discourses construct modernity in particular ways, some more inclined towards distinguishing absolute breaks than others" (Edwards, 1997: 18).
23 I have a further concern with deconstructive practices, which relates not to their misuse, but to their pure use. In my discussion of self-reflexivity, I pointed out that pure self-reflexivity is impossible, as it would entail an infinite cycle of reflexion. In a similar vein, to take deconstruction and the relativism of truth and knowledge to its postmodern extreme, would be to enter a nihilistic state in which no facts can be stated, no truths asserted, no voices given the authority to speak. To be entirely deconstructive, it seems, is to 'tear down' existing knowledge and claims to truth without being able to authorise the establishment of any alternatives. This leads us to an important question, which has been articulated by South (1997), among others: "can postmodernism say anything constructive about responding to social conflict.. .and social problems?" (South, 1997: 93). In the context of my own research, I would add the question, can postmodernism accommodate the study of collective identity formation which takes up an explicit ideological position, with the stated aim of achieving positive action outcomes?
Ristock and Pennell ( 1996) have considered this question in relation to their own research in the broad areas of violence against women and children, and the development of democratic organisations. They have sought to address the issue by synthesising the deconstructive approach of postmodernism with the empowerment principles of feminist research. As they point out, empowerment has historically been of central significance to the feminist movement, with the primary strategy of empowerment being women telling their own stories. Since the emergence of 'second' wave feminism in the late 1960's, women have been articulating their realities as a means of initiating changes in the conditions of their gendered oppression (Ristock and Pennell, 1996: 3). Ristock and Pennell suggest that drawing postmodernism and feminism together in the context of empowerment:
... means rejecting universalising narratives while at the same time taking a firm political stance, affirming real people and their needs for social justice while at the same time destabilizing or disrupting categories that are socially constructed in order to reveal the workings of power and make it possible to
24 imagine alternative ways of thinking that will generate less oppressive relations (Ristock and Pennell, 1996: 7).
Ristock and Pennell propose what I would refer to as a ( de )constructive approach, rather a de( con)structive one. They are concerned with using postmodernism as a tool by which to construct alternatives to dominant discourses, rather than simply to reject those discourses. In so doing, they are explicitly concerned with employing postmodern techniques in a way which supports their commitment to the "visions and strategies of the women's movement" (Ristock and Pennell, 1996: 2).
My research does not take up an explicitly feminist standpoint. Nevertheless, I wish to acknowledge the influences of feminism in this study. The empowerment strategies of the women's movement, and the empowerment principles of feminist social theory, have certainly informed both my activism and my intellectual progress. Like Ristock and Pennell, I too undertake a ( de )constructive approach to my field of study. My use of postmodern strategies throughout this thesis is aimed at both questioning our current understandings of social movements, and building on these understandings through the exploration of alternatives. Further, these aims are adopted with a view to serving the interests of the activists involved.
Conclusion In the given outline of the 'postmodern turn', I have sought to describe the main features of a broad ranging field of thought which has developed across the humanities and social sciences in the west in the past three decades. The point of this brief discussion is to position this thesis within this so called postmodern turn, which I believe offers interpretatively powerful possibilities. While the focus of my study is the sociological field of social movements, my approach is informed by an intellectual trend which, by its very purpose, transgresses the divisions between different sociological fields and between sociology and other disciplines. The eclectic use of methodological and theoretical approaches, and informal and formal knowledges, which characterises this thesis, is a deliberate recognition and renegotiation of the limits imposed by disciplinary and academic boundaries.
25 The postmodern strategies taken up in this thesis enables the development of a study which is highly specific, and concerned with listening to a multiplicity of voices, and which demands a self-reflexive analysis of the researcher's own impact on the field of exploration. These strategies encourage the researcher to challenge dominant theories and the claims to truth instated by these theories, and to seek alternative explanatory frameworks which contribute to diverse understandings of the social world. I now wish to take up this challenge within the specific theoretical context of this study - that is, dominant sociological theories of social movements.
26 CHAPTER TWO: SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY Exploration requires bricolage, the gathering and piecing together of clues, the following of tracks that lead back to the starting point, the recognition of signs that are instantly recognizable, and the discovery ofother signs that were missed the first time round Alberto Melucci, 1989: 13.
Introduction In this chapter, I examine theoretical developments which have taken place in the field of study surrounding social movements. I provide a brief overview of theoretical shifts which have occurred in this field since the 1950' s, with a view to highlighting the limitations of theoretical approaches which are concerned either solely with the structural preconditions of movement action, or the motivations of individual participants. Focusing on the recent work of action theorist, Alberto Melucci - in particular, his concept of collective identity - I propose an alternative conceptualisation of 'social movements' as action systems operating within a systemic field. It is my assertion that an approach which resists the generalisation of grand theory - which identifies the multiplicity of relations at work within collective action, rather than conceiving of social movements as internally unified and externally distinguishable entities - will provide us with important and useful points of inquiry into contemporary social movement activity.
'Social Movement' & 'Collective Action', - definitional distinctions Before commencing an outline of the developments in social movement theory since the 1950s, it is necessary to define some important terms. Throughout this discussion, I variously refer to the terms 'social movements' and 'collective action', among others. When using the term 'collective action' here, I refer to any form of group or social activity, whereas the term 'social movement' refers to a specific form of collective mobilisation which has been sociologically defined. As I pointed out in my introduction, there is no singly accepted sociological definition of 'social movement' (see, for example: Oberschall, 1973; Offe, 1987; Pakulski, 1993; Touraine, 1985; Melucci, 1985). Despite the diverse definitional uses of the term, however, it seems generally understood among theorists that a social movement is a specific form of 'collective action'. I seek to use these terms in a contextually
27 appropriate manner throughout the following overview, in order to give an accurate account of each of the theoretical perspectives presented. My use of these terms, then, is intended to reflect particular theorists' use of the available terminology.
As I discussed in the previous chapter, the broadly postmodern orientation of this thesis recognises the importance of language in ordering, and interpellating, social reality. As will be expanded upon in this discussion, it is my position that the very term 'social movement' potentially limits our understanding of a complex web of activities and relationships. However, to reject the term outright is unhelpful in two respects. First, the words 'social movement' have been authorised by theorists as defining a specific type of collective action which differs from other forms of collective behaviour (for example, social clubs, riots, religious organisations). Thus, rejecting this term outright, while making continual reference to both the body of theory and the actions defined as 'social movements' by those theorists, would only create cumbersome and unnecessary semantic confusion.
The second, and more important issue, rests with the common use of the term amongst participants in these forms of action. In my experience within grassroots environmental, women's, and cooperative organisations and networks, the terms 'movement' and 'social movement' are regularly employed by activists to define or reify that with which they are involved. I do not wish to undermine the important function of these terms in the shared language of movement participants. To do so would be to privilege my own conceptualisation as universal, a tendency of which I am critical in my following analysis of theories such as collective behaviour and resource mobilisation.
Rather than reject the term, 'social movement, then, I acknowledge its functional significance for sociologists and activists alike. Consequently, I employ the term when referring to the types of activities which have come to be known, both theoretically and practically, as 'social movements'.
28 Theory and critical analysis - a postmodern position Throughout this chapter, I critically explore a number of theoretical positions which have developed within the sociological debate surrounding social movements. In commencing this discussion, I wish to first briefly consider the concept of 'theory' itself in the light of postmodem understandings of theoretical discourse.
In their 1995 text, Research as Social Change, Schratz and Walker suggest that our common understanding of 'theory' is that it is an abstract form of knowledge which is distant from everyday practicalities (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 104). They go on to say that this sense of abstraction, which is supported by the use of theoretical language, serves to create a distance between the writer ('expert' theorist) and the reader ('lay' person), which then becomes the basis for the authority of the theory. That is:
[s]ince theories are always abstractions from reality, they are usually presented to the reader as devoid of ownership, construction, time and place. Because of the resulting separations between subject and object, form and contents, a theoretical text creates a new 'reality' ... (Schratz & Walker 1995: 117).
Through this textual process of abstraction, theories emerge as 'true' accounts of reality. In a broadly postmodem discussion of sociological theory, Brown suggests that theoretical representations become 'true' descriptions "not by correspondence to noumenal objects, but by conformity to orthodox practices of writing and reading" (Brown, 1994: 229). To the extent that theoretical representation is viewed as objectively true, then, it is viewed so because the familiarity of its methods of construction has rendered those methods invisible (Brown, 1994: 229)5.
Steven Seidman has criticised the foundationalist assumptions which inform traditional understandings of theory as presuming the existence of an objective, neutral, and value free epistemic rationale which can act as a guide to conceptual
5This paragraph provides an example of this very process.
29 decision making (Seidman, 1994: 122)6. He suggests that such assumptions are necessarily complicit in the will to power which are concealed in traditional social research practices. As Seidman observes, "[t]o claim that there are universal and objective reasons to warrant a social discourse, to claim that a discourse speaks the language of truth, is to privilege that discourse, its carriers, and its social agenda" (Seidman, 1994a: 124 ). In Seidman' s view - which he identifies as a postmodern position - theoretical knowledge is not simply a conduit through which factual information is conveyed, but a social practice which is both shaped by, and contributes to the cultural, historical, and ideological contexts from which it emerges.
Seidman's characterisation of sociological theory is an openly critical one which seeks to challenge traditionally accepted assumptions. What is useful about this position is that it questions the assumed foundations of theoretical discourse. Within this thesis, it is not my intention to reject theory altogether, but to posit theoretical frameworks as perspectives which are grounded in specific cultural and historical contexts, rather than as ahistorical reflections of a universal 'reality'.
The remainder of this chapter is based on a critical discussion of a number of social movement theories, and the consideration of several established theoretical concepts which I take to be useful in developing new ways of understanding these fields of collective activity. In taking a critical stance, I will be favouring particular discursive constructs, authorising some theoretical accounts over others; in short, I will be making the very truth claims which this entire discussion seeks to challenge. As I suggested in the previous chapter, this is the paradox of the postmodern position. The following discussion yields one interpretation of the leading approaches to social movement theory. This is intended to provide the basis for the development of a new perspective, in order to contribute to existing knowledge in this area.
6Seidman's discussion is specifically concerned with sociological theory, but provides a useful critique through which to view trends which have emerged generally in the social sciences.
30 Social movement theory: a brief overview In an essay titled "Social Movements and National Politics", Charles Tilly (1984) quotes the following definition of a social movement articulated by P. Wilkinson in the 1971 text, Social Movement:
"A social movement is a deliberate endeavour to promote change in any direction and by any means, not excluding violence, illegality, revolution or withdrawal into "utopian" community ... A social movement's commitment to change and the raison d' etre of its organization are founded upon the conscious volition, normative commitment to the movement's aims or beliefs, and active participation on the part of the followers or members". (Wilkinson in Tilly, 1984: 301)
By providing a generalised definition of a 'social movement', Wilkinson suggests that social movements are reasonably coherent, unified, and distinguishable from other forms of social action. While this definition is by no means representative of all aspects of the social movement debate, it does point to a common feature of most social movement theories - that is, the conceptualisation of 'social movements' as distinctive and observable forms. In this section, I outline the changing face of social movement theories since the 1950s. In doing so, I intend to demonstrate the extent to which these theories have been determined by the socio-historical contexts from which they have emerged. That is, I wish to illustrate that the conceptualisation of the external and unified object, 'the social movement', is constituted and explained in terms of specific and dominant interpretative frameworks.
During the 1950s, the collective behaviour approach to social movements emerged. In this post-war period, faith in the institutions of democracy was high (Hannigan, 1985: 4 77). As such, social movements were understood as collective activities which posed threats to the stability of existing ways of life (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 11 ). The basic insight of the collective behaviour approach was that "individuals acted differently when they formed into spontaneous groups", that is to say that a collective identity, not explained by the individuals involved, emerges from spontaneous gatherings (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 13). For collective behaviourists, social movements were irrational, non-institutional forms of social
31 action not perceived as central to social life, but as born of "system malfunction and strain" (Hannigan, 1985: 43 7). As Melucci has pointed out, this interpretation of social movements as being related to 'structural strain', "disregard[s] the dimension of conflict within collective action and easily reduce[s] it to pathological reaction and marginality" (Melucci, 1985: 791 ).
Collective behaviourism views social movements as a challenge to the existing social order, a challenge that is seen as irrational and potentially threatening. As Magnusson ( 1997) points out in a general discussion of leading social movement theories, such an interpretation understands 'movement' as presupposing a fixed point. That is, he suggests that this theory of social movements assumes "that they occur in relation to a comparatively stable frame, environment, or structure, and that the movements move in relation to this object of stability (Magnusson, 1997: 95). This understanding of social movements as a challenge to the social order assumes that both the 'social order' and the 'challenge', are distinct, coherent, and stable. That is, they presuppose a particular - what I would describe as a 'modernist' - view of the social world.
The emergence of the North American and European student movements of the 1960s posed a problem for the existing schools of social movement thought. The participants of these movements were from elite, rather than disenfranchised, social stratas. Further, those who led the student movement were largely well adjusted people who, according to collective behaviourists, should not have been attracted to revolutionary ideas and disruptive behaviour (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 19).
Another aspect of the student movement which defied traditional sociological assumptions of social change was the issues which the movement endeavoured to address. Unlike movements such as the U.S. labour movement of the 1930s, the student movement was not concerned with issues relating to material production. The student movement "was not a struggle to regain or retain privilege ... but rather an attempt to question and redirect wider processes of social change ... " (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 21 ). Rather than reacting to actual threats to their everyday lives, then, student activists of the 1960s were exercising their 'democratic consciousness'
32 in an effort to bring about widespread social change. This characteristic of the student movement has persisted with the emergence of 'new' social movements (for example, women's, peace, and environment movements), and is one which directly challenges the nature and purpose of social movements as conceptualised by the collective behaviour school of thought. In a later section of this chapter, I consider in some detail the validity and usefulness of the distinction between 'old' and 'new' social movements which has developed within social movement theory. What is important to recognise at this point is not an actual change in the 'reality' of collective action, but a distinct change in ways of seeing and theorising about social movements which emerged in response to the activities occurring in North America and Europe during this period.
The inability of collective behaviourism to adequately address the social movements of the 1960s led to the emergence of a challenge in the form of resource mobilization (RM) theory. Unlike collective behaviourism, the resource mobilization approach takes its analytical starting point from the organisation rather than the individual. As RM theorist, Anthony Oberschall, states, this theory rests on the premise that "social structures can be analyzed from the point of view of how resources, including leadership, are managed and allocated, and the manner in which these resources can be converted to the pursuit of group goals'' (Oberschall, 1973: 29). In its focus on the organisation of resources to achieve group goals, RM theory is primarily concerned with how, rather than why, social movements form.
Resource mobilisation theory challenges collective behaviourism on two major points. The first of these is the idea of actor rationality. In its emphasis on structures, strategies, and utilisation of social resources, the resource mobilization school endeavours to seek out the underlying rationality of social movements (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 31 ). Whereas the collective behaviour approach conceives of collective actors as irrational, and even pathological, RM theory suggests that:
individuals who are faced with resource management decisions make rational choices based on the pursuit of their selfish interests. They weigh the rewards
33 and sanctions, costs and benefits, that alternative courses of action represent for them ... " (Obershcall, 1973: 29).
In positing the social movement actor as rational, resource mobilization contradicts the earlier irrational actor model established by collective behaviourism.
The second point on which RM theory challenges collective behaviourism lies in the RM conceptualisation of social movements in relation to institutional life. Where collective behaviour theory defines social movements as non-institutional, the resource mobilisation approach perceives them as institutionalised forms of social action, as "normal, rational, institutionally rooted, political challenges by aggrieved groups " (Buechler, 1993: 218). For resource mobilisation theorists, then, social movements do not represent a challenge to entrenched societal operations, but simply exist as part of the political spectrum. Social movements are seen as just an extension of the ongoing struggle over resource distribution which constitutes mainstream economic and social life.
While RM theory successfully challenged some of the assumptions implicit in collective behaviourism, it must be criticised on a number of points. The first of these is that, in analysing social movements as mere data, RM theory fails to look to their underlying meanings and orientations (Melucci, 1985: 792). As Alain Touraine has stated, "The notion of resource mobilization has been used to transform the study of social movements into a study of strategies as if actors were defined by their goals and not by the social relationships - and especially the power relationships - in which they are involved" (Touraine, 1985: 769).
The key shortcoming of RM theory - which is articulated by action theorists, Touraine and Melucci - is that it is grounded in a logic of economic rationality which effaces the conditions of contemporary society. Melucci asserts that contemporary societies are no longer economically based, but based on increasingly integrated economic, political and cultural structures (Melucci, 1985: 795). By organising itself around an emphasis on "instrumental action oriented to political and economic subsystems", resource mobilization theory ignores the "cultural and symbolic
34 lifeworld which necessarily underpins such strategic action and is increasingly a central focus of much movement activism ... " (Buechler, 1993: 230).
Touraine and Melucci's criticism ofresource mobilization theory concerns itself with the fact that the theory fails to address some of the fundamental conditions of postindustrial society, and the necessary impact which those conditions have upon social movement formation. By expanding this criticism, however, we can see that the resource mobilisation approach not only ignores those conditions, but in doing so, effectively negates itself as a useful tool with which to assess contemporary social movements. As I pointed out earlier, the rational actor model central to resource mobilisation theory is reflective of that theory's grounding in economic rationalism, or 'exchange' theory. That is, RM theory constructs the movement actor as a rational, unified and knowing subject. Paradoxically, while resource mobilization speaks of the underlying (or overarching) rationality of social movements, many contemporary social movements - for example the women's, environment, and peace movements - appear to be challenging both the rationale of existing dominant ideologies, and their emphasis upon 'rationality' as a societal value . In order to illustrate this point, let us consider the assumptions made by RM theory in the following statement by Oberschall:
At any given moment, there exists a certain distribution of scarce resources and of rewards - the good things desired and sought after by most, such as wealth, power, and prestige - among the individuals, groups, and classes in a society. Some are better off, and others are worse off. Those who are favoured have a vested interest in conserving and consolidating their existing share; those who are negatively privileged seek to increase theirs, individually or collectively (Oberschall, 1973: 33) (my emphasis).
What is significant here is that Oberschall assumes that the pursuit of "wealth, power, and prestige" are at the root of those conflicts which he defines as social movements. I would suggest, however, that such an assumption completely ignores the orientations and consequent bases for action of many contemporary movements, which, in their promotion of limits to growth, human equality, and an ongoing
35 questioning of traditional power structures, are explicitly concerned with challenging the value which society places upon "wealth, power, and prestige". Put succinctly, I propose that many contemporary collective actors would fall outside of Oberschall's category of 'the most' who desire these "good things", thus falling into a category which the above statement ignores altogether. As Carroll (1997) puts it, "RMT ... falsely universalizes or reifies a certain form of rationality - the instrumental rationality of the isolated, profit-motivated individual - and misapplies this model to the sphere of movement politics" (Carroll, 1997: 15). In short, there is a chasm between the discourse of resource mobilisation theory and the implied discourse of contemporary social movements, which severely limits the utility of RM theory in analysing these forms of collective action.
A final criticism which should be levelled at RM theory is that, in its analysis of the organisation and utilisation of resources by social movement actors, it focuses only on the more formalised social movement organisations, to the exclusion of less formal manifestations of action. As Piven and Cloward have commented in their study of poor people's protest movements in the United States, definitions which equate movements with movement organisations require that "protests have a leader, a constitution, a legislative program, or at least a banner before they are recognised as such ... [which diverts] attention from many forms of political unrest and ... consign[s] them by definition to the more shadowy realms of social problems and deviant behaviour" (Piven and Cloward, 1979: 5). Carroll describes the organisational emphasis of RM theory as an 'exoticised' version of mainstream politics, with the only distinctive difference being whether a movement organisation is "'inside' or 'outside' the polity" (Carroll, 1997: 15).
Such definitions are entirely inadequate in accounting for the complex formations of many contemporary social movement activities. Consider briefly, by way of example, the network of activities and organisations that currently comprise the 'environment movement' in Australia. This field of action does indeed include easily recognised movement organisations which exist within the mainstream political sphere (that is, the political party, the Australian Greens), and 'outside' of it (for example, The Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, The Australian Conservation
36 Foundation, and Greenpeace (see Burgmann, 1993: 205 - 211)). In addition to these formally established groups, however, there exist at any given moment multiple networks of individuals acting on a vast array of environmental concerns, whether they be local actions or international campaigns, strictly 'environmental' issues, or a less distinctive mix of the 'environmental' and the 'social'. Further still, at an individual level, environmentalism is not limited to distinguishable action within a formal organisation or even within an informal network. Speaking experientially, I would point out that participation in the environment movement suffuses one's day to day existence. It affects one's consumption patterns, social networks, and living environment, as well as one's political choices and 'extracurricular' activities. In short, to employ the language of feminism, the personal is political. In its focus on the visible aspects of social movements - the established organisations and their leaders - RM theory elides these informal and personal aspects of social movement activity, which may be seen as both a practical reality of these fields of action, and an expression of their implicit and explicit principles.
If we accept the limitations of collective behaviourism, and the chasm between the discourse of resource mobilisation theory and the implied discourse of contemporary social movements, the challenge then, is to find new ways of speaking about social movements which acknowledge their meanings and orientations. This challenge has indeed been taken up by action theorist, Alain Touraine. Touraine's view of the genesis of social movements begins with an assertion of the emergence of a distinctly 'postindustrial' society. For Touraine, the traditional Marxist model, in which an economic base determines a political and ideological superstructure, is inadequate in accounting for social change in a society which is increasingly defined by cultural patterns and the blurring of boundaries between the economic, political, and ideological (Hannigan, 1985: 440). In identifying the structure of postindustrial capitalism, Touraine seeks to make a connection between this society and new forms of social movement. Touraine's approach to social movements, then, is based on "the representation of social actors as both culturally oriented and involved in structural conflicts" (Touraine, 1985: 766).
37 In its focus on the cultural formation of social actors, Touraine's discussion of social movements conceptualises these fields of action "not as mobilizers of resources to achieve certain ends but as transforming agents of political life" (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 26). A central element of this approach is the notion that collective will formation is a distinguishing characteristic of social movements. According to Touraine, collective will formation - that is, "the ways through which movements come to recognise themselves as collective actors with a historical project" - is the factor which distinguishes social movements from other forms of social action, such as mobilization campaigns and protest organisations (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 27).
The implications of Touraine's discussion of collective will formation for the development of social movement theory are twofold. Firstly, by suggesting that social movements are characterised by "the self conscious awareness that the very foundations of society are at stake or in contest" (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991: 27), Touraine defines social movements as anti-institutional, as outside the norms of social and cultural organisation. This defies the resource mobilization theorists' conceptualisation of social movements as mere extensions of institutional life.
The second implication of Touraine's notion of collective will formation is the role it affords to what Hannigan describes as "rank and file members" of a social movement. Unlike the irrationality of participants suggested by collective behaviourism, or the leader directed 'rationality' of resource mobilization theory, Touraine frames social movements in terms of "a search by rank and file members for the conditions and meaning of their actions" (Hannigan, 1985: 441 ). This focus on the purposive motivation of movement participants suggests that rank and file members consciously construct social movements in a struggle to develop new visions of the future. For Touraine, then, social movements are perceived as struggles to reconstruct the social order. That is, "social movements represent solutions, not symptoms, to the crisis of contemporary society" (Hannigan, 1985: 441 ).
In contrast to resource mobilisation analysis of social movements, Touraine's discussion focuses on the 'why' rather than the 'how' of movement formation. While
38 this focus perhaps seeks to redress a theoretical void created by the resource mobilisation approach, its own narrow view has been subject to criticism. Alberto Melucci has pointed out that, by focussing on the meaning and orientation of social movements, Touraine and other 'action theorists' "hypothesize about potential conflict without accounting for concrete collective action and actors" (Melucci, 1985: 792). Hannigan further suggests that, despite Touraine's assertions of individual social actors' ability to make their own history through the formation of collective will, he is still somewhat bound by structural determinism. That is to say, according to Hannigan, Touraine does not fully address the tension between social action and structural constraints (Hannigan, 1985: 448). This perceived gap between theoretical analysis and the real conditions of actual social movements is considered by Touraine's critics to be a significant shortcoming of his theoretical position.
While Touraine speaks of a variety of new social movements, another factor in his discussion is the notion that a central conflict generates all social conflicts within a given society. It is this common conflict which Touraine refers to as 'social movement'. Touraine suggests that any theory based on the idea of multiplicity, or the notion that a central conflict does not exist, is a theory limited by a "system centered analysis" (Touraine, 1985: 773). In rejecting this form of analysis, he offers the following analogy:
In the same way as a car can break down for a series of reasons and as there is nothing in common between a flat tyre, a lack of gas, and a broken gearbox, many people are satisfied with observing that there is apparently nothing in common between ethnic minorities protest, women's lib, industrial unions, urban crisis, and antiwar movements (Touraine, 1985: 773).
Touraine suggests that this level of observation is insufficient to reject the notion that a central conflict operates in a given society (Touraine, 1985: 773).
Alberto Melucci has criticised Touraine's notion of a central movement as privileging one social movement over all others (Melucci, 1989: 200). As Baldry (1992) points out, however, Touraine's discussion may be interpreted as "alluding to
39 a common thread ... which may run through the so-called 'new' social movements" (Baldry, 1992: 33 -33). Given this interpretation, Touraine is perhaps referring to a central social conflict which, although most clearly observable in one social movement, actually manifests itself in all social movements within a given socio historical period (Baldry, 1992: 34).
Yet another way to speak of Touraine' s 'central conflict' idea is as an interpretative device rather than as a universalising and value laden definition. Touraine himself criticises as "primitive" the "type of social thought which identifies analytical categories with historical facts" (Touraine 1985: 77 4 ), a criticism which suggests his rejection oftotalising concepts of 'truth' and 'reality'. Similarly, when proposing his own definition of social movements, Melucci stresses that he refers to a "definition" as "an operational tool and not as a metaphysical truth" (Melucci 1985: 795). As an "analytical category" or an "operational tool", Touraine's 'central conflict' theory constructs a way of seeing social movements which opens up interpretative possibilities not previously acknowledged by social movement theories.
While Touraine's work clearly broke new ground for the discourse surrounding social movements, it was constrained, as I have previously stated, by its failure to account for the concrete conditions in which social movement formations occur. Alberto Melucci has said of resource mobilization and action theory that, "Each question could be legitimate within its own limits, but frequently authors tend to present their theories as global explanations of social movements" (Melucci, 1985: 792). In his own pursuit of 'new ways of seeing', Melucci rejects this claim to universality, preferring to acknowledge the complexity of social contexts in which social movements occur, and the impossibility of arriving at a static and all encompassing theory of their evolution. According to Melucci, "Action has to be viewed as an interplay of aims, resources, and obstacles, as a purposive orientation which is set up within a system of opportunities and constraints. Movements are action systems operating in a systemic field of possibilities and limits" (Melucci, 1985: 792).
40 By referring to social movements as "action systems", Melucci identifies two aspects. Firstly, as 'systems', social movements do have some form of structure. Secondly, as 'action systems', these structures are shaped by goals, beliefs and exchanges functioning within a systemic field. As such, social movements may be conceptualised as 'structures in perpetual progress'. Melucci suggests that, by considering social movements as 'action systems', we can move beyond the conceptualisation of social movements as mere empirical phenomena, and begin to see them as meaningful in themselves (Melucci, 1985: 793 ). In discussing Melucci' s contributions to theoretical understandings of social movements, I refer here to his definitive work as developed in the 1985 text, Nomads of the Present. I explore his more recent contributions in my discussion of collective identity later in this chapter.
In Nomads of the Present, Melucci endeavoured to deconstruct the 'metaphysical truth' of social movement theory, by criticising the term "movement" as being increasingly inadequate. Instead, he preferred to conceptualise as "movement networks" or "movement areas", the "network of groups and individuals sharing a conflictual culture and a collective identity" (Melucci, 1985: 798-9). Melucci' s call for this shift in conceptual paradigms rested on his claim that the historicist framework from which the concept of "social movements" emerged is fading in the face of contemporary society (Melucci, 1985: 799).
Melucci' s redefinition of social movements as social networks is important not only because it recognises a societal shift, but also because it seeks to identify the organisational forms of many contemporary social movements. As he points out, today's "movements" are generally made up of networks of small groups which act as systems of exchange, and that within these networks, information and people circulate (Melucci, 1985: 800). Rather than presenting a unified and singular face of protest, then, new social movements exist within an organisational culture that operates around notions of diversity and multiplicity. By identifying the organisational form of contemporary movements, Melucci emphasises that this form is in itself a message, "a symbolic challenge to the dominant patterns" (Melucci, 1985: 801).
41 While critically analysing the use of the term, 'social movement', Melucci simultaneously calls for a distinction between 'new' and 'old' social movements, on the basis that shifting societal conditions - that is, the transition from industrial to postindustrial society - are bringing about distinct social movement activities and formations. I will now consider the theoretical explanations of the concepts, 'new social movements' and 'postindustrial' society, and the related idea of participation, in order to emphasise the important implications of accepting these concepts, not as reflections of a universal reality, but as definitional categories which provide us with ways of talking about contemporary fields of action. Having accepted the use of these two terms, which so inform the work of Alberto Melucci, I move on to discuss his more recent theoretical shift - that is, a move away from studying 'social movements' as such, towards an exploration of what he has termed 'collective identity'.
The New Social Movement Paradigm
'New social movements' & 'postindustrial society': definitional categories or social reality? Since Melucci's introduction of the term, 'new social movement', a number of theorists have taken it up as a focus for analysis (see, for example, Habermas, 1981; Offe, 1987; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). Pakulski points out that the primary focus of the so called 'new social movement theorists' is not on the relationship between the political means and end of contemporary movement activity, but rather on the way in which these means and ends are constituted, the bases for solidarity between movement participants, and the consciousness of participants (Pakulski, 1991 : 28). Claus Offe, in particular, has been influential in defining a 'new paradigm' of social movements.
Offe states that, as a condition of contemporary society - evidenced, amongst other examples, by "processes of fusion" in increasingly global sociopolitical arrangements - the distinction between the 'political' and the 'private' are becoming blurred (Offe, 1987: 63). Within these changing conditions, new social movements are challenging the delineation between 'state' and 'civil society' by politicising
42 "civil society in ways that are not constrained by representative-bureaucratic political institutions and thereby ... reconstitut[ing] a civil society independent from increasing control and intervention" (Offe, 1987: 65). As such, Offe defines new social movements' sphere of action as noninstitutional politics.
The blurred distinction between state and civil society which Offe identifies as the catalyst for the emergence of new social movements, is based on observations of three phenomena. The first of these is "the rise of 'participatory' moods and ideologies, which lead people to exercise the repertoire of existing democratic rights more extensively" (Offe, 1987: 63). Second, Offe suggests that the use of unconventional forms of political protest, largely in the form of direct action, has increased (Offe, 1987: 63). Finally, he observes that issues which were traditionally considered moral (for example abortion), or economic, have become increasingly politicized (Offe, 1987: 63).
Offe suggests that, despite the apparent diversity of concerns of new social movements (such as the student movement, women's movement, sexual identity politics, the environment and peace movements), they are grounded in a set of common values which, although not new in themselves, have taken on a new urgency and emphasis. The most prominent of these values are autonomy and identity - which may be correlated in organisational terms with decentralisation, self help, and self-government - and resistance to regulation, bureaucratization, manipulation, control, and dependence (Offe, 1987: 70).
According to Offe, in being oriented around these values, new social movements have particular modes of action, both within the collectivity of the movement, and in the ways collective actors confront the external world. Internally, they tend not to employ the (traditional political) organisational principle of differentiation between 'insiders' and 'outsiders', or between 'leaders' and 'rank and file' members (Offe, 1987: 70-71 ). Externally, they tend to "mobilize public attention by mostly legal, although unconventional, means" through the use of tactics which often involve the presence of large numbers of people (Offe, 1987: 71 ). Their external mode of action
43 also entails an emphasis on the nonnegotiability and principled nature of movements' demands (Offe, 1987: 71).
In describing the social base of new social movements, Offe states that they represent a break from the traditional class orientation of 'old paradigm' collective action, such as labour movements. They consist of broad alliances of people from the 'new middle class', particularly public sector and human service professionals, elements of the 'old middle class', and groups outside the labour market, such as students, housewives, and people who have retired (Offe, 1998: 72). Using Giddens' terminology, Offe describes new social movements as "class-aware", but not "class conscious". That is, he suggests that, while there seem to be fairly clear structural determinants of those likely to participate, the actual demands of the movements are not class specific (Offe, 1987: 77).
In describing the values, modes of action, and social base of the new paradigm of social movements, Offe claims that these forms of collective action constitute a noninstitutional political sphere from which they seek to challenge both institutional political and private practices (Offe, 1987: 72). Further, Offe sees these movements as civil movements, in that their purpose is to "reconstitute a civil society independent from increasing [state constituted] control and intervention" (Offe, 1987: 65).
Having defined the paradigmatic shift of which he speaks, Offe goes on to analyse if and how new social movements could bring about successful challenges to the old political paradigm. He suggests that this will only occur through the development of alliances which link the traditional Left and new social movements (for a full discussion, see Offe, 1987: 91 - 102). Offe's analysis and discussion is characterised by a favourable conceptualisation of social movements as vehicles for positive social change.
While a number of criticisms directed at Offe and other new social movement theorists have focused on a declared 'overly romanticised' faith in the emancipatory potential of contemporary collective action, most critics of this school of thought
44 have been primarily concerned with the question of whether or not 'new' social movements exist. A characteristic example of these criticisms is that of Verity Burgmann. In an explicitly Marxist approach, Burgmann criticises the distinction between 'old' and 'new' movements as depicting a division between "workers who never thought about anything but their material self-interest and the enlightened supporters of new social movements who care about self-interests other than the merely economic and are motivated to care about other people and issues" (Burgmann, 1993: 5). Burgmann suggests that this distinction is false in that it effaces the broad range of issues - including, peace, women's rights, and black rights - that have historically concerned workers' movements (Burgmann, 1993: 5). Burgmann is further critical of new social movement theorists' rejection of class interests as the basis of collective action, suggesting that, in addition to other forms of oppression, class forces are an overarching influence on new social movements' capacity to effect social change (Burgmann, 1993: 20).
In response to both the advocates and critics of the novelty of contemporary social movements, Melucci suggests that the concept of new social movements must be viewed as relative and transitory (Melucci, 1989: 42). While theorists continue to debate over the existence of distinctly new forms of collective action, he points out, both sides are fettered to an assumption that social movements are unified empirical objects, rather than action systems constituted in different relationships and meanings (Melucci, 1989: 43).
Beyond this epistemological limitation, Melucci is critical of the rejection of the concept of a new paradigm of collective action, in terms of its value as an analytical category. He suggests that, if we refute the conceptualisation of contemporary movements as new, then the basis of comparison with earlier movements necessarily becomes their impact on the political system (Melucci, 1989: 43). This, Melucci claims, causes critics of the 'new' paradigm to take up a politically reductionist stance which fails to acknowledge both the structural changes which have occurred in complex societies, and the importance of the social and cultural aspects of contemporary collective action (Melucci, 1989: 44).
45 In order to accept Melucci' s claims of political reductionism, however, we must also consider the notion of the existence of complex, or post industrial societies. As I discussed in an earlier section of this chapter, Melucci's work on collective action asserts that contemporary social movement forms are a response to the changing conditions brought about by a post industrial era, that they have moved beyond a central concern with modes of production into the realm of cultural patterns of meaning. In a discussion of new social movements in Latin America, Hellman considers the implications of this definition of postindustrialism for collective action in areas of the world which are marginalised by the dominant focus of social movement theories. As he points out:
In advanced industrial societies, movement participants struggle to overcome feelings of personal powerlessness generated by the satisfaction of material needs without a corresponding sense of full self-realization. In contrast, Latin American participants may well come to enjoy some greater sense of personal fulfilment as a consequence of their involvement in new social movements. But their struggles are principally organized around the satisfaction of basic [material] needs (Hellman, 1992: 53).
To accept postindustrialism as the current reality of a global 'society', then, is to privilege a distinctly western experience as a universal fact. While the definition of a postindustrial era is central to Melucci's approach to social movements, however, he remains aware that it is a contingent idea with cultural limitations. For Melucci, postindustrialism - like the new social movement paradigm - is a concept, rather than a reality. He stresses that, when dealing in concepts, "one should never forget that we are not talking of "reality", but of instruments or lenses through which we read reality" (Melucci, 1995: 51 ).
Within this thesis, I accept the ' new/old social movement' distinction and 'postindustrial society' as definitional categories rather than social realities. I propose that, as an interpretative tool, Offe's 'new social movement paradigm' in particular, has illuminating possibilities in two specific senses. First, it represents a shift away from the 'structural' analyses of collective behaviourism and RM theory, thereby
46 encouraging the exploration of the 'informal' and 'invisible' aspects of movement activities. Second, it enables the researcher to interpret these 'forms' of collective action in terms of responses to contemporary societal conditions. As Melucci has suggested, this enables an analysis which goes beyond a conceptualisation of movement activity in relation to institutional political structures. While accepting the intepretative possibilities of these terms, however, I recognise the transitory and localised nature of their definitions, which are bound to culturally specific (western) views of the world at a particular point in history.
New Social Movements, Participation, and Democracy The word 'democracy' is derived from the Greek words, 'demos' and 'kratia', which directly translated into English mean "people's power" (Lummis cited in Esteva and Prakash, 1998: 159). As I discussed above, Offe identifies one of the primary phenomena underpinning the emergence of new social movements as being the ascendancy of participatory moods and ideologies which have encouraged people to exercise their existing democratic rights in more extensive ways (Offe, 1987: 63). Melucci has extended this point by suggesting that the blurred distinction between state and civil society, which characterises postindustrial society, challenges formal conceptions of representative democracy, which are historically linked with the evolution of a social system based on the very separation of the two (Melucci, 1996: 219). With the increasing politicization of civil life, and the decreasing role of the state as the sole agent of action and intervention (Melucci, 1996: 19), the exercise of democratic consciousness moves beyond participation in formal political processes, to include 'politicised participation' in other forms of action and organisation.
Both Melucci and Offe are suggesting here that the shifting conditions of contemporary society lend themselves to a reinvigoration of democracy, whereby
47 'direct democracy' 7 or participation, is valued over the institutionally dominant form of representative democracy. As I have previously discussed, Offe identifies autonomy and identity as the most prominent values of new social movements, and states that these values correspond with movement organisations' emphases on decentralisation, self-help, and self-government (Offe, 1987: 70). These values hark back to Rousseau's understanding that direct democracy can only be achieved where society is small and egalitarian (Ritter & Bondanella, 1988: 84). In this sense, we may view new social movements as challenging formal or representative democratic systems, while at the same time reconceptualising and revaluing the literal principle of democracy itself. The ways in which contemporary social movements embody new practices of direct democracy have been considered by a number of writers (see: Barber, 1984; Held, 1987; Munro-Clarke, 1992), and are worthy of discussion in any new social movement analysis of a specific field of action. As such, I will return to the issue of participation and direct democracy in my analysis of the research results in Chapter Seven. Having considered the conceptual base of Offe' s new social movement theory and its interpretative possibilities, I now wish to return to Melucci' s more recent work on collective identity formation.
Collective identity - A constructivist approach to social movements In his more recent work, Melucci has further developed his rejection of monolithic conceptualisations of 'social movements' by coining the term, 'collective identity', and proposing a 'collective identity approach' to the study of social movement formation. In this section, I briefly outline Melucci's concept of 'collective identity', and discuss the implications of this concept for the study of new social movement activities. I take Melucci's definition of collective identity to be a valuable concept with important methodological implications. As such, I return to a more detailed analysis of the collective identity approach in the methodology chapter of this thesis.
7 Where the principles of direct democracy find their origin in Rousseau's work, in which he stated that a legitimate state is one in which all members are guaranteed freedom to author, and enact, their own laws (Ritter & Bondanella, 1988: 84). For a full explanation of Rousseau's position, see his text, On Social Contract, first published in 1762 (Rousseau, 1988: 82 - 173). Both Melucci and Offe would challenge the emphasis placed by Rousseau on the goal of 'legitimacy', yet suggest that the principles of direct democracy have some significance for new social movement organisation.
48 At this stage, I simply want to introduce the concept of collective identity as an important feature of current understandings of social movement forms.
From the brief overview of the theories featured so far in this chapter, we can identify a dualistic approach to the study of the types of collective action referred to as social movements. On the one hand, we have analyses which are concerned with the structural preconditions for these collective actions, while on the other, there is a central focus on the individual motivations of participants. Despite the apparent differences of these orientations, both approaches are led by what Melucci refers to as "a widespread "realistic" attitude toward the object, as if collective actors existed in themselves, were unified ontological essences that the researcher had to understand by referring them to some underlying structural condition or by sorting the motives behind the behaviours" (Melucci, 1995: 42). The very term 'social movements' reinforces a conceptualisation of internally homogeneous entities which may be distinguished from each other and from other forms of social activity.
These approaches allow for empirical simplifications which ensure a certain ease in analysing collective action. As I have discussed above, however, a significant implication of such reductionism is that it directs researchers to the measurable aspects of action - for example, movement mobilisations in the form of protest marches - at the expense of less visible effects in the realms of culture and day to day life (Escobar & Alvarez, 1992: 7). To continue to view social movements as 'objects' or 'things', then, is to limit the ways in which we can speak of collective action and to potentially invalidate those aspects of the field of action which are not recognised by formal movement definitions. As Melucci points out, while sociology perpetuates the view of social movements as characters performing on the stage of history, it contributes, "even unwillingly, to the practical denial of difference, to a factual and political ignorance of that complex semantics of meanings that contemporary movements carry in themselves" (Melucci, 1995: 55). What has been accepted as a given by social movement theorists - that is, the very existence of a social 'movement' or 'movements' - must itself be brought into question.
49 In response to the inadequacies both of the term 'social movement', and the theoretical tendency to focus only on the visible forms of movement activity, Melucci proposes a shift in focus through the introduction of the concept of 'collective identity'. He defines this term as the "process of 'constructing' an action system" (Melucci, 1995: 44). That is, collective identity is an interactive and shared definition which is constructed by individuals or groups who are explicitly concerned with both the orientations of action and the field of opportunities and limitations in which that action takes place. As a collectively constructed definition, collective identity must be conceived as a process, as dynamic rather than fixed, because it is "negotiated through a repeated activation of the relationships that link individuals (or groups)" (Melucci, 1995: 44). Rather than indicating a monolithic unity, the 'social movement', collective identity acts as a process, as a system of relations and representations within the field of action (Melucci, 1995: 50). In this sense, collective identity is that which precedes or, more accurately, perpetually underpins, what we have come to identify as social movement activity.
Melucci identifies three elements of the process of collective identity. The first of these is the cognitive definitions relating to the means, ends, and field of action. These axes of collective action are defined within a language which is shared by the group, a larger proportion of society, or the whole of society, and are encoded in a given set of practices, rituals, or cultural artefacts (Melucci, 1995: 44). The second aspect is the active network of relationships between the actors, who are constantly negotiating, communicating, interacting with, and influencing each other. This network of relationships includes organisational forms, leadership models, and modes and technologies of communication (Melucci, 1995: 45). Finally, the definition of a collective identity requires a degree of emotional investment, which allows individuals to feel a part of a common unity. This aspect of collective identity must not be viewed as irrational (and therefore, 'bad'), but as a necessary and interdependent part of the process. As Melucci states, "[t]here is no cognition without feeling and no meaning without emotion" (Melucci, 1995: 45).
By conceptualising collective identity as a social process operating along a plurality of axes, Melucci is suggesting that social movement action is not simply a reaction to
50 environmental and social limitations, but is a deliberate and ongoing production of symbolic orientations and meanings that actors are able to recognise as historically significant and collectively purposeful. In terms of action, then, we may speak of collective identity as self - reflexive, as "the ability of a collective actor to recognize the effects of its actions and to attribute these effects to itself." (Melucci, 1995: 46). Indeed, Melucci's conceptualisation of 'collective identity' challenges the assumed unity, or linear nature of action, which the terms 'collective actor' and 'social movement' imply, and which I have discussed in previous sections of this thesis ( see pages 2 and 49).
There are a number of important implications associated with the acceptance of this concept of collective identity, both for the ways in which we conceive of social movements and the ways in which we go about analysing such movements. I now consider these implications under four categories: multiplicity; self - reflexivity; dynamism; and action-orientation. It is important to note here that, while these categories are implicit in Melucci's discussion of collective identity, I have drawn them out and 'named' them. In so doing, I have sought a way of speaking about the analytical implications of collective identity which will provide a framework for the methodological discussion which takes place in Chapter Four.
I would also point out that the following discussion considers the implications of the acceptance of the concept of collective identity for both our theoretical understandings of social movements, and the very practices which we employ to undertake research in this area. While I will return to these issues of research practice in the methodology chapter, the very nature of this concept refutes a division between theory and method. To the extent that the 'method is the message', there must be some consideration of research methods in any theoretical discussion of collective identity.
Multiplicity: The constructivist approach implicit in the definition of collective identity marks a significant shift away from the structural-functionalist and motivational approaches which view social movements as empirically unified entities. That is, by viewing
51 collective identity as a process continually constructed and reconstructed through social relationships within a field of opportunities and constraints, Melucci suggests that this form of social action cannot be seen as the mere effect of structural preconditions or the expression of beliefs and values (Melucci, 1995: 43). As an action system, collective identity operates along a number of axes involving multiple and sometimes conflicting requirements over time. Rather than accepting the 'fact' of a unified entity, the 'social movement', then, the collective identity approach calls this very fact into question. As a result, analysis must concern itself with the plurality of aspects operating in the collective activity at a given moment (Melucci, 1995: 44).
The change in our conceptualisation of social movements implied by collective identity also draws into view the social field as part of movement construction. Beyond the formal (measurable) aspects of movement activity, there exists an ongoing interaction and negotiation between individuals, groups, or sections of the movement (Melucci, 1995: 52). A theoretical acceptance of collective identity implies the acknowledgement of these relationships and activities, thus shifting the focus from the 'top' of collective action - visible forms of action and leaders' discourse - to the 'bottom'. In this way, a collective identity approach concerns itself with "the more invisible or hidden forms and tries to listen to the more silent voices" (Melucci, 1995: 52). As well as allowing us to simply hear those voices which may be lost to other modes of analysis, this approach encourages us to explore heterogeneity within social movements, to consider the contradictory and conflicting discourses which may operate within and across the implied unity of a 'collective actor'. As Melucci says, the analytical task "is precisely that of deconstructing this apparent reality and letting the plurality of relations and meanings appear" (Melucci, 1995: 55).
Dynamism The concept of collective identity requires a focus on plurality, complexity, and the semantics of the meanings of social action, and is itself a warning against the reductive tendencies of theory. That is, as an analytical construct which is centrally concerned with an ongoing process - and, indeed, one which acknowledges itself as process - the collective identity approach is explicitly defined by a sense of
52 dynamism, of incompletion and theory-in-progress, rather than assuming a complete and unproblematic explanation for collective action. Melucci recognises that this mode of analysis, like any other, is incapable of explaining everything about social movements. Indeed, he suggests that an explicit recognition of its own limitations in explaining the irreducible is perhaps collective identity's most significant contribution to the field of social movement studies (Melucci, 1995: 54).
This dynamic orientation has a two important implications for the analysis of social movements. First, it does not offer one 'correct' way to study social movements. It does not banish existing methods of inquiry and knowledges about social movements, only to instate itself as the 'true' way of knowing such movements. Rather, it calls for the development of new methods, and new knowledges to diversify and build upon the existing foundations of social movement studies. In this sense, a collective identity approach is (de)constructive rather than the de( con)structive. As Melucci states, collective identity only functions as a useful analytical tool if it "helps to analyze phenomena, or dimensions of them, that cannot be explained through other concepts or models and if it contributes to new knowledge and understanding of these phenomena" (Melucci, 1995: 51 ).
The second implication of the dynamic or 'in-progress' orientation of the collective identity approach is that it lends itself to a context-specific approach to the study of collective actors. That is, in examining the plurality of relations at work in the social production of a collective actor, this approach necessarily takes into account the particular time and place in which this social production is occurring. As such, a collective identity approach to the study of social movements is concerned with developing richly contextual analyses, rather than generalised accounts of these activities.
Self-Reflexivity As I stated in my introduction of this concept, collective identity presupposes a self reflexive ability of collective actors (Melucci, 1995: 46), suggesting that the creation and maintenance of identity is as significant, if not more so, as the pursuit of the collective actor's external objectives. As a research practice aimed at explicating this
53 ongomg negotiation and renegotiation of relations, then, a collective identity approach is concerned with process, rather than outcome.
This concern with process is not limited to the field of research, but must also be applied to the research process itself. As Melucci points out, "action is a self reflecting process socially constructed within the limits of a given social and cultural field; research is that particular kind of social action where chances and opportunities for self-reflexivity are higher" (Melucci, 1995: 59). As a self-reflexive research practice, a collective identity approach allows for the explicit exploration of the relationship between observer and observed, and the open acknowledgment of the impact the act of research has upon that being researched.
Action Orientation The final analytical implication of the collective identity approach which I wish to consider is that of action orientation. Concerned as it is with the complexity of relations operating in the ongoing negotiation and renegotiation of a sense of 'collective purpose', this approach views social movements not as entities with distinct and unified goals, but as action systems, as "complex networks [operating] among the different levels and meanings of social action" (Melucci, 1995: 53). As I have pointed out in the above discussion of self-reflexivity, a collective identity research approach also acknowledges itself as a specific form of action which introduces new cognitive input into the field of social relations (Melucci, 1995: 63 ). The implication here is that collective identity research itself becomes a means of contributing meaningfully to the field of action which the researcher is exploring, which, in turn, may catalyse changes in the action objectives or practices of the collectivity involved.
In discussing the potential for 'new and improved' action brought on by research, Melucci is quick to state that the collective identity researcher should in no way take on a 'missionary' or 'activist' role within the social field they are studying. Rather, he refers to a "contractual relationship," whereby the interests of researcher and activists "temporarily meet and create the possibility of an exchange" (Melucci, 1995: 60). I will offer a more detailed and critical discussion of Melucci' s concept of
54 the 'contractual' relationship in particular, and researcher 'distance' in general in the methodology chapter of this thesis. What is important to note here is that a collective identity approach recognises the potential of research to contribute productively to its very field of study.
To accept the concept of collective identity is not to exclude altogether the existence of 'social movements'. In fact, to do so would be to presume a universality of explanation - a privileging of one conceptual tool over all others - which is precisely what the collective identity approach seeks to refute. Within his theoretical discussion of collective identity, Melucci emphasises the importance of notions of concrete collective action, or social movements, in relation to what he describes as the "reification tendency" of collective actors (Melucci, 1995: 50). That is, Melucci acknowledges that, at any given moment, actors must be able to reify their action-in progress in order to speak about it. This process is not limited to movement actors, but is also engaged in by observers (including the researcher) and opponents, for, as Melucci points out, objectifying "is a basic trait of human cognition and also a cognitive economy used in speaking about the world" (Melucci, 1995: 55).
As a means of identification with or description of collective action at a given moment, then, the term 'social movement' is useful and, possibly, necessary. The task of analysis for the theorist concerned with collective identity is not to disparage the functional significance of speaking about social movements, but to avoid taking for granted the apparent reality suggested by this reification tendency (Melucci, 1995: 55). In taking up the concept of collective identity, we should be deconstructing such reality, and allowing for the emergence of a multiplicity of relations and meanings (Melucci, 1995: 55). In its resistance to theoretical reductionism, collective identity also has significant implications for methodological approaches to social movement research.
'Community': a site of action and a site for study? Having outlined the dominant theories of social movements, and identified the key theoretical positions which inform my own approach, I now wish to address a concept which is of central significance to this study, and which seems remarkably
55 absent from social movement debate - that is, the concept of 'community'. In this section I consider the notion of community and its contested status within sociological discourse. I argue for the growing significance of this concept within social movement networks, and suggest a possible conceptual parallel between the terms 'community' and 'collective identity'.
Within the dominant theories of contemporary social movements, there appears to have been very little exploration of the role of 'community' as a site of movement activity8• This is surprising, because my experiential knowledge of environmental, cooperative, and women's movement networks since the mid 1980's suggests that notions of community and localism often play primary roles in the dialogue between movement participants, and in the organisation of direct action. More formally, a number of community studies theorists have stated that a revival of the concept of community occurred in the 1970' s in direct association with the emergence of new social movement forms. As Wild describes:
A desire to create a sense of belonging in the face of the impersonality generated by bureaucracy resulted in a revival of community values and contributed to the counter-culture and commune movements ... Concerns with the environment, pollution and living simply contributed towards anti-urban, anti-industrial and anti-growth sentiments and led to a renewed desire to live in real...communities (Wild, 1981: 13 ).
While the concept of community has not featured in the theoretical dialogue surrounding social movements, then, it appears to play a significant role in at least some contemporary movement forms.
A possible reason for this notable absence within the literature is the contested status of the concept of community within sociology generally. Community is a highly debated notion within the discipline, with some sociologists refusing to use it, while
8For a notable exception to this, see Manuel Castell's work on urban social movements. (Castells, 1983). In addition, the work of Saul Alinsky (1969; 1972) and Paulo Friere (1972) centre around community action and organising. However, neither of their important contributions have been
56 others employ it vaguely, and still others specify its meaning to suit their particular needs (Wild, 1981: 17). Broadly, various sociological perspectives of community define the concept as: a physical geographic location; a local social system of interlinked social relationships and institutions; a particular type of human association independent of physical location (that is, interest communities); an ideological expression of a social ideal (Wild, 1981: 14 ). As a problematic concept requiring extensive tangential discussion, it is possible that the role of community in movement networks has been deliberately avoided by social movement theorists. For the purposes of this study, however, it is necessary to give at least some consideration to this important concept.
The dominant sociological view of community has been influenced by the work of German sociologist, Ferdinand Tonnies. Tonnies distinguished between two forms of social relations, which he termed Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society) respectively. He defined Gemeinschaft as those relations based on affection and kinship, as "All intimate, private, and exclusive living together" (Tonnies, 1955: 37), while Gesellschaft refers to relations based upon self-interested contractual relations and the division of labour, or, the "mere coexistence of people independent of each other" (Tonnies, 1955: 38).
In defining these concepts, Tonnies suggests that they are "ideal types," rather than descriptions of external reality (Tonnies, 1955: 16). Nevertheless, the implication of Tonnies's discussion is that Western civilisation is shifting from a predominant state of Gemeinschaft, to one characterised by Gesellschaft (Popple, 1995: 2). A pertinent example of this is Tonnies's discussion of Gemeinschaft in relation to rural and urban living, and the effects of capitalistic society on these social relations. Tonnies suggests that, in a rural village context, a common relation to the soil and common property in the form of village fields, provides the foundations for Gemeinschaft (Tonnies, 1955: 26). He goes on to say that these relations of fellowship and cooperation may attain a new level in town living, as towns were originally formed canonised within the theoretical debate.
57 as "walled-in villages or strongholds whose inhabitants were forced to co-operate for defence and for the maintenance of peace and order among themselves and thereby to form a political community ... " (Tennies, 1955: 27). The implication here is that, while the state of common living in rural situations has been transformed by urbanisation, the mental, political, and cooperative functions of such living have been retained (Tennies, 1955: 27). However, Tonnies qualifies this by suggesting that the original qualities of Gemeinschaft are being eroded by the individualism associated with capitalism. As capitalism gains ascendancy, we are, according to Tonnies, moving from a state of Gemeinshaft to one of Gesellschaft (Tonnies, 1955: 28).
Popple has suggested that the dominant understanding of community, as captured by Tonnies's Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft dichotomy, idealises a 'golden age' within a previous historical period, in which clearly defined and secure neighbourhoods existed. This traditional view also constructs community as "a place of warmth, intimacy and social cohesion" (Popple, 1995: 2). Another way of viewing this understanding of community is as an expression of 'the good life', that is, of what should be as opposed to what is (Wild, 1981: 14 ). As Wild points out, the definitional dispute over community emerged as a result of the development of this community-society dichotomy: "community became everybody's ideal notion of the good life and consequently ended up as a ragbag into which was put whatever each sociologist thought constituted the good life" (Wild, 1981: 24 ).
An important consequence of the multiple, and often contradictory, understandings of the term community is the extent to which it can and has been wielded as an ideological force by groups across the political spectrum. In a discussion of Right political activity in Britain, Greg Smith points out that a hailing of the power of community has been used as a means to transfer responsibility for social care from the state to unpaid family members (Smith, 1996 [online]: 8). Similarly, Bryson and Mowbray have described this trend in Australian conservative economic policy, pointing out that this transfer of social care responsibilities to the local level has, in practice, placed the burden of care primarily on women (Bryson and Mowbray, 1981: 263). In the British case, Smith further identifies that government schemes for
58 social welfare and urban renewal which ostensibly involve the community and voluntary sector, do so in ways which ensure "that the dominating forces are those of capital, central government or unelected quasi-governmental agencies, rather than those of local residents or democratically elected local authorities" (Smith, 1996 [online]: 8).
Conversely, 'community' is also employed as an ideological tool to the left of the political spectrum, where it is often defined and mobilised in opposition to large scale industry and the coercive state (Smith, 1996 [online]: 9). Smith cites as an example the strategy of Leftist British Labour Councils in the early 1980s to deliberately employ community development practices and funding for radical community groups "in an attempt to further equal opportunities practice, anti-poverty schemes and empowerment of inner city residents" (Smith, 1996 [online]: 9).
Beyond the formal political spectrum, the concept of community has been used to support attempts to construct a wide variety of alternative, utopian collective lifestyles. As Smith points out, these communities range across historical and philosophical bounds, from the medieval Franciscans, to the Amish, to the Hippies and contemporary New Age travellers (Smith, 1996 [online]: 9). Smith suggests that it is this warm collectivist construction of community which is perhaps most attractive to contemporary social movement networks, including environment activists, the peace movement, and feminist collectives (Smith, 1996 [online]: 9).
The multiple meanings of the term 'community' are not confined to its use in sociological and political circles. Community is a common concept which is used with contrasting ideological connotations by people with different philosophical perspectives (Smith, 1996 [online]: 8). In examining some of the themes which have evolved in the language of community in everyday speech, Smith identifies the perception of community as being a small scale collectivity. The implication of this conceptualisation is that community is "small and specific enough to evoke a sense of identity and personal belonging, a sense that one is part of a meaningful web of face to face relationships" (Smith, 1996 [online]: 2). If we accept this understanding of community as a web of relations, then it becomes possible to view it as a process -
59 that is, a continual activation of relationships between individuals - rather than a unified ontological essence.
We should recall here Melucci's concept of collective identity as an action system, which operates along a number of potentially conflictual axes. I would suggest that, like Melucci's collective identity, community may be seen here as a process operating along cognitive, relational, and emotional axes, which may generate a plurality and complexity of meanings over time. To view community as such allows us to retain it as an important concept without reverting to a generalist or unproblematised definition of the term.
Having suggested a similarity between this understanding of 'community' and the concept of 'collective identity', however, I do not wish to suggest that the two are interchangeable. Where ' community' and 'collective identity' differ is in their relationship to action. Both are action systems in that they are constituted in the negotiation and renegotiation of relationships over time. However, where explicit and recognisable action is both central to the construction of collective identity, and a consequence of it, it is not a fundamental feature of community. This is not to suggest that, as social systems, communities cannot or do not produce meaningful action or achieve social change. Rather, my point here is that, as small scale collectivities which produce a sense of belonging, observable action is not necessarily the raison d'etre of communities. In contrast, Melucci sees collective identity as inexorably bound up with action. He states that collective identity enables social actors to act in a unified and meaningful way, that it "entails that [social actors] have a notion of causality and belonging; they are, that is, able to attribute the effects of their actions to themselves" (Melucci, 1996: 73). The very process of acting, of working towards some explicit social goal, is central to the process of collective identity. While a sense of community, as I have defined it here, may inform collective identity, then, it can never be entirely constitutive of it.
Understanding community as a process provides us with a way of theorising community in relation to social movement studies. In so doing, it is important not to ignore the function of the term as a reification tool. In his discussion of everyday
60 understandings of community, Smith suggests that most people refer to it as if it were a real entity, thereby assuming that the drawing of boundaries is possible (Smith, 1996: 54). These boundary markings, while remaining mental or social constructs, are "a vital tool for defining community, identity, belonging and exclusion, and give a sense of reality to specific communities" (Smith, 1996 [online]: 2). We can recollect here that, in Melucci's discussion of collective identity, he acknowledges the function of the term 'social movement' in relation to the "reification tendency" of collective actors. That is, Melucci recognises the use of such a term as the means by which people objectify, and therefore speak about, action-in-progress. By suggesting that we explore an understanding of community as process, I am not suggesting that we discount it as a functional term. In fact, I would suggest that, for the very reason that it is a concept reified by many movement practitioners as a site of action, community is a potentially important dimension of social movement studies.
We may highlight this potential, by considering the example of the 'movement' upon which I focus in this study. A brief discussion of the ways in which the term 'community' is employed within public statements and definitions of contractual cooperation suggests that it plays an important role in discursive constructions of the movement. At a formal level, the notion of community has received significant attention by cooperative practitioners in recent times. In 1995, the international umbrella organisation, the International Cooperative Alliance9 (ICA), adopted The Statement of Co-operative Identity. This formal statement, which replaces the six international principles of cooperation which were adopted by the ICA in 1966, seeks to define cooperatives and identify the shared values of cooperators worldwide (Hoyt, 1996 [online]: 1). One of the most significant changes to the 1996 principles is the addition of a seventh principle:
Concern for Community While focusing on member needs, co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies accepted by their members
9 An overview of the development of this organisation will be provided in the following chapter.
61 (ICA, 1995, located at: http://www.colombia.edu/-jw 157/ps/co op _principles.html).
While I will provide a more in depth discussion of the role of the ICA and the Cooperative Statement ofldentity in the following chapter, what is interesting to note here is the formal recognition of the notion of community by an organisation which is considered by itself and many of its member organisations to be "the final authority for defining cooperatives and for determining the underlying principles which give motivation to cooperative enterprise" (Hoyt, 1996 [online]: 1).
On an anecdotal level, community also appears to be used regularly and in a variety of ways by cooperative practitioners. A review of what we may describe as 'natural foods cooperatives' listed on the World Wide Web highlights this. Of the twenty one natural foods cooperative websites I have visited (including U.S., Canadian, and Australian examples), thirteen employ the word 'community' at least once. The contexts in which the term is used are varied, and include the following:
• "We are community owned, and so our goal is to be as accessible and responsive to you as possible" (Brattleboro Food Co-op, 1995, Available: http://www.brattleborofoodcoop.com/);
• "The purpose of [our co-op] is to create a self-reliant, self-empowering community of people that will grow and promote a transformation of society towards cooperation, justice, and nonexploitation" (Wheatsville Food Co-op, 1995: http:/csf.colorado.edu/co-op/wheatsville.html);
• "The co-op strives to provide a sense of community for its constituency ... " (The Moscow Food Co-op, 1995: http://csf.colorado.edu/co-op/moscow.html);
• "As a consumer cooperative, our business follows the cooperative principles: ... education of ourselves and our community, and promotion of cooperatives as an economic tool for community development" (People's Food Co-op, 1995: http://www.izzy.net/-pfc/).
62 While all of these statements share an understanding of community as being a positive 'entity', they suggest a myriad of ways of conceptualising what this 'entity' actually consists of (that is - community as precondition for cooperatives to evolve, community as an external field with which co-ops interact, community as internal objective which co-ops strive to achieve, community as instrument for broader social change).
In suggesting that, because it is a concept reified by movement actors, community is an important point of exploration for studies of social movements, I do not purport to have a static definition of the term. There are two reasons for this. The first is that providing a simplified definition of the term would suppress the broad ranging debate which surrounds it. To do so would be to favour a 'sanitised' or unproblematic understanding of the concept, rather than to acknowledge its contested status and consequent potential to be employed to serve a range of ideological and political interests.
The second, and perhaps more important reason why I have chosen not to define community in absolute terms is the implications such a definition would have for the research process. To prescribe a definition at this stage would be to suggest an 'expert' understanding of the term against which the definitions offered by movement activists within this study would be tested. As I have stated in my introduction, I am not concerned with testing research participants' claims against an academically defined reality, the 'social movement'. Rather, I am interested in exploring the ways in which participants construct their own understandings, or realities of the field(s) of action in which they are engaged. In keeping with this objective, I am concerned with investigating how, and if, the concept of community is constructed in relation to collective purpose and action by members of Alfalfa House
Conclusion The development of social movement theory since the 1950s has taken a dualistic approach which has focused respectively on the structure and meaning of particular,
63 and identifiable, forms of collective action. What is common to both of these theoretical positions is the assumption of collective unity - that is, that a 'social movement' exists. Alberto Melucci has challenged this assumption by introducing an approach which draws into the field of analysis the construction of collective identity, and which seeks to identify the complex, particular, and contradictory processes by which people build and maintain a sense of collective purpose.
In this thesis, I take up the theoretical challenge posed by Melucci, a challenge which requires a reconceptualisation of the broad fields of action known as social movements, and the ways in which we study them. Drawing on the conceptual tools of collective identity and new social movement theory, I explore the less visible and 'noninstitutional political' aspects of the action system upon which my study focuses, and the differences, as well as similarities, which underpin an apparently collective identity. I discuss the development and implications of this approach further in Chapter Four. Let us now move on to consider the field of action within which the focus ofmy study-Alfalfa House Community Food Cooperative- may be positioned, and the links between this field of action and the theoretical understandings of social movements which I have raised here.
64 CHAPTER THREE: CONTRACTUAL COOPERATION
In this chapter, I introduce a discussion of cooperatives and their relevance to the study of social movements. I give an account of the emergence of the modern cooperative form and the development of the International Cooperative Alliance Statement on Cooperative Identity by which the cooperative structure is currently defined. I then discuss in some detail the diversity of structures and activities which are identified with the principles of cooperation, with a view to highlighting the tensions, contradictions, and different practical and ideological orientations operating within and between various cooperative types. In so doing, I seek to identify the multiplicity of activities and ideologies which operate within the field of action referred to by cooperative practitioners and analysts as a 'movement'.
I also discuss the lack of sociological understanding of cooperation as either a general social process or a distinct social movement. I suggest three possible reasons for this theoretical absence - one relating to the historical conditions in which contemporary cooperatives emerged, and the other two grounded in the dual economic and social functions of cooperatives.
Having considered the historical background and broad theoretical issues related to contractual cooperation as a movement, I then go on to contextualise my study by providing a detailed description of the organisational structure of Alfalfa House Community Food Cooperative. Finally, I consider contemporary consumer cooperatives, in particular, food cooperatives such as Alfalfa House, in the light of new social movements and collective identity. I suggest that there are a number of theoretical parallels between new social movements and the form of cooperation known as 'new wave cooperativism'.
Defining Terms In order to commence a discussion of cooperation and cooperatives, it is necessary to first define the terms which I will employ throughout this chapter.
65 'Cooperation' and 'Cooperatives' In his 1993 text, The nature of Co-operation, J. G. Craig suggests that cooperation is a social process which may be broadly categorised into five types. Given both the relevance of Craig's work, and the scarcity of other sociological analyses of cooperation - an issue which I will consider in detail later in this chapter - I will use Craig's analytical typology as my main definitional focus. The five forms of cooperation identified by Craig are:
• Automatic - where cooperation is of an impersonal nature, unplanned and often unnoticed by participants. Examples of this form of cooperation are people queuing at shop counters, or the flow of people in and out of crowded lifts (Craig, 1993: 11);
• Spontaneous - based on friendly relationships that exist between individuals, this form of cooperation is enacted through close personal associations, and is not prescribed by command, tradition, or contract (Craig, 1993: 12);
• Traditional - where cooperation is regulated by the traditional social norms of the people participating, rather than by circumstance, volition, or instinct. This form of cooperation is often instated in the moral fabric of a particular society. Examples include food sharing in hunting and gathering cultures, and volunteer fire brigades in contemporary western communities (Craig, 1993: 12);
• Directed - where individuals are directed to cooperate in order to achieve a specific goal, such as in a military organisation where the goal is victory in battle. This form of cooperation, which is prevalent in contemporary societies, is "the result of formal, structural arrangements with which the individual is expected to comply, by reason of his/her participation in the organization" (Craig, 1993: 13). I will consider this form of cooperation in more detail when I discuss contractual cooperation in third world countries;
• Contractual - as I discussed in my introduction, this is where cooperation is based upon "an explicit agreement between individuals to work together towards
66 the achievement of a common goal," and where that agreement is formally and voluntarily entered into (Craig, 1993: 14). Organisations which are characterised by contractual cooperation - which I refer to as 'cooperatives' throughout this thesis - may have economic goals, such as collective buying and selling of consumer goods, or may be socially or service oriented (Craig, 1993: 14).
As this thesis is centrally concerned with the process of collective identity at work within a specific cooperative, my primary focus is on contractual cooperation. In giving primacy to contractual cooperation, I do not wish to ignore altogether the other types outlined here, nor indeed, suggest that these 'types' function mutually exclusively in the real world. In fact, in my analysis of the results of this study, I will be interested to note if and how these forms of cooperation interact, complement, and contradict each other within the Alfalfa House setting. My point here is simply definitional - that is, unless I specify otherwise, my use of the term 'cooperation' refers to contractual cooperation.
'Cooperativism' For the remainder of this thesis, I will refer to both 'cooperativism' and 'cooperation'. In keeping with Craig's use of the term, I define 'cooperativism' as the "the ideological component of cooperative action" (Craig, 1993: 73). As I discuss in detail in a later section of this chapter, the ideology of cooperation is neither static, nor universally agreed upon by participants or external observers. As such, I do not seek to define a singular ideology of contractual cooperation. At this stage, I merely wish to distinguish between my use of the two terms. When employing 'cooperation', I refer broadly to the field of cooperative action, including both its practical and ideological features . When using the term 'cooperativism', I am specifically concerned with the 'ideological' component, with the espoused values of cooperators as they engage in the deliberate act of 'organised' cooperation.
'The cooperative movement' Cooperation is unquestioningly referred to as a 'movement' by cooperative practitioners, historians, and analysts. In keeping with these sources, I will refer to the 'cooperative movement'. In doing so, I do not wish to interpellate cooperation as
67 a 'social movement'. In fact, the virtual absence of attention given to cooperation by social movement theorists is one of my central concerns, and will be considered in detail in a later section of this chapter. My use of the term 'movement' in the following discussion simply allows for ease of expression in summarising existing information about cooperation.
'Contractual Cooperation' - Organisational Types: In its 1995 'Statement on the Cooperative Identity', the International Cooperative Alliance defines a cooperative as "an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically controlled enterprise" (International Cooperative Alliance, 1995 [online]) ) (my emphasis). This definition, the origins of which I will consider in my historical account of cooperation, suggests that cooperatives are structures which embody both economic and social aspects.
While the basic organisational structure of cooperatives is quite simple to explain, actual cooperatives have adapted this structure in a diversity of ways. Nash et al have described a number of these structural forms. The first of these is the 'service' cooperative - that is, a cooperative "in which producers join together to accomplish more efficiently in common some task than they could do separately, but without necessarily affecting the organization of work within the production unit" (Nash et al, 1976: 10). Another form is the producer cooperative, where people work together with the product of the labour then divided between the member-workers on the basis of equity (Nash et al, 1976: 11).This type of organisation - that is, a business which is owned and managed by its employees - is also known as a worker cooperative. Yet another example of a cooperative form is the consumer cooperative. This refers to a retail business or consumer enterprise which is owned and controlled by those who receive the consumer goods and/or services it provides10•
All of these cooperative types emphasise the economic aspect of member relations. That is, they suggest that cooperative involvement is limited to members drawing
10 Although some consumer cooperatives may also market their goods and services to non-members.
68 incomes or other material benefits, such as consumer goods. In contrast to these, Craig identifies another form of cooperative organisation - the comprehensive cooperative - through which a 'sense of community' emerges and cooperation, in effect, becomes a way of life for its participants (Craig, 1993: 107). Comprehensive cooperation, the best known example of which is the kibbutzim, refers to the form of cooperation in which members interact on a day to day basis, often working, living, and socialising together (Craig, 1993: 107). Rather than confining member relations to economic transactions, then, this cooperative form draws social interaction into its organisational structure. As Craig points out, comprehensive cooperation may develop within worker, producer, and consumer co-operatives where members have a high level of face to face interaction. In these cases, members may develop social, as well as economic relationships with each other, and consequently acquire a sense of solidarity or community. Craig suggests that it is this sense of community which transforms these types of "segmental" cooperatives into comprehensive cooperative communities (Craig, 1993: 107). I return to a discussion of the 'comprehensive' possibilities of contractual cooperation when I describe the cooperative upon which I have focused my study, Alfalfa House. At this stage, it is simply necessary that we understand the basic distinctions between cooperative types, in order to render clear the following historical outline of modern cooperation.
Origins of modern cooperation In this section, I offer a brief historical account of the emergence of the modern cooperative form. I do not seek to provide a comprehensive historical analysis of cooperation, as such an endeavour is well beyond the scope of this thesis. Rather, I am concerned here with acknowledging the historical conditions in which the principles of cooperation emerged as both a distinct social philosophy and a concrete social reality. It is important to note at this point that, as an activity which has been recognised and analysed far more by its practitioners than by social scientists, the literature available on the history of cooperation is predominantly descriptive in orientation 11 •
11There is a significant body of academic literature which analyses the historical success and failure of cooperatives from a largely economic perspective. However, as this thesis is centrally concerned with the social implications of cooperation, this literature is not highly relevant.
69 The 'first wave' - 1817 -1834 The formative stages of modern cooperation emerged in Britain during the early 1800s, in response to the social and economic upheavals of the time. The individualistic principles upon which capitalism was based represented one leading theory which emerged in response to conditions brought about by the industrial revolution. An alternative theory which was viewed by many as a viable replacement for competition was that of cooperation. The philosophy of cooperation, which was to become the conceptual foundation of the cooperative movement, was originally developed in 1817, and articulated by British socialist, Robert Owen. In The Cooperative Movement in Great Britain, which was originally published in 1891, Beatrice Potter describes Owen's philosophy of cooperation as being grounded in the notion that "the one legitimate object of society is the improvement of the physical, moral, and intellectual character of man", or, "the formation of a noble character in the citizen" (Potter, 1987: 20). In order to achieve this 'new' societal system, Owen proposed a distinct economic system based on the theory of equitable exchange. This theory, which was adapted by practitioners of both the first and second waves of the British cooperative movement, was deduced from the proposition that "All wealth is the result of human effort; the sole object of wealth is the satisfaction of human desires; human desires should be gratified with a view to improving the quality or increasing the quantity of human effort" (Potter, 1987: 20). For Owen, then, the keystone of a cooperative system of industry was the abolition of profit and the extinction of the profit maker (Potter, 1987: 21), to be replaced by the ideal civil servant (Potter, 1987: 26).
In his attempts to have his cooperative system broadly instated in Britain, Owen sought to convince industry and government of the benefits of cooperation through leading by example. At a large spinning mill at New Lanark, where Owen was a managing partner and later assumed total ownership, he initiated such reforms as: raising workers' wages; reducing workers' hours; prohibiting the employment of children under ten years; and providing affordable accommodation and free entertainment and education for his workers and their families (Potter, 1987: 13).
70 In recognition of his successful philanthropic reforms at Lanark, Owen's counsel was sought by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which was concerned with dealing with widespread unemployment and associated social problems. Owen responded by producing the "Report on the Poor", which recommended that the government facilitate a shift towards a cooperative, rather than competitive, society by settling the unemployed in groups of five hundred to fifteen hundred, and providing them with the land and tools necessary for them to achieve self-sufficiency (Craig, 1993: 26). The Committee rejected Owen's radical recommendations outright.
When Owen's political efforts failed to bring about a widespread move towards his economic and social ideal, he attempted to establish 'cooperative communities' of voluntary people who would adopt his views and employ his doctrines (Potter, 1987: 16). As Potter points out, these communities - which were supported by sympathetic members of the middle and upper classes - had little, if any, bearing on the rise of the working class cooperative movement (Potter, 1987: 16-17). Rather than facilitating change from the 'bottom up', Owen's vision of social reform relied upon the generosity of landlords and capitalists and assumed that leadership of cooperative communities would be undertaken by these people (Potter, 1987: 31 ). Potter suggests that the major downfall of Owen's vision rests in his failure to grasp the importance of democracy "as a form of association whereby the whole body of the people acquires a collective life - the internal Will to transform institutions preceding the external act of reform" (Potter, 1987: 31). Owen's role in this movement was that of an inspirational source, a "prophet of a future State", rather than as a practical initiator of change (Potter, 1987: 17).
While Owen was attempting to develop cooperative communities in Britain, Charles Fourier was developing plans for cooperative communities, or phalanxes in France (Craig, 1993: 27). Like Owen, Fourier's ideas inspired others, and a phalanx was established in 1833. Also like Owen's cooperative communities, the Phalanx model failed within a few years (Craig, 1993: 28). The greatest legacy of both Owen and Fourier was not the actual communities which they established, but their articulated
71 visions of the 'good society' which inspired others, and provided the impetus for cooperation to develop.
The first wave of modem cooperation, which was characterised by the ideas of Owen and Fourier, was followed in Britain by the work of Dr William King. King wrote extensively about cooperation, and was actively involved in the establishment of early consumer cooperatives, which he viewed as being the first step towards the greater goal of a co-operative community (Birchall, 1994: 23). Perhaps the most fundamental difference between Owen and King's conceptualisations of cooperation was that, where Owen favoured 'top down' philanthropy, King advocated self-help (Craig; 1993: 30).
Throughout the 1820s, a number of co-operative ventures emerged in Britain. These served both as working models of Owen and King's ideas, and centres through which their propaganda was more widely disseminated (Birchall, 1994: 9). Brighton, where King and others established a cooperative trading association, became the hub of this first stage of the cooperative movement, with a number of consumer and worker cooperatives emerging and continuing successfully for a number of years (Birchall, 1994: 9-10). The establishment of cooperatives spread throughout Britain and Ireland, and by 1832, five hundred societies were reported to be established (Birchall, 1994: 14).
By 1834, however, the impetus had subsided, and what has become known as the first wave of cooperation had all but collapsed. Not only did the expansion of cooperation come to a halt, but almost all of the cooperatives established at this time gradually closed down. While a comprehensive analysis of this breakdown is beyond the scope of this brief historical outline, the reasons which have been offered relate to both the internal weaknesses of the movement, and the external political conditions, which were diverting many movement leaders' energy away from cooperation and towards the Chartist movement (Birchall, 1994: 30). Regardless of the reasons for the demise of this first wave of cooperative activity, it was ten years before the movement regained its impetus.
72 Birth of the modern cooperative - the Rochdale weavers The 'birth' of the contemporary movement is ascribed to a group of twenty-eight flannel weavers, who established a consumer food cooperative in Rochdale, England, in 1844. In a climate where many trades were being transformed or displaced by the Industrial Revolution, workers were finding new ways to organise in order to ensure their economic survival and physical wellbeing.
The establishment of the Rochdale consumer food cooperative gave its members and their families greater control over their food sources. It allowed them to reduce the level of consumption of adulterated food which was rife at the time, and also enabled them to combat the artificially high prices of food which were brought about by government taxes on food and employer monopoly over the shops to which workers had access (Birchall, 1994: 13).
In addition to the physical benefits experienced by its members, the Rochdale cooperative was a manifestation of an emergent "coherent philosophy in order to counter the dominant ideas of the time" (Birchall, 1994: 16). The rise of capitalism, which was hailed by the Industrial Revolution, brought into being an economic philosophy which was organised around the principle of competition. Birchall describes the great paradox of the moral order inscribed by the individualistic nature of capitalism when he points out that selfishness had become a public duty, because it was through the market system - that is, competition - that the public good, represented by economic growth, would be realised (Birchall, 1994: 17).
The aims of the Rochdale Pioneers, which were influenced by the ideas of both Owen and King, were to facilitate the establishment of cooperative communities by starting with one cooperative store (Craig, 1993: 31 ). In establishing this store, the group developed a comprehensive set of rules which attempted to embody the social philosophy of cooperation (Craig, 1993: 32). These rules emphasised democratic participation in the business activities of the store, and an equitable division of surplus through the principle of 'dividend on purchase'. That is, the Rochdale pioneers eliminated profit on price by returning surplus to its members in the form of a bonus, divided on the basis of how much each member had purchased over a given
73 period (Potter, 1981: 67). As I will discuss later, the principle of dividend on purchase versus the principle of profit sharing became a contentious issue amongst cooperators towards the end of the century. Despite this contention, it is testimony to the enduring influence of the Rochdale model that the rules which they developed in 1844 provide the basis for today's 'Statement of Cooperative Identity', the substance of which I will discuss in detail later.
The Rochdale Society provided a model which led to the establishment of many similar enterprises throughout Britain and in other parts of the world. While some efforts were made to diversify cooperative endeavours through the purchase of farms and the establishment of wholesale suppliers and factories, the emphasis, and success, of the British cooperative movement remained on the development of consumer cooperatives (Craig, 1993: 33). In other parts of Europe, as described below, different forms of cooperation were dominant.
Formation of the International Cooperative Alliance From the late 1860s, the cooperative movement was making significant progress in several European countries (Nakagawa, 1992: 1). While the movement as a whole was progressing, the nature of the movement differed between countries. In France, producers' cooperatives continued to exert influence, despite an increase in consumer cooperatives (Nakagawa, 1992: 2). Credit cooperative banks held the greatest power within the German movement, while in Italy the small producers' cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, and people's banks held fairly equal power (Nakagawa, 1992: 2). In Spain, producers' cooperatives were very active, but the movement as a whole was still small (Nakagawa, 1992: 2). The British movement continued to be led by the force of consumer cooperatives (Nakagawa, 1992: 1).
The growing benefits of cooperation being felt by workers and farmers throughout these countries provided the backdrop against which the need to internationalise the movement was increasingly recognised (Nakagawa, 1992: 1). Nevertheless, the differences within the movement, in terms of its internal orientations and its economic and social power in various countries, prevented rapid internationalisation (Nakagawa, 1992: 2). Instead, from 1869, a number of foreign delegates attended the
74 annual British Cooperative Congresses (Nakagawa, 1992: 2). This exchange of 'fraternal delegates' to each others' congresses occurred for some thirty years, as the formation of an international body continued to be negotiated (Birchall, 1994: 178). These negotiations were largely impeded by disagreements between the consumers' and producers' sectors of the British cooperative movement over the issue of surplus distribution (Nakagawa, 1992: 5).
The issue of the division of surplus continued to be of central significance to the formation of the ICA. While the Cooperative Wholesale Society (CWS) - the body representing the then powerful British consumer cooperatives - operated on the principle of 'dividend on purchase', the priority of producers' cooperatives rested with profit sharing through co-partnership, that is, a system whereby workers "contribute, take part in management and have a right to dispose of the profits of their labour" (Nakagawa, 1992: 18). As Nakagawa points out, the first International Cooperative Congress was organised by opponents of the CWS "with the intention that the cooperative movement should be based on Producers' Cooperatives, and consequently they would be able to confirm their leading position in the movement as a whole" (Nakagawa, 1992: 10).
The issue of profit sharing became the subject of much debate at the first International Cooperative Congress as delegates attempted to form the international principle of the cooperative movement. After a number of amendments, the first resolution of the congress was that:
An International Cooperative Alliance is created between the Associations and persons now or hereafter ... to promote cooperation and profit sharing in all their forms. The Resolution of the first International Cooperative Congress (London, August 19th to 23rd, 1895) shall serve as guides for the preparation of Statutes for the Alliance, and for its operation ... ( quoted in Nakagawa, 1992: 19) (Nakagawa's emphasis).
75 Thus, while the principle of profit sharing was incorporated into the constitution, it was not an essential condition for membership of the ICA (Nakagawa, 1992: 21).
The ICA exists today as an international umbrella organisation which is recognised by its proponents as the "final authority for defining cooperatives and for determining the underlying principles which give motivation to cooperative enterprise" (Hoyt, 1996 [online]: 1).
Directed cooperation - after World War Two Over the past fifty years, the face of the cooperative movement has undergone a number of transformations. Immediately following World War II, cooperatives were utilised as a means of developing Third World communities and depressed areas of industrialised nations (Craig & Saxena, 1986: 66). As colonialism was replaced with renewed independence in many Asian and African countries, cooperation was viewed by many independence movements as good and desirable (Craig, 1993: 38). The greater emphasis which the cooperative structure places upon people as a factor of production, and the importance on meeting human needs rather than profit creation, were perceived as being complementary to the development needs identified within these communities.
While the rationale behind the introduction of formalised cooperatives into third world communities is reflective of the social philosophy and organisational principles of the European cooperators, actual activity has been significantly different. Where the modern cooperative movement in Britain emerged as grass roots or 'bottom up' activities, the importation of cooperatives into the Third World was
characterised by government control and 'top down' implementation12• Cooperation in these nations was largely directed by governments, promoted by the United Nations, and supported by bilateral aid programmes and missionary groups (Craig, 1993: 38). The directed nature of this form of cooperation meant that, rather than
12This is not to suggest that grass roots cooperatives do not exist in Third World countries. Nevertheless, there has been a predominance of government organised cooperatives, and it is these large scale (often agricultural) organisations which are the major focus of contemporary social science research on cooperatives in the developing nations.
76 acting as vehicles for self-determined community development and social change, many third world cooperatives reinforced existing power structures and social inequalities. As Levi and Litwin have pointed out, Third World governments' "abuse of cooperatives to have them serve as a system of control over production and marketing of major cash crops, has been the subject of repeated criticism by students of cooperatives and development" (Levi & Litwin, 1986: 11 ).
The 'new wave': cooperation in the 1960s and beyond While the cooperative movement was taking on new dimensions in the third world, post-war prosperity was leading to a dramatic growth in all forms of service and agricultural cooperatives in industrialised nations. This same prosperity, however, was also leading to much greater competition, which was forcing many cooperatives to centralise, forming larger bureaucratic organisations which mirrored those in the private sector. As the characteristics of cooperatives became less distinct in these countries, and the top down cooperatives of the third world nations also began to falter, it appeared that the strength of the movement was declining (Craig, 1993: 39).
However, with the onset of the social upheavals of the 1960s described in the previous chapter, a 'new wave' of cooperation began to emerge. In a discussion of the north American experience, Sommer describes this new wave as being characterised by a significant increase in consumer cooperatives. These organisations developed in a diversity of areas, including food, limited equity housing, energy, transportation, arts and crafts, and communications, and were primarily made up of young people who were associated with the counterculture with limited connections to the traditional consumer movement (Sommer, 1991: 136). According to Hoyt, the 1960's and 1970's were a time of rekindled interest in cooperatives as self help economic institutions in the United States (Hoyt, 1982: 2). This growth in cooperative activity has been attributed to the social and political unrest which characterised the time, as well as a rebirth of consumer activity of many kinds (Hoyt, 1982: 2). I discuss this 'new wave' or 'new age' cooperativism in the light of new social movement theories below.
77 Cooperation today: The ICA Statement on the Cooperative Identity While cooperative enterprise has been historically noted as far back as 2067BC in Ancient Babylon (NSW Govt, 1988: 5), the ideas upon which the Rochdale weavers formed their society shaped the principles of cooperation which are recognised today by the International Cooperative Alliance. The Statement of Cooperative Identity, which was accepted by a general assembly of the ICA in Manchester, Britain, in 1995, articulates the general values of cooperation, as well as defining seven international principles of cooperation. These seven principles are recognised as the guidelines by which cooperatives practise their values of self help, self responsibility, equity, equality, democracy, and solidarity (NSW Registry of Cooperatives, 1995: ).
The International Cooperative Alliance Statement on the Cooperative Identity
Definition A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise.
Values Co-operatives are based on values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others.
Principles The co-operative principles are guidelines by which co-operatives put their values into practice.
1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership Co-operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political, or religious discrimination.
78 2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control Co-operatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are organised in a democratic manner.
3rd Principle: Principal Member Economic Participation Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of the their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. They usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surplus for any or all of the following purposes: developing the co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organisations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organisations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.
5th Principle: Education, Training and Information Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their cooperatives.
They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.
79 6th Principle: Co-operation Among Co-operatives Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co operative movement by working together through local, national, regional, and international structures.
7th Principle: Concern for Community While focusing on member needs, co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies accepted by their members.
(International Cooperative Alliance, 1995, [online])
The ICA Statement of Cooperative Identity offers a declaration of a unified set of cooperative values and aims. That the Statement was drafted over a number of months with input from many of the ICA's member organisations, and finally agreed upon at an international assembly, suggests that it articulates a group identity which is agreed upon by many cooperators around the world, and which envisions cooperation as a collective approach to positive social and economic change. Despite the historical and ideological shifts which have affected cooperative activities in a variety of ways, it is apparent that many cooperators continue to be able to define, and identify with, a cooperative 'movement'.
What is particularly interesting about the Statement of Cooperative Identity, however, is that, while it reifies the movement as a whole, it also suggests a potential tension between the value placed upon autonomy and the need for a group identity. That is, the given definition of a cooperative as "an autonomous association united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs ... " (My emphasis), seems to defy the logic of a universal set of cooperative values. As an organisational framework, cooperation and its associated values are taken up and interpreted autonomously by a particular group of people in a specific social and historical context. As Craig points out, "Cooperatives are not isolated from the socio economic and cultural context of the members ... As a result it is possible to find cooperatives with values where [for example] racial discrimination may be
80 practised ... or where there is violence against another group, even though the values inherent in cooperation are in conflict" (Craig, 1993: 49). Across time, place, and cultures, then, the values of cooperation have been interpreted and enacted in a diversity of ways.
Ideological orientations of cooperation In exploring the different expressions of the central values of cooperation, Craig (1993) identifies five distinct ideological orientations which have emerged at various points in the history of the movement. I will briefly describe these five schools of thought. I will then focus on the last of these - 'New Age Cooperativism' - and explore its links with new social movements.
Cooperative commonwealth - As I discussed briefly in the historical outline, cooperativism eliminates the basic economic motivation of capitalism - that is, the profit motive - in favour of fixed and limited interest on capital, and the division of surplus on the basis of equity. Cooperative organisation emphasises the satisfaction of human needs, member control through democratic ownership, and the accumulation of organisational capital through producers' labour and consumer spending, rather than the unequal distribution of returns (Craig, 1993: 54 ). The establishment of a cooperative commonwealth, which was the vision of nineteenth century British cooperators such as Robert Owen and the Rochdale weavers, is an expansion of these principles which envisages the economic predominance of cooperation, creating a world in which "free people would engage in economic trade for the benefit of all participants, rather than for the enrichment of a few" (Craig, 1993: 54).
Cooperative sector - The concept of the Cooperative Sector was articulated in a 1935 book of the same name by Dr G. Fauquet (Craig, 1993: 57). Fauquet suggested that all countries' economies were comprised of four sectors: the public sector - consisting of all state run enterprise; the capitalist sector - made up of all activities dominated by private capital interests; the private, or pre-capital sector - comprising all noncapitalist activities and units of family economy, and peasant and handicraft
81 economy; and the cooperative sector - consisting of all socially and economically linked forms of cooperation (Craig, 1993: 58).
Fauquet pointed out that the capitalist and public sectors tended towards the concentration, or centralisation of power in a few hands, whereas cooperatives have a decentralising tendency. He suggested that this decentralisation enabled disadvantaged groups to have control over their own lives, rather than being directed by large powerful interests (Craig, 1993: 59). The major implication of this perception of cooperation as a part of the broader economy was not a rejection of the cooperative commonwealth - which was seen as an ultimate ideal - but an acceptance of the cooperative sector as a positive and achievable end to work towards (Craig, 1993: 59).
Centralized (Marxist-Leninist) socialism - While the role of cooperation within the communist model was never explicitly addressed by Marx or Engels, Lenin later advocated the benefits of cooperation in allowing socialism to shift from revolution and political struggle to "peaceful, organizational, 'cultural' work" (Lenin quoted in Craig, 1993: 60). The self-help and educational aspects of cooperation were seen as useful, but the practical operations of the cooperatives was closely bound to the state, with State socialisation seen as more important than the group socialisation formed within the cooperatives (Craig, 1993: 61 ). As Craig points out, however, this school of cooperative thought contains ongoing internal division about the supremacy of socialisation to State bureaucratic control versus worker self-management (Craig, 1993: 62).
Modified capitalism - Proponents of the modified capitalism model of cooperation suggest that the decentralising influence of cooperation counters the centralising tendencies of corporate capitalism, thus allowing 'the little people' to pool resources and compete effectively in the market place (Craig, 1993: 63). This school of thought, which Craig suggests is strongest in the United States, implies that cooperatives are neither socialist in nature or a separate sector of the economy, but are the very epitome of the capitalist ideal, as they enable people to become
82 capitalists, by raising their income and thus allowing them a greater degree of personal freedom and individualism (Craig, 1993: 63).
New age cooperativism - The final ideological orientation which Craig identifies is that of "New Age Cooperativism," and which I described in the historical overview as 'new wave' cooperation. Craig indicates that this orientation, which is emerging in Europe and North America, has grown out of the protest movements of the 1960s and, more recently, the ecology movement of the 1980s and 1990s (Craig, 1993: 64). The tendency of New Age Cooperativism is to reject monolithic organisational forms (such as liberal capitalism and Marxist-socialism) in favour of small scale humanistic enterprises which are community based and understandable to those who use them (Craig, 1993: 64).
This perspective suggests not only an organisational shift, but a cultural one, in which people are concerned with "the process of living, emphasizing self development, helping others and developing satisfying lifestyles that conserve resources" (Craig, 1993: 64 ). Cooperatives, which embody values of equality, equity, and mutual self help, are seen as one of the few organisational forms which are consistent with this ideology, with their decentralising tendencies providing an avenue for grass roots social change (Craig, 1993: 65).
The historical link between New Age Cooperativism and the peace and ecology movements suggests a good case for analysing this form of cooperation in the light of new social movement theories. Before exploring possible links between New Age Cooperativism and new social movements, however, it is necessary to first discuss cooperation in relation to social movement theory in general.
Cooperativism - an 'invisible' social movement? Throughout this chapter, I have referred to the 'cooperative movement'. In exploring the origins of modern cooperation, I identified that cooperation emerged as an alternative economic form with a distinct and explicitly expressed social philosophy. Since the time of Owen and Fourier, cooperation has been identified, and spoken of, as a 'movement' by cooperative theorists, historians, and cooperators around the
83 world. The International Cooperative Alliance acts as a peak international body for this form of activity, and offers as the basis for cooperation a statement of cooperative identity which encompasses a unified set of values, definitions, and principles of action.
Considered together, all of the above points indicate that there is a strong case for viewing cooperation as a distinct field of social action. Further, given that cooperation is a particular form of 'alternative' activity grounded in a set of shared values and common identity, it would seem only logical to consider cooperation in the light of social movement theory. What is particularly interesting, then, is the virtually complete absence of analysis of cooperation from sociology in general, and sociological theorising about social movements in particular.
In undertaking this study, I conducted extensive literature searches of 'hard' and electronic publications in order to locate previous sociological analyses of cooperativism. During the course of these searches, I located a range of material about cooperation, which may be broadly categorised as follows:
• descriptive historical or contemporary accounts of cooperation by enthusiastic cooperators, or proponents of cooperativism (see, for example: Strong, 1964; Bolger, 1977; Potter, 1987; Birchall 1994; Nakagawa, 1992; );
• historical and contemporary analyses of specific cooperative ventures (see, for example: Thomas & Logan, 1982; Whyte & Whyte, 1988; Kasmir, 1996);
• anthropological studies of agricultural cooperatives in Third World nations (see, for example: Windstrand, C. G. 1970; Nash et al, 1976; Hedlund, 1992);
• political studies of the function of cooperatives in socialist states (see, for example: Batov, 1945; Strong, 1964, Stettner, 1984);
84 • 'instrumental' or practical analyses of current cooperative trends in the broader economic or legislative spectrum (see, for Australian examples: Co-operatives 2000 Steering Committee, 1993; Cronin, 1994 ).
All of these texts render important information about contractual cooperation and, in themselves, touch on a variety of sociological issues central to this social process. With the notable exception of Craig's 1993 text, The Nature of Cooperation, however, I was unable to source any comprehensive sociological analyses of cooperation, either as a general social process, or as a distinct social movement13 • While there are some brief links made between new age cooperativism and new social movements by cooperative theorists (see Craig, 1993, and Hoyt, 1996) and sociologists concerned with consumer movements (see Sommer, 1991), cooperati vism as a distinct form appears to have been ignored, or missed, by social movement theorists. Why is this so?
I would like to suggest three possible reasons for this significant omission. The first of these relates to the historical context in which the social philosophy of cooperation emerged. In her introduction to Potter's text on the British cooperative movement, Margaret Cole states that the attitude of British academic authorities towards cooperation in the last quarter of the nineteenth century was that it didn't exist, or was of no significance (Cole in Potter, 1987: xix). Cole suggests that this academic blindness was linked to the two dominant orientations of cooperators of the time - the Owenites and the Christian Socialists. The Owenites had not only failed in achieving the cooperative commonwealth 'revolution', but were also promoting socially unacceptable issues, such as "atheism, 'rational' marriage, and the rest of Robert Owen's minor quirks" (Cole in Potter, 1987: xxi). At the same time, the Christian Socialists were promoting a view of cooperation as the framework for a society which should embody Christian values, a view which contravened orthodox economic theory (Cole in Potter, 1987: xxi). Cole's point is that cooperation's transgression of social and economic norms (and to which, I would add, its failure to gain primacy over the capitalist model) led to its being ignored or belittled by the
13lt should be noted that my literature search was limited to literature printed in English.
85 academic community. Perhaps, then, this historical om1ss10n has produced an ongoing legacy for current understandings and analyses of cooperation.
The second possibility is linked to the dual economic and social dimensions of cooperation14• As I have stated, cooperation is frequently and unproblematically referred to as a 'movement' by cooperative theorists, historians, and practitioners. However, whether this movement is an 'economic' or a 'social' one is rarely defined. A review of the existing literature indicates that, while there is very little comprehensive social analysis available, a significant amount of economic analysis on cooperative ventures, both past and present, has been conducted. This emphasis on the economic, rather than the social, aspects of cooperation seems to suggest dominance of the 'modified capitalism' or 'cooperative sector' approaches, which conceptualise cooperation as simply a pragmatic economic endeavour which exists as part of the broader economic system. This conceptualisation leads to an emphasis on the organisational structures of cooperatives and their consequent economic successes or failures. While this may provide us with a greater understanding of the economic possibilities and limitations of cooperation, it does little to explicate or analyse the social philosophy and values which underpin cooperativism.
A third, and related, possible reason for the omission of cooperation from the study of social movements is the diversity of practical endeavours and ideological orientations which coexist under the banner of the "cooperative movement". Throughout this chapter, I have explored the heterogeneous experiences which have occurred in the name of modern cooperation over time and within different countries. This diversity occurs not only across national boundaries, but may also be experienced between cooperative types and sizes. As Nash et al point out, there is a tendency for large scale producer cooperatives to adopt some of the traits of the capitalistic enterprises with which they deal or are in competition (Nash et al, 1976: 11). For example, large dairy cooperatives in the United States are big businesses which act as lobbyists, and contribute financially to politicians who may influence
141 do not wish to suggest here that economic theory is completely divisible from a social or historical context. When using the term "economic" in this section, I refer to instrumental economic practices, rather than broad economic theory, which is beyond the scope ofmy discussion.
86 government decisions regarding milk products (Nash et al, 1976: 11). The objectives, organisational structure, and ideological orientation of this type of cooperative will inevitably differ greatly from, for example, a small community consumer food cooperative which operates on a non-profit basis.
Given the diverse, and sometimes contradictory, nature of cooperative endeavours and ideological perspectives, I would suggest that another possible reason for cooperation's omission from social movement studies is that it does not cohere neatly with a static sociological definition of what constitutes a social movement. What is common to all forms of cooperation is that they have some economic purpose. Given that cooperation is not easily pigeonholed in sociological terms, and given that 'economic purpose' is a common thread which, however loosely, connects all cooperative endeavours, it is understandable that the economic, rather than the social aspects of co-operation have gained primacy in theoretical analyses.
While all three of the reasons offered above are worthy of consideration when accounting for the lack of 'social' information about cooperation, the sociological (rather than historical) nature of this thesis directs me towards an exploration of the second and third issues. While I am not setting out to 'prove' that the social aspects of cooperation have been ignored by theorists to date, I will be interested to explore if, and how, the members of the cooperative which is the focus of my study distinguish between the social and economic aspects of cooperativism in discussing their own cooperative experiences.
Given the highly context specific nature of this study, it is important to include in this overview of contractual cooperation an overview of the particular cooperative upon which my research focuses. In the following section, I describe the specific organisational details and historical development of Alfalfa House Community Food Cooperative. Once I have contextualised the study, I will return to a consideration of new age cooperativism and new social movements, and the implications of a collective identity approach for my study.
87 Focus of the study: a profile of Alfalfa House So far in this chapter, I have been concerned with a broad description and analysis of cooperative activity. In this section, I will provide a 'thick' description of Alfalfa House, including its organisational structure, its history, and its day to day operations. The point of this section is to provide the reader with a 'nuts and bolts' understanding of the co-op's operations so that they can make sense of both the methodological orientation and the results of this study. It is important to note here that this section is not intended to provide a complete picture of Alfalfa House, as this would negate the very complexities and contradictions of such an organisation which this study seeks to explicate.
Alfalfa House is a community based consumer food cooperative located in Sydney's inner western suburbs (see figure one). It is open to members and non-members alike, and carries a range of products including: dried fruits and nuts; flours and grains; herbs and spices; pulses and legumes; household cleaning products; oils, sauces and honeys; fruit and vegetables; dairy products (see Appendix One - Product List). The co-op gives preference to organic and biodynamic products where possible, and no meat products are stocked. There is an emphasis placed on ethically produced goods (see figure two). Most products are supplied in bulk, and shoppers are required to bring their own containers in order to purchase goods (see figure three).
In addition to the provision of food and other consumer goods, Alfalfa House acts as a shop front resource centre, providing members and non-members with access to information on a range of issues, including: nutrition, food preparation, and politics of food issues; waste minimisation and sustainable living practices; local, national, and international events relating to social justice and the environment, including possible avenues of action; consumer boycotts; local community events, including festivals, conferences, fundraising benefits, and meetings.
Beyond the shop front activities, Alfalfa House endeavours to contribute to local community activity where possible. Such contributions include: participation in local festivals, environment expos, and street events; and community representation or
88 input into relevant local government initiatives, such as waste management plans. The co-op also supports other community based and grass roots organisations by promoting their activities within the shop and through the quarterly newsletter.
History The cooperative began informally in 1981, as the result of a rent strike held by a group of people in Erskineville. Using the money accumulated from this strike, these people began purchasing wholesale quantities of non-perishable foods which they sold cheaply from their home. In 1982, this buyers co-op, known as 'Erko', continued its operations from Erskineville' s Anglican Church Hall. In 1983, Erko moved to a building in Newtown known as Alpha House. At the time, Alpha House was inhabited by an artists' collective. At this time, Erko was renamed 'The Community Food Store', opened only once a week on Saturdays (The Community food Store News, 1985: 1), and was run by a small core of workers on a completely voluntary basis. These people had been inspired by the Maple Street Co-op located in Maleny in Queensland, and the aim of the group - as stated in the first newsletter, printed in early 1985 - was to form as a workers' co-op under the Companies Act, and later to register as a consumer co-op (Alfalfa House Unpackaged Tour notes). This aim of formalising the structure of the organisation was underpinned by the desire to "settle in permanently, open six days a week, stock fruit and vegetables, [and] put up a sign outside" (The Community Food Store News, 1985: 1).
In 1987, Alpha House was reclaimed by the government housing department which owned the building, and the Community Food Store moved to its current location in Enmore Rd, Enmore. At the time, this shop front was occupied by Permaculture Sydney, and the Community Food Store operated out of a back room which is now the co-op's store room. At that time, work contributions were rewarded with $1.00 for every hour worked, while some members remained committed to the aim of formalising the organisation as a cooperative. In early 1988, these people conducted a public meeting in order to discuss the proposal that the group form as a cooperative under the NSW Cooperative Act (Alfalfa House Unpackaged Tour Notes). During the following nine months, a core of thirteen interested people developed the structure, aims, and rules of the co-op in accordance with this legislation. Finally, a
89 formation meeting was held on October 1?1\ and, in late 1988, Alfalfa House Community Food Cooperative Ltd was officially formed. A part time coordinator was employed and, when Permaculture Sydney relocated, the co-op retained the entire premises (see figures four and five).
At the present time, Alfalfa House maintains a paid up membership of three hundred to four hundred people in any given year. The co-op employs two part time staff and is open five days per week.
Aims and objectives The aims of Alfalfa House, as detailed in the organisation's Rules, are as follows:
Business • To carry on the business of food retailing and wholesaling of dried and fresh foods, herbs, teas, and spices; • To deal in all items related to storage and distribution of food; and • To act as a community resource centre and a distributor of information on all aspects of food; • To undertake all activities on a non-profit basis.
Food • To provide quality food at the lowest possible price commensurate with the needs and goals described herein; • To provide food that is as natural as possible, and in particular, food that is organically and biodynamically grown; • To give preference to food that is locally grown with regard to price and quality; • To discourage food production and distribution resulting in the exploitation of human, animal, and environmental resources; • To discourage the importing of food other than food surpluses, with particular regard to the Third World; • Where possible, to buy directly from producers; • Where possible, to directly produce and process foodstuffs.
90 Figure 1: Alfalfa House is located in Sydney's Inner West. Source: Alfalfa House Archives Photographer: S.Higoe
Figure 2: The co-op aims to stock ethically produced goods wherever possible.
Source: Alfalfa House Archives Photographer: Unknown
91 Figure 3: Alfalfa House stocks most products in bulk, and shoppers are required to bring their own containers.
Source: Alfalfa House Archives Photographer: Unknown
92 Figure 4
Alfalfa House originally occupied the back room of this building but now retains the entire premises. Source: Alfalfa House Archives Photographer: S. Higoe Figure 5
93 Marketing and Education • To promote an understanding of nutrition, food additives, and food processing with particular regard to health; • To promote an awareness of food production and distribution methods with regard to their effects on:
local and world eco-systems world economic and political systems and, in particular, the nature of poverty and hunger
• To produce and/or distribute any items including newsletters, and books that promote these objects; • To encourage direct producer-consumer links
Organisation To operate as a consumer co-operative:
• Where members and non members can buy from the company; • Where management is vested in the membership; and • Where all employees are both members of the Company and of any committee or board that may be appointed by the membership for the purposes of management of the Company.
Quality ofEmployment • To provide a healthy, convivial work environment; • To facilitate the sharing of skills and knowledge amongst employees that promotes an understanding of:
nutrition and its links with health all aspects of the food industry with particular regard to food additives, food production, and food distribution; all aspects of business operation; and co-operative structures.
94 Employment Policy • To practise positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged groups.
Community Assistance • To assist, as approved by the Company, any group or individual and, in particular, other organisations with similar objectives, through the subsidised use of the Company's expertise and resources; • To encourage the development of:
autonomous community based organisations with similar objects; local, small scale food processing industries in accordance with nutritional and health requirements; and links, and in particular, trading links between such organisations.
Pricing system The co-op operates on a three tiered pricing system - Standard Price, (wholesale plus sixty five percent for most items), Discount Price (wholesale plus forty percent for most items), and Extra Discount Price (wholesale plus seventeen and a half percent for most items). Non-members and members who have not fulfilled their membership requirements (see below) shop at Standard Price. Members who have fulfilled their basic membership requirements shop at Discount Price. Extra Discount Price is available to those members who contribute in excess of their basic work requirements, which will be further explained below.
Membership requirements: Membership of the co-op is open to anybody who is willing to abide by the rules of the organisation. Membership requirements may be divided into three categories - financial requirements, work requirements, and 'co-op education' requirements: financial requirements - all members purchase 20 x $1 shares in the business at the time of joining. These shares are not transferable to any other person, but can be refunded to the member should they choose to resign from the co-op. In addition to
95 the share price, members are required to pay an annual fee of ten dollars. This fee covers the costs of producing a regular newsletter, and the administrative costs of maintaining membership records; work requirements - in order to maintain active membership - that is, to be able to shop at Discount Price - members must contribute two hours of work to the co-op every three months. Every two hours contributed in addition to this basic two hours allows the member to shop once at Extra Discount Price. In recognition of their contribution to the co-op, members who take on regular or ongoing co-op commitments are entitled to 'Permanent' Extra Discount.
A work shift is defined by the co-op as any two hour period of activity which contributes to co-op operations in some way. Thus, while all members are required to undertake work to maintain their membership, there is a diversity of ways in which this requirement can be met. Examples of work shifts include: shop front activities such as replenishing stock and cleaning; designing, contributing to, or distributing the newsletter; collecting or delivering an item for the co-op; coordinating or performing at a co-op fundraising event; sitting on a co-op committee; initiating or undertaking an established co-op project (such as designing and painting a mural); conducting an introductory tour;
'co-op education' requirements - m addition to ongomg financial and work requirements, all new members are required to attend a one and a half hour introductory session, known as the Unpackaged Tour. Unpackaged Tours are conducted by experienced members of the co-op, and their aims are twofold. Firstly, they are designed to educate new members about the history of the cooperative movement, and thus to fulfil Alfalfa House's commitment to the fifth International Principle of Cooperation, which requires that co-operatives educate their members about cooperative principles. Secondly, the tour aims to familiarise new members with the aims of the co-op, its organisational structure, its day to day operations, and members' rights and responsibilities. Attendance at an Unpackaged Tours is a mandatory requirement, and constitutes each new member's first work shift within
96 the co-op, thus activating their membership and allowing them to shop at Discount Price.
Organisational structure The organisational structure of Alfalfa House is deliberately non-hierarchical. There are two main features which support this. The first of these is that all meetings within the co-op are open to any member to attend. The second feature is that all meetings are run on a consensus basis. That is, all members are entitled to a voice in the decision making process, and any member is able to block a decision with which they are unable to live. When consensus is blocked, alternative or amended proposals must be developed. If a decision cannot be reached within a reasonable amount of time, the group may choose to use a two thirds majority vote. However, this is a last resort technique, and has not been employed at any meeting I have attended during my four years' involvement.
Membership The membership of the co-op compnses all paid up members. The general membership is fundamental to the co-op's structure, as members' work shift contributions are the resource primarily drawn upon for the day to day running of the business. Further, members' needs, requests, and suggestions largely direct the activity of coreworkers, staff, and management. In addition, the membership are responsible for electing the Management Committee on a yearly basis at the Annual General Meeting.
Volunteer Coordinators Volunteer Coordinators work a minimum of one half day (4 hour) shift per fortnight, during which time they are responsible for the shop front operations of the co-op, including: customer service; coordination of shift workers; shop front presentation; fielding member and non-member enquiries. Volunteer Coordinators are trained by staff, and meet periodically with staff and each other to develop guidelines relevant to their tasks. Volunteer Coordinators receive permanent extra-discount.
97 Staff Alfalfa House staff comprises two part time paid Coordinators, who work on a job share basis. Staff are responsible for the day to day decision making within the co op, including ordering stock, handling crises, and dealing with daily finances. In addition, Staff oversee the implementation of specific projects and Management Committee decisions. In the absence of Volunteer Coordinators, staff also coordinate shift workers and manage the shop front of the coop. Staff must be members of Alfalfa House, and remain on permanent extra-discount for the duration of their employment.
Management Committee The Management Committee is elected annually by and from the membership. It consists of seven people who are legally responsible for the operations of the co-op. In addition to these seven, the membership may choose to appoint any number of 'co-opted' members to the Management Committee. Co-opted members do not appear on the list of Directors submitted to the NSW Registry of Co-operatives, and are therefore not legally liable. Nevertheless, they are given a mandate by the membership to participate in all Management Committee activities.
The Management Committee meets monthly and deals with a range of issues. These include: staff management and support; significant financial planning and decisions; administrative duties in relation to membership, financial matters, and formal correspondence; policy development and implementation; strategic planning. In addition to these monthly meetings, individual Management Committee members commit regular time to specific aspects of the co-op's management. Management Committee members receive permanent extra discount.
Working groups At any one time, there are a number of 'working groups' or 'collectives' operating within the co-op. These groups comprise active members who have a specific interest in or commitment to a particular activity of the co-op. While the number and variety of these working groups shift according to the changing priorities of the co-op and its membership, some of the more long term and relatively stable groups include: the
98 newsletter group; the Roving Kitchen group (which attends to the Alfalfa House catering for community events); the Unpackaged Tours group. Ideally, a member of the Management Committee is involved in each group, and acts as a liaison to keep the Management Committee informed about working group activities and decisions.
Alfalfa House - a 'new wave' Cooperative Without wishing to preempt members' conceptualisations of the co-op which will be explored in the results and discussion chapters of this thesis, I believe that it is valid to characterise Alfalfa House as a new wave co-operative. As may be seen in the formal aims and objectives cited above, there is an explicit focus within the co-op's organisational structure on the environmental and ethical aspects of food production and distribution. Concerns for the environment in particular are further supported by the actual retail practices of the co-op, which are strongly oriented towards reducing commercial and consumer waste through reusing and recycling packaging, and towards preferential selection of products which are perceived as being 'environmentally friendly'.
In addition to the environmental and ethical emphases of the co-op, which may be linked to the forms of collective action associated with the ecology movement, the organisational structure of Alfalfa House favours locally based human centred enterprise. The co-op's full title is "Alfalfa House Community Food Co-operative" (my emphasis), which suggests that the notion of community is of some significance. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the operation of the co-op relies, quite literally, on the active involvement of its membership. While the employment of part time staff has become identified as a necessity as the co-op's activities have diversified, members' voluntary commitments in the form of work shifts remain the central force which keep the doors of the co-op open and the operations of the enterprise afloat. To the extent that Alfalfa House relies on direct and tangible contributions from its membership in order to function, it may be characterised as a 'grass roots' organisation.
99 Collective identity & new wave cooperation: a local approach As I discussed in detail in the previous chapter, Melucci's concept of collective identity provides us with a useful way of exploring the ongoing negotiation of relationships, orientations, and opportunities and limitations of action which precede, or underpin, the fields of action which have come to be identified as social movements. In the following chapter, I will return to those features of the collective identity approach which have informed my own methodology. At this stage, I want to briefly consider the possibilities of employing a collective identity approach to the study of action within Alfalfa House.
A collective identity approach does not presume the existence of a 'social movement' and, therefore, the definition of common features which make up the movement. Rather, this methodological orientation encourages the exploration of heterogeneity and multiplicity, of contradiction as well as commonality, within a localised context. I believe that such an approach renders a number of important possibilities for my research.
First, my experiential knowledge of Alfalfa House suggests that there are a wide range of activities being carried out by a variety of members in the name of the co op. By utilising Melucci's conceptualisation of collective identity, I am able to explore members' own understandings of these activities and their significance to the broader purpose of the co-op. This will encourage me to explore a variety of actions and negotiations, rather than simply focusing on the instrumental or formal aspects of the co-op's day to day operations.
Second, the collective identity focus on the plurality of relationships operating over time suggests that a 'unified' collective identity is underpinned by a diversity of individual ideological orientations and motivations. In exploring the construction of collective identity within Alfalfa House, I am as concerned with the ideological differences between members as I am with their similarities. Rather than presuming unity, I will be interested in how the sense of 'collectivity' is constructed by a network of people with possibly diverse beliefs, objectives, and experiences.
100 Finally, the highly contextualised nature of this approach lends itself to the development of a richly detailed understanding of the co-op from a number of different perspectives. I believe that such an approach is in keeping with the grass roots democratic nature of Alfalfa House, as it is concerned with listening to the voices of many, rather than focusing on the conceptualisations of a few visible and structurally dominant members. It is my hope that using the broad principles of the collective identity approach may render research outcomes which, by drawing out the variety of orientations of individual members, can contribute usefully to future activities of Alfalfa House. Having briefly explored some of the possibilities of the collective identity approach for my particular study, I now wish to turn briefly to a consideration of new wave cooperatives in the light of new social movement theories.
New wave cooperativism & new social movements In my earlier descriptions of the historical emergence and ideological orientation of New Age, or New Wave Cooperativism, I identified a number of features of this form of cooperation which suggest strong links with, or parallels to, those fields of action - such as the environment, peace and women's movements - which are theoretically defined as new social movements. Firstly, this phase of cooperation emerged in the west in response to the student and civil rights protests which have been identified as the first new social movements. Since that time, new wave cooperativism has taken up a number of the values of another new social movement, the environment movement. In addition, as has been described by the few theorists who have observed new wave cooperation in any detail, this form of cooperation has generally favoured: local, small scale endeavours which encourage grass roots participation; an emphasis on cultural transformation through the embodiment of cooperative values in day to day living (that is, the development of 'comprehensive cooperation'); the 'think globally, act locally' catchcry which has been popularised by contemporary collective activities, the environment movement in particular.
All of these features resonate of the descriptions and analyses of new social movements which I discussed in Chapter Two. As I noted in that discussion, Offe's new social movement theory allows us to consider contemporary social movement
101 activities in terms of collective responses to the conditions of contemporary society which exceed the boundaries of institutional politics and enter the noninstitutional political fields of culture and civil society. In my exploration of Alfalfa House members' construction of the meanings of their cooperative, I will employ a new social movement interpretation in order consider if, and if so, how, members define their involvement in the co-op in relation to broader socio-political, cultural, and economic practices.
Conclusion As we have seen from the discussion in this chapter, the cooperative 'movement' encompasses a diverse network of activities and enterprises, which have varied in relation to historical conditions and differed across nations. Contractual cooperation in practice comprises a variety of organisational forms, and a range of ideological orientations. In this chapter, I have provided a broad overview of the field of action in which the focus of my study - Alfalfa House - may be located. As such, this chapter has been concerned with the substance of my research. Given the dual concerns of substance and process in this study, it is important now to give equal consideration to the methodological issues which have informed the research.
102 CHAPTERFOUR: METHODOLOGY
In Chapter Two, I critically examined the development of social movement theory, in order to illustrate the ways in which these theories have been shaped by the social and historical contexts in which they have emerged. In doing so, I sought to identify some of the limitations of these theoretical understandings, to illustrate them as ways of seeing a particular 'form' of collective activity at a given moment, rather than as universally true explanatory frameworks. In this chapter, I shift my discussion from what we have come to know about social movements, to how we have come to know it. That is, I critically examine some of the methodological approaches which have been exercised in sociology and the broader social sciences in the study of social movements and social change. My intention here is to illustrate that the methods employed to investigate so called social movement activity - methods which are themselves bound to dominant assumptions about what constitutes 'good' or 'valid' scientific inquiry - necessarily limit what we can find out about this type of collective activity.
For the purposes of brevity, I will not be examining the methodological approaches associated with every theoretical position outlined previously. Rather, in keeping with my own theoretical interest, I focus my discussion on the 'action' approaches of social movement theorists, Alain Touraine and Alberto Melucci, as well as the principles of Participatory Action Research (PAR) as described by a range of PAR theorists and practitioners. Having explored the possibilities and limitations of these methodologies, I introduce the Activist Research Approach (ARA), which I have developed by synthesising some of the main features of PAR and the collective identity approach. I then briefly recall the four features introduced in my earlier interpretation of Melucci' s concept of collective identity - multiplicity, dynamism, self-reflexivity, and action orientation - with a view to summarising the theoretical underpinnings of the ARA.
103 'Methodology' vs 'method' In order to commence a chapter on methodology, it is important to establish an understanding of the term. As Blaikie points out, much of the social science literature which deals with the related concepts of method and methodology mistakenly uses the two terms interchangeably. Whereas the term 'method' refers to the actual procedures or techniques used in the gathering and analysis of data as it relates to a specific research question, 'methodology', according to Blaikie, refers to: the analysis of how research should or does proceed. It includes discussions of how theories are generated and tested - what kind of logic is used, what criteria they have to satisfy, what theories look like and how particular theoretical perspectives can be related to particular research problems (Blaikie, 1993: 7).
In Blaikie's sense, the choice of method is underpinned by the theoretical position taken up by the researcher.
In a discussion of method and methodology, Schratz and Walker suggest that there is a strong tendency among social science researchers to conduct research which complies with existing methodological practices - that is, "to construe a problem in such a way that it fits a pattern that is familiar and manageable" (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 12). The significance of the term methodology for Schratz and Walker is that it requires an argument to link the selection and implementation of specific methods to the manner in which a research problem is conceptualised, and the usefulness and limitations of the outcomes of that research process (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 12). Beyond Blaikie's 'analysis' and 'discussion', then, Schratz and Walker posit methodology as "requiring a critical justification for the adoption and practice of particular research methods" (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 12). The implications of this understanding of the term methodology, which I take as my focus and definition, are that the research methods become as much the subject of research as the outcomes which research endeavours to generate.
The idea that research instruments and methods are "inextricably embedded in commitments to particular versions of the world" (Hughes, 1990: 11) suggests also
104 that they are bound to specific understandings about what we can know about the world and how we can come to know it. That is, the knowledge which can be produced through particular research methods is predicated on the existing theory of knowledge which underpins those methods. I consider in some detail below a typology of knowledge which identifies three distinct forms of knowledge, and the importance which has been afforded to these different forms within the traditions of social science.
A note on positivism It is important to note here that, implicit to this typology of knowledge and the principles of PAR - which I will discuss later in this chapter - is a critical interpretation of positivist science. Briefly, when referring to positivism in the social sciences throughout this chapter, I am referring to a dominant philosophy which claims the following: that reality is made up of what is available to the senses; that the social and natural sciences share the same logical and methodological foundations; that there is a fundamental distinction to be made between 'fact' and 'value', and science should only concern itself with facts (Hughes, 1990: 20).
Although I cannot provide an extensive discussion of positivism 15 in this thesis, I wish to clarify the interpretation of the function of positivism which underpins my study. Many PAR and postmodern researchers share a critical and complete rejection of positivism as a dominant discourse which reinforces traditional relations of power, and instates one form of knowledge at the expense of all others. While I share this critical perception of the limitations of the positivist orthodoxy, and am centrally concerned with developing alternative understandings, I do not reject it altogether. To do so, in my opinion, is to undermine the postmodern project in two ways. Firstly, an outright rejection of positivism requires a 'blanket' critique which oversimplifies positivist philosophy and practice and its historical significance. Secondly, the rejection of one discourse implies the centrality of another, the very assumption which postmodernism seeks to challenge. While my own research approach is explicitly critical of the limitations and silences of positivist research, then, I
15For an excellent discussion on this subject, see Hughes (1990), The Philosophy of Social Research, Longman, London.
105 acknowledge its historical significance and its functional contribution to the development of the social sciences.
Conceptions of knowledge & its significance for social research In a discussion of social research methods, Peter Park points out that we "live in an era in which we tend to equate research with only one kind of knowledge, that which is associated with the natural sciences" (Park, 1993: 4). As a means of broadening this narrow conception, Park goes on to describe Habermas' critical theory of knowledge which identifies three types of knowledge which inform human conduct in society. Park refers to these three types as instrumental, interactive, and critical knowledge (Park, 1993: 4).
Instrumental knowledge, the key example of which is the natural sciences, has emerged in the West since the Renaissance. According to Park, this form of knowledge "derives its ability to control external events from the structure of its explanatory theories, which are made up of a series of equations essentially expressing causal relationships" (Park, 1993: 5). The methodological assumption which underpins this form of inquiry is that the object of inquiry is separate from and external to the investigating subject (Park, 1993: 5). To the extent that the traditional social sciences have, in the positivist tradition, modelled themselves on the natural science framework, they construct a researcher - researched dualism in which the former is an active subject and the latter is a passive object to be studied. As Park points out, knowledge "produced by traditional social sciences ignores the fact that humans gain social knowledge through interaction as co-members of society, and it is therefore not likely to be valid in the instrumental sense of being practically useful" (Park, 1993: 5). In order to assess the validity of social research, then, we must include other forms of knowledge, and their associated criteria, in our definition of knowledge.
Based on the work of Jurgen Habermas, Park suggests two other forms of knowledge which require consideration in the formation of any useful understanding of social relations. The first of these - interactive knowledge - is that which is derived from shared experience, that is, from "speaking with one another and exchanging actions
106 against the background of common experience, tradition, history, and culture" (Park, 1993: 6). Unlike instrumental knowledge, which is organised around the principle of externalisation and separateness, interactive knowledge is defined by inclusion and connectedness. This type of knowledge, which is formed essentially through conversations and other forms of communication, has been marginalised in traditional social science research.
A third form of knowledge which we can identify is critical knowledge. This is "a kind of knowledge that comes from reflection and action, which makes it possible to deliberate questions of what is right and just" (Park, 1993: 6). Through this kind of knowledge, people become aware of the historical and structural processes which inform our society. According to Park, access to this type of knowledge allows people to critique the social world in which they live and, through this critique, to develop a will to action which leads to action itself (Park, 1993: 8).
By identifying these three types of knowledge, and the extent to which they are prioritised or marginalised in natural and social scientific discourses, Park points to the relations of power which operate in the production and dissemination of knowledge. The primacy given to instrumental knowledge negates the significance of interactive and critical knowledge. Further, characterised as it is by expert monopolisation, instrumental knowledge necessarily excludes the majority of people from access to such knowledge. That is, "those who command expert knowledge also dominate any debate concerning issues of public interest because the noninitiated are unable to enter the scientized universe of discourse, as they lack the technical terminology and specialized language of argumentation" (Park, 1993: 7). Clearly, to the extent that knowledge production operates on the principle of exclusion, it plays a fundamental role in perpetuating traditional relations of power.
In the following discussion of the methodological approaches which have emerged from both social movement studies and participatory action research theories, I will consider how these various approaches validate or invalidate the forms of knowledge described above, and thus, briefly touch upon the conceptions of the world and how it may be known which are embedded in the research methods employed. My
107 intention in considering Touraine's approach and Melucci's early approach is to illustrate how these methodologies limit what we can know about social movements. My exploration of PAR and Melucci's more recent 'collective identity approach' will also involve a consideration of methodological limitations. This will then provide the basis for the development of what I have named the 'Activist Research Approach'.
Alain Touraine & 'Intervention Sociologique' In his 1977 text, The voice and the eye: An analysis of social movements, Alain Touraine describes his methodological approach - sociological intervention - as, "the action of the sociologist, whose aim is to reveal social relations and make them the main object ofanalysis" (Touraine, 1977: 140). This approach is characterised by its attempts to study social movements by recreating the social relations in which such action occurs. Sociological intervention aims first to establish a research group made up of movement 'militants' which is genuinely representative of the social movement being studied. This group is then introduced to movement interlocutors. It is through this confrontation, Touraine suggests, that the group is able to shape its thinking about itself and its action (Touraine, 1977: 142). According to Touraine, through this process of self-analysis, or "flexion", the group is able to make the conversion from dealing with the concrete problems of a genuine struggle to recognising and analysing itself as a social movement. It is this recognition of the "history of the intervention", Touraine says, which represents the highest possible meaning of social movements (Touraine, 1977: 169).
Within sociological intervention, the role of the researcher is to facilitate the research group's progress towards an historical understanding of themselves as social movement actors. In doing so, the researcher must engage with the movement actors without identifying her/himself with the group (Touraine, 1977: 191). Touraine states that, within the intervention process, the researcher "realizes, humbly, that he (sic) is not an actor; but at the crucial moment of intervention he is a prophet. He does not call the group to move towards him but goes towards what he has proclaimed and yet does not possess - towards the movement of which he will never be the guide." (Touraine, 1977: 194 - 195). Having achieved this process, it is also the role of the
108 researcher to interpret the 'meaning' of the results and convey this to the research group.
In developing the sociological intervention approach, Touraine encourages the development of methodologies which allow us to engage in an understanding of social relations by studying the relations themselves rather than simply observing the individuals who engage in them. In doing so, he recognises the need for investigative procedures which go beyond that which is possible within the narrow scope of traditional social science research. More specifically, his work highlights the need for methods particularly concerned with analysing the area of social movements. While Touraine's methodological contributions to the study of social movements are important, his sociological intervention approach may be criticised on a number of levels.
The first of these criticisms has been suggested by Alberto Melucci, and refers to a technical issue which undermines the validity of the 'conversion' aspect of the intervention. As Melucci points out, if the researcher is endeavouring to transmit to a movement its 'highest possible meaning', s/he can never be sure whether the action they observe is the result of their own intervention. That is, "Touraine's research procedure is unable to control its own effects. It cannot know whether or to what extent the conversion process is simply the product of its own interaction with the group it is observing." (Melucci, 1989: 201). In its inability to control its effects on the research group, sociological intervention impacts on the causal relationships which it is trying, objectively, to observe.
I would extend this criticism to suggest that Touraine's approach is inherently self referential. By establishing a research group of individuals who are 'genuinely representative' of the social movement which is the focus of the study, this approach presumes a preexisting knowledge of exactly what that movement is. That is, in seeking to illuminate the qualities or features of a social movement by observing the interactions of social movement activists who have been selected to represent the movement by the researcher, sociological intervention relies on the researcher to understand the 'dimensions' of the movement - and therefore to authoritatively select
109 a 'genuinely representative' sample - in order to investigate the dimensions of that movement. Both the self referential nature of this methodology, and the lack of control it has over its own impact on the research group, suggest that even within the limits of instrumental knowledge, sociological intervention is fundamentally flawed.
While Touraine's approach fails on these technical points, it is also limited by its validation of instrumental knowledge over all else. A prime example of the extent to which the sociological intervention process supports traditional research procedures may be seen in the role which is prescribed for the researcher. In constructing the researcher as separate from the group, sociological intervention operates on the researcher-researched dualism characteristic of methods concerned solely with instrumental knowledge. In discussing the researcher's role in the intervention process, Touraine states, "if [the researcher] becomes integrated into the movement, he (sic) is no more than an ideologist" (Touraine, 1977: 141). Touraine's quest to ensure that the researcher does not engage in the ideological framework of the movement s/he is studying, effaces the fact that the imposed separation between researching 'subject' and researched 'objects' itself constitutes an ideological practice. Touraine's failure to acknowledge this point undermines the validity of his concern for the ideological purity of the researcher, while at the same time reinforcing the relations of power which traditionally operate in social scientific mqmry.
This validation of traditional research assumptions is further highlighted by what Melucci describes as the "missionary-teacher role" (Melucci, 1988: 239) assigned to the sociological interventionist. By presuming that the researcher is able to 'deliver' the group of the movement it 'bears' (Touraine, 1977: 194), this investigative procedure posits the researcher as the expert through which the social movement group will come to know itself and its actions. While the intention here may be to produce positive outcomes for both the researcher (who is able to observe and interpret the group's process of selfrealisation) and the research group (which is able to develop an increased awareness of itself as a social movement and, therefore, to act more effectively), the process of achieving those outcomes is both determined and interpreted by the researcher, rather than developed and analysed collaboratively
110 by both researcher and researched. The implications of this are three-fold. Firstly, that the research procedure is developed by the researcher means that any knowledge generated will serve the researcher first. The second implication is that, by relegating the theoretical interpretation of the results to the researcher, the process cuts the research subjects off from ownership of knowledge produced. Finally, that the researcher's role is, in essence, to 'save the soul' of the social movement, implies a paternalistic presumption to know what is best for the movement actors. All of these factors serve to perpetuate the unequal power relations between researcher and researched which are supported by traditional research practices.
While Touraine's methodological approach to the study of social movement activities demonstrates both a shift in conceptualisations of social movements, and a break from some aspects of traditional social scientific enquiry, it remains limited. As I have indicated above, Melucci - who was a student of Touraine - has been influential his criticisms of these limitations, and explicit in how his own methodology distinguishes itself from Touraine's approach I will now consider the methodology which underpins Melucci's definitive text, Nomads ofthe Present.
Alberto Melucci's earlier methodological approach In an interview conducted by John Keane and Paul Mier, Alberto Melucci describes the investigative approach he adopted in the study of social movements in the Milano area during the early 1980s. He describes this methodology as comprising three phases. The first of these involves a survey of a wide range of groups, based on the methodological assumption that these groups are part of a 'social movement'. This is followed by in-depth interviews with all groups, with the aim of establishing working relationships between the research team and the groups they are studying. On the basis of these interviews, one group from each movement is selected for observation. Once the groups are selected, the final 'experimental phase begins. In this phase, members of the groups act in video-recorded sessions. In these sessions, Melucci says, group members have the opportunity to "activate their relationships, to reflect on what they were doing, and in this way simulate the processes through which they create new meanings and produce a collective identity, that is, come to define themselves as participants in a movement." (Melucci, 1989: 199). This is followed
111 by a 'feedback' session, in which the researchers present a summary of what the group has produced (Melucci, 1989: 244). Unlike Touraine's approach, Melucci's method lays no claim on revealing the 'truth' of a social movement to movement actors. The researcher is not the bearer of a message for the movements. Rather, s/he is concerned with feeding back information about the 'how', rather than the 'why' of action to group members.
The methodological approach developed by Melucci takes significant steps in redressing the weaknesses of sociological intervention. First, by avoiding the notion of a 'highest possible meaning' of social movements, and focusing on how rather than why action occurs, this method is better able to control the impact it has on research groups' activity and consequent 'self knowledge'. More importantly, the rejection of the notion that there exists a central 'truth' of social movements effectively removes the 'missionary - teacher' role of the researcher. Rather, Melucci speaks of an interdependent 'contractual relationship' between researcher and movement actor, in which both parties control specific resources - the researcher, the technical 'know-how' and the group members, control over the action and its meanings - both of which are necessary for the process to be successful (Melucci, 1989: 240). This redefinition of the role of the researcher posits the relationship between the researcher and the research subjects as one which involves mutual investments in, and returns on, the research process. Further, it emphasises the need to consider such research based relationships as a specific field of inquiry.
While this methodology is effective in redressing some of the theoretical and technical weaknesses of Touraine's approach, I would suggest that it is itself limited by the boundaries of instrumental knowledge formation. Melucci's emphasis on the contractual relationship between the researcher and the social movement actors is potentially useful in redressing the power imbalance produced by traditional social science research. However, while Melucci acknowledges the value of a relationship grounded in a more equal exchange, he identifies the primary significance of this relationship as being that it preserves the distance, or non-identification, between the two parties. That is, the contractual nature of the relationship presumes that each party is investing in the relationship in order to fulfil specific, but separate goals
112 (Melucci, 1989: 240). For Melucci, this non-identification between the parties ensures the validity of the approach as it decreases "the risk of confusing research with political agitation" (Melucci, 1989: 239). While Melucci's insistence on the need to avoid such confusion is valid within the methodological framework he has constructed, it clearly indicates the emphasis placed on 'objective' or instrumental knowledge production which underpins that framework.
As I discussed in the introduction to this thesis, the assumption of objectivity is an effective means of effacing the historical, cultural, and ideological context in which knowledge is developed, which reinforces an understanding of knowledge as universally true. I would suggest that, by equating 'methodological rigour' with 'researcher objectivity', Melucci is perpetuating the notion that 'good' social scientific inquiry is that in which the impact of the researcher on the field of research is minimised by their distance from, their 'professional disinterest' in, that which they study. Given Melucci's own, generally sympathetic, interest in the social movement activities he has studied, I would question the functional significance of creating distance between the researcher and the researched. As I will discuss in a later section of this chapter, I believe that a more fruitful approach to the study of social movements is one where, rather than attempting to reduce the researcher's impact on their field of study by constructing the researcher as an objective observer, that impact is constantly interrogated and reflected upon.
Throughout my discussion of these methodological approaches developed by Touraine and Melucci, I have endeavoured to highlight how they support traditional relations of power as they are manifested in classical social science research and the production of knowledge in general. By failing to recognise interpretative and critical forms of knowledge, these approaches remain limited to the production of instrumental knowledge. Further, in their quests to research contemporary social movements while at the same time ensuring a productive outcome for the movement actors, these methods ironically rely on the dominant cultural codes which such movements seek to resist. In doing so, they severely limit the scope of their own findings, and simultaneously negate the potential for reconceptualising the research process as a form of action in itself.
113 Participatory Action Research (PAR) In this section, I introduce participatory action research (PAR), its underlying objectives, and its general methodological form. I discuss some of the key advantages of PAR as identified by its advocates, as well as outlining the major theoretical differences which have developed within the field. In addition to considering this internal debate, I offer a critique of some of the key theoretical aspects of PAR. It is my assertion that PAR encompasses a number of features of potential value to the study of contemporary social movements, but that these features are inherently limited by the reductionism of the structural framework within which PAR positions itself.
PAR is an interdisciplinary approach to the social sciences which evolved from the work of Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. There are four main directions which PAR has taken: PAR in community development contexts; Action Research in formal organisations; Action Research in education; and farmer participatory research (Selener, 1993: 4). For the purposes of this discussion, I will be focussing on PAR in community development, as it is in this form that I identify the usefulness of PAR for the study of social movements. Having said this, however, it is important to acknowledge various trends in thinking which have affected PA researchers across all the areas in which PAR is practised.
Patricia Maguire defines PAR in the following way:
It is a method of social investigation of problems, involving participation of oppressed and ordinary people in problem posing and solving. It is an educational process for the researcher and participants, who analyze the structural causes of named problems through collective discussion and interaction. Finally, it is a way for researchers and oppressed people to join in solidarity to take collective action, both short and long term, for radical social change. Locally determined and controlled action is a planned consequence of inquiry (Maguire, 1987: 29).
114 In its methods of engaging community participation, then, PAR not only recognises, but is centrally concerned with the generation of forms of knowledge other than instrumental knowledge. That is, it is a method which takes into account the interactive knowledge of its participants, and its objective is the development of critical knowledge which leads to action by its participants.
PAR is grounded in a set of assumptions which are generally made explicit both to research participants and to the reader of completed projects. The first of these relates to values. PAR assumes that everything we do has a political nature, that is, that all of our work affects the distribution of power in society (Maguire, 1987: 35). PAR, then, does not claim to be value free. In this sense, PAR directly challenges the positivist tradition in social science, which holds that "there is a fundamental distinction to be made between fact and value, science dealing with the former while the latter belong[ s] to an entirely different order of discourse" (Hughes, 1990: 20). PAR explicitly endeavours to connect a research process with the active participation and consequent transformative actions of the group with which it is working (Selener, 1993: 14). In its planned objective to affect social change, the "ideological foundation of [PAR] is in opposition to the underpinnings of dominant social science research" (Maguire, 1987: 31). Further, PAR seeks not to conceal the patterns upon which it operates, but to recognise those values as valid within the research framework it establishes.
The methodological orientation of PAR - that is, that our understanding of social reality is inevitably directed by ideologies, belief systems, and internalised assumptions which cannot be explained satisfactorily on the basis of externally determined quantifiable values - draws on a premise originally advanced by practitioners of ethnography (Maclure, 1990: 3). However, where ethnographic and generally qualitative research methods are largely extractive, PAR actively seeks to overcome the traditional gap between researcher and researched (Maclure, 1990:3). That is, where qualitative methodologies continue to assign control of the study to the researcher, PAR distributes that control amongst all project participants. A further distinction which can be made between PAR and other qualitative approaches is that PAR may employ quantitative methods within the course of a study. What is
115 significant here is that both the issues examined and the methods used should be collectively agreed upon by project participants (Mulenga, 1994: 259).
In its opposition to traditional social science research, PAR is centrally concerned with renegotiating what it views as established power imbalances within the research process. The most fundamental power relationship that exists in research is that between the researcher and the research subjects. Similar to Melucci's 'contractual relationship', PAR recognises the different skills and information which both parties bring to the research process. While the researcher brings general knowledge of systems, social science, and research processes, the research participants bring an "in-depth understanding of their system [or community], how individuals perceive phenomena, and how to get things done" (Chisolm & Elden, 1993: 287). Unlike Melucci's approach, however, PAR aims to surrender control over the research process to the research participants. In doing so, it attempts to redefine the power imbalance implicit in traditional forms of research, and seeks to change the associated traditions of knowledge creation and ownership.
In her 1987 text, Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach, Patricia Maguire outlines the five phases common to PAR. It is important to note that PAR seeks to avoid the claim that there is or should be one 'true' approach to conducting participatory research. As PAR is participatory, case specific models evolve in the context of a particular situation and in response to specific needs and objectives. While a generalised model of PAR is impossible to create, these phases have been identified by a group of participatory researchers as being common to a broad range of concrete PAR projects (see Vio Grossi et al, 1983).
Phase One - Organisation ofthe Project & Knowledge ofthe Working Context In this phase, the researcher familiarises her/himself with the community and the problems or challenges which it is facing. This may be achieved by collecting and analysing existing information about the research area, establishing relationships with community organisations, leaders and institutions, and identifying people who may be interested in engaging in the research process. An important aspect of this
116 phase is that the research objective should be community, rather than researcher generated (Maguire, 1987: 40-41 ).
Phase Two - Definition ofGenerating Problematics At this stage, a range of techniques and processes are employed to facilitate both researcher and participant identification of the key problems. This problem-posing continues over time through extended dialogue, as each phase "takes the researchers and participants to a deeper and more critical understanding of reality as perceived and experienced by both participants and researcher" (Maguire, 1987: 41)
Phase Three - Objectivization and Problematization This phase seeks to draw out connections between individual participants' interpretations of problems and the broader context of structural conditions of social reality. Through this development of critical consciousness, the participants and researchers are able to compile the questions and themes which will be investigated. As an educational process, each phase strengthens participants' consciousness of the resources they possess and, therefore, their potential for mobilisation and action (Maguire, 1987: 42)
Phase Four - Researching Social Reality and Analyzing Collected Information In this phase the researcher and participants ideally design an investigative process to address the main problems and questions which they have identified in Phase Three. Here, depending on the design of the project, participants will be involved in varying degrees in the implementation of this investigative process through the gathering of information, classification, analysis, and conclusions derived from that information (Maguire, 1987: 42).
Phase Five - Definition ofAction Projects In the final phase, participants and researchers decide on what actions to take in order to deal with the collectively defined and investigated problems. Here, the explicit objective is that both the process and the products of the research be of direct benefit to those involved in the project. As Maguire puts it, "Ordinary and oppressed people move from being objects to being the subjects and beneficiaries of research.
117 Likewise, researchers move from being "detached extractors of information" to involved activists" (Park quoted in Maguire, 1987: 42). While the action projects identified are intended to facilitate some kind of positive outcome(s) for the group participating in the study, then, the very process of identifying these projects is viewed as having empowering effects on participants.
The limitations and complexities ofPAR/or the study ofsocial movements By establishing connections between different forms of knowledge, scientific investigation, and community action for social change, PAR offers a range of important possibilities for social science approaches in general, and the study of contemporary social movements in particular. In a later section of this chapter, I examine these possibilities in detail. However, in order to identify the potential of PAR, it is important to also examine its complexities and its limitations. In this section, I discuss some of the main theoretical problems and limitations of PAR.
Many of the limitations of PAR are grounded the ideological position from which this approach is constructed. PAR seeks to challenge the ideological practices of traditional social science research by laying bare the relations of power which operate within scientific discourse as the major field of knowledge production. At the same time, PAR self consciously proclaims its own ideological foundations as being grounded in a world view derived from a broadly neo-Marxist perspective which regards social systems as "inherently conflictual, with political and economic elites defending their interests at the expense of non-privileged groups" (Maclure 1990:
2) 16• PAR gives primacy to participation as the means by which the generation and control of knowledge is democratically achieved, and power is thus shifted to those oppressed groups (Mulenga, 1994: 259). While PAR proclaims its ideological position as one which recognises human equality and seeks the emancipation of the oppressed, there are a number of areas in which the practice of PAR and, indeed, its
16 It is worth noting here that there is an ongoing theoretical division and debate between PA researchers which may be broadly described as a split between proponents of a dialectical materialist understanding of PAR, and PA researchers who take up the pragmatic possibilities of the approach. Given that this argument is not central to my own criticisms of PAR, I have not included it in the body ofmy discussion. For a synthesis of this debate, see Comstock et al, 1993.
118 theoretical base, may be seen to contradict this stated position and, as such, co-opt PAR into dominant ideological practice.
Patricia Maguire has explored in depth the "androcentric filter" through which PAR developed. According to Maguire, the voices and concerns of women have been seldom heard within the most ground breaking and widely read PAR literature (Maguire, 1987: 48). As Maguire states:
Having established that people are frequently exploited by traditional social science research, participatory researchers are attempting to develop research that has the potential and intention to empower people and transform social systems. But we must ask, exactly which people are empowered and which social structures are challenged? (Maguire, 1987: 50).
Maguire summarises the masculine bias of PAR into seven categories: the use of male centred language, making it difficult to distinguish between men and women's experience within specific projects; the use of forums which facilitate women's unequal access to project participation (particularly in community development projects where particular organised forums traditionally exclude women); inadequate attention to redressing the obstacles to women's participation; unequal access of women to the benefits of the project; generalised assumptions that the benefits of male oriented projects necessarily flow to women; absence of feminist analysis from the theoretical discussions on PAR (class analysis has taken primacy); exclusion of gender issues from the agenda of PAR (Maguire, 1987: 51-52).
Clearly, Maguire' s feminist critique highlights the extent to which PAR, in the name of human equality and emancipation, has itself engaged in silencing the voices of a traditionally oppressed group. That is, despite its overtly stated 'alternative' ideological position, PAR can and has been complicit in reinforcing, and even strengthening, traditional patterns of domination along gender lines.
119 Another area in which we can question the ideological ambiguities of PAR is in the very notion of participation. As Richard Maclure points out, participation, as defined from a contemporary western perspective, involves: the open exchange of arguments and ideas, it sanctions the right to question, and it legitimates the prerogative to be different, to conduct experiments, and to make mistakes .. .ln some contexts, however, open dialogue and direct questioning may be shunned, and experimentation and mistakes may be regarded as conveying unacceptable social as well as economic risk (Maclure, 1990: 8).
To the extent that PAR gives primacy to participation as it is defined above, it is culturally bound to the western values associated with this definition. Rather than freeing itself completely from the power imbalances which it sees as being generated by the application of culturally dominant research techniques to culturally oppressed groups, PAR maintains the potential to perpetuate those power relations.
The absence of issues of gender, and the cultural specificity of notions of participation within PAR are just two examples of the contradictions and silences which have developed within this ideological framework which seeks to challenge dominant ideological contradictions and silences. The intention of this demonstration is not to dismiss PAR outright as a useful research approach, but to illustrate that renegotiating the boundaries between being inside and outside of the research process does not simply eliminate the power relationship that exists between researcher and research subjects. In fact, I would suggest that PAR is fundamentally limited by its binary understanding of power, in which the traditional researcher is all powerful and the participants, powerless. While I will return to this issue of power later in this section, I would point out here that PAR' s proposed transformation of the role of the researcher has the potential danger of either crippling the research process altogether, or, as Schratz and Walker suggest, colonising the worlds of our research subjects in new ways (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 137).
Another significant limitation of PAR is the extent to which it is fettered by the reductionism of class analysis. As I touched upon when considering its implications
120 for women participants, the theoretical debate surrounding PAR has given primacy to class struggle to the exclusion of other sources of oppression which operate within contemporary societies. In its neo-Marxist orientation, PAR has largely failed to
acknowledge that different groups experience class in different ways17• A useful example of this is the different class experiences of men and women. In spite of the fact that women experience class differently from their male counterparts, historical materialism generally assigns women a class on the basis of their husband or father's relations to the means of production (Maguire, 1987: 63). In post industrial societies, class distinctions are becoming more complex and indeterminate. The historical materialist analysis which has so informed PAR effaces these complexities and, in doing so, fails to engage with the contemporary social experience. This focus on class as the central source of oppression, and therefore the key to emancipation, not only over simplifies class structures, but also overlooks the many social factors which shape our experience of oppression. Factors such as colour, age, sexuality, culture, religion, our nation's economic standing, and other socially constructed distinctions necessarily affect these experiences. In its failure to engage with the multiplicity of subject positions which affect the individual's experience of oppression, this aspect of PAR limits the development of the new ways of seeing and thinking about the social world which the research method seeks to encourage.
To the extent that PAR is bound to dualistic notions of 'class oppression' versus 'emancipation', then, its usefulness as an approach to social research is fundamentally limited. As Schratz and Walker point out, PAR has proven attractive to many researchers because it seems to offer a way to contain or challenge societal changes that are moving beyond our capacity to control, in particular, those changes which emerge from the authority of the state. In its structural Marxist orientation, then, PAR represents what may be defined as a modernist reaction to the perceived threat of post-modernity, "a reassertion of liberal humanism in the face of new forms of authority, forms which have stimulated the intellectual crises posed by the authorless text, the emergence of global capitalism and the end of history" (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 169). Schratz and Walker suggest that PAR constructs a
17 Although PA researchers such as Maguire have endeavoured to redress this problem through reflective analyses of PAR in practice.
121 competition between the alternative notions of participatory democracy - that is, reform stimulated from the grass roots - and the large scale bureaucratic actions of representative democracy. In so doing, grass roots democracy perceives representative democracy as "the ruthless exercise of hierarchical authority, while it itself is seen as representing only sectional self-interest" (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 169). The reductionism of this two-dimensional image of the social world, Schratz and Walker point out, causes many proponents of PAR to position themselves as heroes (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 169). By constructing a good/evil dualism and hailing itself as the 'good', PAR is in danger of establishing itself as yet another grand narrative.
This dualistic understanding of 'good' and 'evil' is an extension of the conceptualisation of power which is central to PAR. That is, in wishing to bring about the emancipation of a traditionally oppressed social group, PAR is oriented around a binary understanding of power and powerlessness, whereby the researcher is all powerful, and must relinquish control to the 'oppressed' research participants so that they may become empowered to act in overcoming their oppression. Without wishing to condemn the principle of grass roots empowerment itself, I would suggest that this understanding of the empowerment process is a fairly simplistic one, which fails to recognise shifting relations of power and the multiple subject positions - and their associated positions of power - which individuals enact in their day to day lives. The idea of the powerful researcher 'sharing' their power so that the oppressed research participants may be emancipated resonates of the paternalistic assumptions which I identified in Touraine's missionary-teacher approach.
Further, in terms of the knowledge produced by PAR, it is clear that, by focusing on the emancipation of oppressed peoples as a primary research objective, PAR is centrally concerned with the production of critical knowledge as a research outcome. While PAR recognises interactive and instrumental knowledge, then, it views the development of critical knowledge as the ultimate goal of the research. That is, in its explicitly neo-Marxist approach, it seems that PAR is not focused solely on redressing the contradictions and silences created by the privileging of instrumental knowledge, but on giving primacy to critical knowledge over other forms of
122 understanding of the social world. Such a purpose seems intent not on encouraging a multiplicity of voices, views, and knowledge, but on replacing one dominant discourse with another.
PAR: postmodern possibilities: In the above criticism of PAR, I have used a broadly 'deconstructive' approach in order to emphasise some of the limitations and weaknesses of both its intended objectives and the theoretical frameworks in which debate about PAR has emerged. The intention of this critique is not to disregard PAR altogether, but to lay bare the doubled and divided nature of any practice which constructs itself in opposition to dominant ideologies and social structures. By investigating some of the emancipatory claims of PAR, I have shown that, in its resistance to traditional power relations and the ideology which perpetuates those relations, PAR necessarily participates in the conservatism of the social practices and structures which it critiques. In this section, I will examine the radical, or subversive possibilities of PAR in relation to the study of social movements. In so doing, I will endeavour to break "the consensus created by constructing situations in terms of inflexible opposing views" (Schratz & Walker, 1995: 169), in order to 'reconstruct' PAR with a focus on its postmodern possibilities.
In its validation of forms of knowledge other than instrumental reason, PAR concerns itself with the generation of new paradigms of explanation and inquiry (Maclure, 1990: 2), that is, with new ways of conceiving of and explaining cultural codes of meaning. Some sociological studies of social movements have been grounded in theoretical assumptions which are very distant from the lived experiences of social movement participants. By legitimising collective knowledge formation, and by encouraging a research process which research participants assist to construct, PAR provides the basis for a methodological framework within which social movement practitioners and theoreticians can develop new understandings of social movements in dialogue with each other.
The second aspect of PAR which holds radical possibilities for the subversion of social science lies in its redefinition of the researcher-researched dualism. Traditional
123 research methods rule that the researcher remains outside the sphere of observation in order to remain 'objective'. Conversely, PAR conceives of the researcher role as one of " 'insertion into the social process' of research rather than of detached observation" (Mulenga, 1994: 259). The intellectual context in which this form of research is situated, then, legitimises social change action as an objective of that research. PAR allows us to move beyond Melucci's fears about the researcher identifying with the research participants, by proclaiming that this fear springs from a misguided faith in the ideologically constructed researcher-researched dualism of traditional research methods.
In its attempts to renegotiate the boundaries of traditional social science research, PAR potentially establishes itself as a reflective approach. That is, the PA researcher is constantly required to reflect upon the methodology, which is collectively produced, collectively applied, and collectively evaluated. It is in this self reflexivity that we can see the potential for PAR to move beyond mere critique of the ideological and structural conditions of oppression in which, to some extent, it participates. As a form of inquiry which is constantly looking back upon and learning of itself, PAR has the capacity to 'problematise' itself rather than cling to simplistic emancipatory objectives which can actually bring about conservative practices. Throughout this section, I have examined PAR in light of both its conservative and radical possibilities. To dismiss PAR as 'ideology' rather than 'science' is to fail to recognise its theoretical underpinnings and its potential to challenge the limitations of traditional social science, whereas to hail it as revolutionary practice is to efface the extent to which it necessarily participates in the systems of domination which it seeks to challenge. What is significant about PAR for the study of social movements is not that it is a radically subversive research approach destined to participate in catalysing 'world wide revolutions' for which social movements apparently aim. Rather, to the extent that PAR offers a self reflexive research approach which recognises multiple forms of knowledge, and views action as a necessary research outcome, it has the potential to give privilege to the realm of ideas, to the cultural codes of meaning, which is also the focus of contemporary social movements. In its potential to bring about new ways of thinking and speaking of social movements,
124 PAR aligns itself with both the underlying principles and organisational forms of contemporary social movements.
The collective identity approach Having considered some of the possibilities and limitations of PAR, I wish to now return briefly to the methodological implications of Melucci's more recent work - that is, the collective identity approach to the study of social movements - which I discussed in Chapter Two. We recall here that I discussed in some detail Melucci's concept of collective identity, which he defines as the collective process of construction of an action system on cognitive, relational, and emotional axes.
As I discussed in Chapter Two, the focus on 'process' of collective identity implies that its conceptual and practical aspects are indivisible. As such, I have already detailed the methodological implications of a collective identity approach in my discussion of the concept in my theory chapter. Rather than repeat that entire discussion here, I will simply summarise its major points.
A collective identity approach to the study of social movement activities presumes an analysis of a process which is perpetually in a state of change, rather than of a distinct and unified entity. As this approach is underpinned by an understanding of collective identity as an action system which functions simultaneously along a number of axes, it lends itself to a study of the plurality of aspects, themes, and contradictions which are operating within the field of study at a given moment. Further, a collective identity approach is concerned with exploring the less formal - and, traditionally, less 'measurable'- aspects of social movement activity.
This conceptualisation of social movement research is, by definition, concerned with a highly context specific approach to the study of movement activity. Similarly to PAR, this approach is concerned with developing detailed conceptual analyses within a field of study, rather than generalised accounts of so called social movements. Beyond PAR, the collective identity approach is also explicitly concerned with acknowledging the time and place in which the activity and its analysis are occurring, thereby recognising its cultural and historical contingency.
125 A collective identity analysis is primarily concerned with the ongoing formation of identity, rather than the external objectives of the collective actor and their success or failure in meeting those objectives. In this sense, the approach is centrally focused on the process of collective action, rather than the outcome. This concern with process is also applied to the methodology itself via a self-reflexive exploration of the relationship between the researcher and the researched, and the open acknowledgment of the impact which research has on the field being studied. Whereas PAR is more concerned with minimising that impact by relinquishing control of the research to the research participants, a collective identity approach simply acknowledges that impact and draws it into the action being studied. In this way, research is itself viewed as form of action.
Melucci's methodology is not predicated on a complete rejection of other methodological approaches to social movement studies but, rather, calls for the development of new ways of exploring and knowing social movement activities. Further, in focusing on the perpetually shifting construction of collective identity, this approach characterises itself as permanently incomplete, a work in progress. In this sense, the research method is itself as subject to change and interrogation as the activity which it purports to analyse. Unlike the tendency of PAR to instate itself as yet another grand narrative, the collective identity approach hails itself as simply one way of exploring - and, indeed, a perpetually incomplete one - the fields of action known as social movements.
The Activist Research Approach As may be evidenced by the discussion in this chapter so far, it is a central observation of this thesis that research process fundamentally informs research outcomes. Given the method led nature of my research, it was critical that I develop a methodology which was in keeping with my aims as a researcher, my theoretical assumptions about social movement activities, and my principles as an activist. By synthesising a number of features of PAR and the Collective Identity Approach, I developed a methodology which I refer to as the Activist Research Approach. In this section, I will discuss the features of these two existing methodologies which the
126 activist approach attempts to bring together, and the points on which my methodology explicitly departs from the assumptions of PAR and collective identity. Finally, I will give a broad outline of the Activist Research framework, and describe the practical phases of research which it entails.
The Activist Research Approach is an explicit attempt to redress some of the limitations of traditional studies of social movements. In drawing on the methodological frameworks of PAR and the Collective Identity approach, it addresses five main issues. These are outlined below.
The role of the researcher Like PAR, the ARA is concerned with renegotiating the traditional researcher and researched dualism, whereby the researcher is a distant and 'objective' observer of the field of research, and has no impact on that field. While the ARA departs from PAR in its related conceptualisation of power, which I discuss below, it shares with PAR a rejection of the assumption of researcher distance, in favour of the researcher being actively involved in the field which s/he is studying.
This conceptualisation of the role of the researcher is in conflict with that of the collective identity approach. We will recall from both my theoretical discussion of collective identity in Chapter Two and my comments on Melucci's earlier methodological work in this chapter, that the collective identity approach eschews an 'activist' role for the researcher in favour of a "contractual relationship" between the researcher and research participants, in order to preserve the objective distance of the researcher. In contrast, the Activist Research Approach rejects the possibility of researcher objectivity in favour of an open acknowledgment and analysis of their subjectivity, and the impact which that has on both the field of research and the nature of analysis.
Conceptualisation of Power in Research While recognising, and seeking to redress, the power imbalances implicit in traditional social research, the ARA simultaneously recognises that relations of power in research are, as Ristock and Pennell put it, "complex and reciprocal"
127 (Ristock and Pennell, 1996: 71 ). While accepting PAR's call for the renegotiation of the role of the researcher, the ARA rejects as impossible PAR's attempts to eliminate power altogether from the interactions between researcher and researched by rendering the researcher entirely transparent. The ARA is grounded in an understanding of power as relational, shifting, and ever present. In this sense, the ARA is less concerned with relinquishing control of the research to the research participants, and more interested in explicating relations of power, the contradictions experienced by the researcher who is simultaneously a researcher and an activist, and the impact which these contradictions have on the field of study.
Context Specific Research Both PAR and the collective identity approach are oriented towards close studies within highly specific fields of action. While the ideological orientations of the two approaches are significantly different, they share in common a commitment to the exploration of voices and types of knowledge which are traditionally ignored by social science research. The ARA approach also supports the study of collective activity within a highly specific context. In so doing, it takes on PAR's assumption that such close studies can facilitate the empowerment of their research subjects, and collective identity's concern with exploring the multiple, contradictory, and 'informal' aspects of social movements which have been effaced by other approaches.
Action Outcomes Both PAR and the collective identity approach are oriented around action outcomes. For PAR, the development of research participants' critical consciousness and consequent action to transform their lives is a primary objective. The collective identity approach recognises research as a form of action itself, and sees the results of that research, when 'fed back' to the participants, as opening up new possibilities for action within the social movement being studied.
The Activist Research Approach rejects as inappropriate PAR's objective of developing critical consciousness amongst its research participants. As I have
128 discussed above, the emancipatory aim of PAR is a potentially patronising one, which recolonises traditional relations of power in new ways.
While not accepting the action objectives of PAR, the ARA is oriented towards action outcomes. It takes up the action objectives of the collective identity approach, which views the research itself as a form of action, and the research outcomes as potentially facilitating action in the future. It is in this action orientation that the ARA is as concerned with outcome as it is with process. That is, while this approach is underpinned by a focus on and analysis of the process of research, it is also committed to the generation of action outcomes which are of use to the research participants, as defined by those participants.
Reflection and Reflexion PAR is a reflective research approach which demands that the researcher maintain a self-consciousness about their role in the research in order to establish and maintain non-exploitative relations between the researcher and the research participants. The collective identity approach, however, is a reflexive one in that it encourages the researcher to be aware of how they observe and affect actions and exchanges, how they attribute meaning, and what understandings are being produced through the research and in what ways (Ristock and Pennell, 1996: 48). This distinction between PAR and the collective identity approach is informed by their different conceptualisations of power which I have discussed above.
While the activist research approach is concerned with redressing traditional relations of power in research, it focuses on a radical acknowledgment of power, rather than the eradication of power, which it views as impossible. In this sense, the ARA is self-reflexive, rather than reflective. This is not an outright rejection of PAR's intention of avoiding exploitative research practices. Rather, it is a modification of that intention, which identifies the importance of exploring the researcher's impact on that which s/he studies.
129 Theoretical backdrop of the Activist Research Approach We will recall here that, in my theoretical discussion of the collective identity approach, I analysed the methodology in the light of four categories: dynamism; multiplicity; reflexivity; and action orientation. Having distinguished where the AR approach converges with and diverges from both collective identity and PAR, I wish to reclaim those categories as a means of briefly summarising the theoretical underpinnings of the ARA.
The Activist Research Approach may be characterised as a perpetual 'work in progress', which is shaped by the shifting context in which it is being applied, and the dynamic nature of the very process it is studying. The ARA is based on open acknowledgement that the knowledge produced through this methodology represents only one way of 'knowing' social movement activity, and calls for new theoretical and methodological developments which build on existing sociological understandings of this form of collective activity.
By employing a multiplicity of methods in the study of the same subject, the ARA seeks both to create an approach which is flexible and responsive to the research context, and to view the subject from several 'angles', in order to create a rich and detailed understanding of that subject. By 'multiplicity of methods' , I refer not simply to the research instrument itself, but to the very process of developing the research instrument, and the ways in which the research outcomes are analysed. Finally, as I have discussed above, the ARA is a self-reflexive research approach which is oriented towards the facilitation of action outcomes.
'Doing' activist research Like PAR, the activist research approach is highly context specific, and therefore irreducible to one universal method. However, drawing from Maguire's (1987) example with regard to PAR, I have identified six broad phases of the activist research approach. These are:
130 1. Organisation of the project and knowledge of the working context 2. Identifying the research project 3. Design of the research instrument 4. Research and analysis 5. Definition and implementation of action projects 6. Reflexion - writing up the study
Conclusion The research approach developed in this study signifies a shift away from theoretical understandings of social movements which focus on the structural or intersubjective components of collective action, and towards a questioning and analysis of the very existence of collectivity itself. Following on from Melucci's introduction of the concept of collective identity, this approach is intended to facilitate "changes in our conceptualization of social movements and ... contribute to a different understanding of the changing significance of social movements in contemporary society" (Melucci, 1996: 77). The Activist Research Approach draws on a number of the features of Melucci's collective identity approach, but incorporates into this approach a radicalisation of the role of the researcher which has its roots in Participatory Action Research. In the following chapter, I will use the ARA framework developed above to describe the actual methods used in the present study.
131 CHAPTER FIVE: METHOD
In this chapter, I will provide an account of my research process using the activist research approach. In order to discuss my research method, I have defined it in a series of phases. Due to the dynamic nature of the methodology, however, the research itself did not occur in a strictly linear fashion. Further, the action outcomes of the research continue to evolve.
Phase One - Organisation of the Project and knowledge of the working context. As I have previously acknowledged, my involvement in community based food cooperatives pre-dates the commencement of this project. In fact, my experiential knowledge of and ideological commitment to cooperativism provided the impetus for this study. While my active involvement with Alfalfa House began with the commencement of the project, then, my cooperative 'credentials' were already well established, as were my social relationships with a number of Alfalfa House members.
Relocation Upon commencing the project, I moved from the eastern suburbs of Sydney to the inner western suburbs, within walking distance of Alfalfa House. While I had a personal interest in living in the area, my primary reasons for moving were research related. These reasons included:
• access - being a local resident provided me with easy access to the co-op. This was important on a number of levels. Primarily, it allowed me to spend a significant amount of time within the co-op, and thus to have a high degree of involvement in co-op activities. By spending extensive periods of time within the cooperative, I was also able to initiate and consolidate ongoing relationships with many cooperative members, which was crucial to ensuring others' involvement in the project. Finally, close proximity to Alfalfa House provided me with easy access to important documents, references, and other on-site sources of information;
132 • local involvement - implicit in both my activism and my research approach is a commitment to local knowledges and local actions. By situating myself within Alfalfa House's geographical community, I was able to gain important experiential knowledge of the community, including some of its needs, availability of services, and responsiveness of other community and local government organisations. This knowledge allowed me to contribute more effectively to the cooperative, and to work more expediently as a researcher than I would have been able to as a geographically remote member of the co operative.
• involvement in the 'informal' or comprehensive aspects of Alfalfa House - physical proximity to the co-op is a characteristic shared by the large majority of its active members. As a local resident, I was able to participate in many informal aspects of the co-op community, from organised social events to spontaneous get togethers to ongoing friendships with particular individuals . These activities provide a rich source of experience and understanding of the process of cooperation within Alfalfa House, and my involvement was both personally and professionally valuable.
Participation Upon relocation to Sydney's inner west, I immediately became a member of Alfalfa House. Within two months, I had filled a casual vacancy on the Management Committee, and become actively involved in a diversity of areas within the co-op. These included:
• Ongoing membership of the Management Committee - this involves attendance at monthly meetings, where issues pertaining to finances, policy, membership, and staff are resolved. It also requires involvement in planning meetings, where strategic plans for the coop's future are developed;
133 • Contribution to the organisation of the 1995 Alfalfa House benefit night - in conjunction with the two Jobskills 18 workers employed at the time, I helped secure space, performers, and equipment for this large annual function;
• Membership of the Unpackaged Tour Committee - this involved my leading introductory sessions for new members on a bi-monthly basis, as well as contributing to committee decisions about modifying and refining the Unpackaged Tour process.
• Design and administration of a conflict resolution workshop for staff and Volunteer Coordinators - in conjunction with another Management Committee member, I conducted a workshop aimed at providing paid and volunteer Coordinators with more effective conflict resolution skills, and a forum in which they could identify and collectively work towards solving ongoing sources of conflict within the day to day operations of the co-op.
• Staff support and administration - in conjunction with another Management Committee member, I provided ongoing staff support, in the form of: supervision of wages, tax, superannuation, and leave loadings; review of occupational health and safety standards; mediation of staff conflict.
• Design of the Community Food Cooperative Development Project (CFCDP) - the CFCDP is an ongoing project aimed at developing a national network of community based food cooperatives, as well as developing an information kit on how to establish cooperatives of this type in New South Wales. In collaboration with staff and other interested members, I contributed to the design of this project, as well as writing several funding submissions to relevant local and state government bodies. The aims of the CFCDP are as yet unrealised, and my involvement in this project is ongoing. I will provide further discussion of this in phase two.
18 'Jobskills' being a federal government employment programme under the Keating Government's Working Nation scheme.
134 My involvement in this diverse range of activities served three main functions. Firstly, it allowed me to develop a detailed grounded understanding of many aspects of the co-op. By working actively and forming relationships with staff, Management Committee members, Volunteer Coordinators, other active members, and new members, I was able to view the co-op from a number of different perspectives, which assisted my understanding of a range of specific issues. This provided me with a more detailed experiential picture of the co-op than I would have gained from working and identifying only with one 'subgroup'. In this sense, I gained a first hand understanding of a number of different ways of participating in the co-op.
In addition to giving me a detailed understanding of the co-op, working with a range of members allowed me to develop mutually productive and trusting relationships with many of them. This provided an important foundation for the more formal phase of my research, as I was known to people as an active and potentially long term member, rather than as a temporary 'visitor'.
The third function which my diverse involvement served was that it allowed me to contribute as usefully and productively as possible to the ongoing operations of the co-op. The activities which I took on allowed me to use my previous experience and knowledge to benefit the co-op. This was important on both a personal level, and in terms of exploring constructive ways of conducting research within this particular context. In this sense, the preliminary phase of my research involved a high degree of activism within the co-op.
Phase Two - Identifying the research project Conceptualisation of the Community Food Cooperative Development Project Upon joining Alfalfa House, I was approached by the then permanent staff member and Jobskills workers about setting up a subgroup aimed at establishing a national network of community based food cooperatives. They indicated that they were eager to initiate this networking project, as it had been an area of concern for various active members since the early 1990s, and they felt that my previous experience with
135 cooperative development and funding submissions would be a valuable resource for the project.
As a result of this preliminary discussion, a subgroup was formed, and the CFCDP took shape. During my first fourteen months of involvement with Alfalfa House, this project was my primary focus and, at this time, I hoped that it would form the basis of my study. However, for a variety of reasons - which I will reflect upon in Chapter Seven - progress of the CFCDP slowed, and was eventually put on hold as others involved in the project identified new priorities for their participation in Alfalfa House activities. At the present time, my personal commitment to the CFCDP is ongoing. However, for the purposes of carrying out my PhD studies, my research focus shifted to the development and administration of a members' needs survey.
1996 Members' Survey Whilst developing the CFCDP, I was also actively involved in various management aspects of the co-op through my membership of the Management Committee. In the course of my participation in Management Committee meetings, it became apparent to me that some extensive and systematic assessment of co-op members' needs and experiences of the co-op would greatly assist the Management Committee to carry out its duties to the membership. I was also interested in exploring the possibility that, developed in an appropriate manner, such an assessment may have the potential to encourage members to participate more actively in the operations of the co-op, an ongoing objective of both Management and Staff.
While I undertook to carry out a comprehensive survey of members' needs, this was certainly not a research idea developed in isolation. The prioritisation of the 1996 Members' survey was supported by the history of the organisation, in which three similar surveys had been conducted on a loosely biannual basis over the previous seven years. Further, the need for greater member input about the activities and services of the co-op had been an explicit point of discussion during a number of Management Committee meetings in which I had been involved. Consequently, when I proposed that a survey of members needs and experiences be carried out, it was met with unanimous support from Management Committee members and staff.
136 Phase Three - Design of the Research Instrument The research instrument was designed in consultation with staff and Management Committee members. I requested that all fill in an 'ideas page', which allowed me to identify both the issues which people were interested in hearing from members about, and the methods of data collection which people felt would be most effective and appropriate.
Nine of the ten 'ideas pages' were returned to me 19 and, on the basis of these responses, I chose a written questionnaire as the primary research instrument, with optional follow-up interviews as the secondary approach.
Design of the 1996Alfalfa House Members' Survey Using the topics nominated by staff and management, I developed a written questionnaire. In addition to these suggested topics, I adapted questions from previous Member Surveys which seemed to have generated high response rates. A draft of the questionnaire was then presented to the Management Committee, and was approved with one amendment.
The resulting questionnaire (see Appendix Two) contained three quantitative and seventeen qualitative questions. The emphasis on qualitative questions was a deliberate attempt to avoid prescribing members' responses, to encourage detailed answers, and to allow members to explain responses where necessary.
Design of the Follow-Up Interviews At the conclusion of the questionnaire, research respondents were given the option to record their name and contact number for the purpose of follow-up interviews. This option was deliberately framed as an opportunity for co-op members to discuss with a Management Committee or staff member any queries they had about the co-op, as well as to recount their own experiences and offer suggestions. My objective in framing the interviews in this way was to employ a research method which would be
19One Management Committee member was heavily involved in professional commitments at this time and, consequently, could not find the time to respond.
137 beneficial to research participants as well as to the researcher. That is, by taking an interviewing approach which encouraged genuine dialogue, rather than the eliciting of information from the research subject by the researcher, I aimed to provide a forum in which members were able to gain useful information about co-op operations, as well as to articulate their own experiences and concerns. In keeping with this objective, the interviews were intended to be unstructured, to be carried out in a setting chosen by the participant, and be unfixed by researcher imposed time limitations.
Research and Analysis Administration of the written questionnaire
The questionnaire was distributed to all current members of Alfalfa House20, and included a reply paid envelope for easy return. Three hundred and twenty seven questionnaires were distributed. However, eight were returned 'addressee unknown'.
Conducting Interviews Sixteen questionnaire respondents nominated to be interviewed. However, due to the timing of the interviews - which took place over the summer/new year break - there was a substantial drop out rate. Consequently, only five respondents were finally interviewed. The length of each interviewed varied from twenty minutes to fifty minutes. Four of these interviews were conducted face to face within co-op premises. The fifth interview was conducted by telephone. The four face to face interviews were recorded, with participants' permission, onto audio tape and later transcribed. The single phone interview was recorded, with the participant's permission, by hand written notes.
All interviews were facilitated and recorded by me. However, in keeping with the 'informal dialogue' objective, the interviews were not strictly limited to the presence of myself and the interviewee. One interview was conducted, at the request of the interviewee, in conjunction with a Staff member, and two interviews were
20Where current membership is defined by payment of annual fees.
138 spontaneously contributed to by two Volunteer Coordinators. I will consider the impact of these contributions in the results analysis.
Analysis of Results The results analysis was carried out in two ways in order to meet the dual objectives of this study as both a piece of action research and a study in fulfilment of the requirements of a Doctorate of Philosophy. The first analysis, which was presented in the form of a written report to the Alfalfa House Management Committee in April 1997 (See Appendix Three), began with a broadly thematic analysis of the questionnaire results. This form of interpretation "takes the data itself as the orienting stimulus for analysis" (Kellehear, 1993: 38). This analysis sought to identify emergent themes, both within responses to specific questions and across the various questions. Having identified these themes in the first 'layer' of analysis, I went on to identify contradictions, and differences of opinion over specific issues, which were apparent in the completed questionnaires. This is in keeping with a deconstructive approach, which challenges the unifying tendency of a thematic analysis. In Derrida's terms, such an approach displaces the traditional binary ('either/or') logic of scientific analysis, in favour of a pluralistic ('both/and') logic (Burr, 1995: 107)2 1• This supports the objective of the ARA to listen to a multiplicity of voices within the field of research.
In keeping with the action orientation of the study, my report to the Management Committee included recommendations about possible practical responses to themes which emerged from the study. While these recommendations were largely based on suggestions made by questionnaire respondents, they were also shaped by my own experiential knowledge of the co-op. As such, I presented these recommendations not as definitive solutions, but as the initial building blocks of the action phase of the research.
The second analysis, for which I drew from both the survey results and the interview transcripts, was concerned primarily with exploring the process of collective identity
21 For an detailed discussion of deconstruction, see Derrida, 1981 and Burr, 1995.
139 at Alfalfa House, by considering the ways in which research participants construct the reality of their co-op, and how they view their own participation. Again, I began by employing a thematic analytical approach, and then revisited the data in order to explicate apparent differences and contradictions which challenged the unity of these themes. In developing this analysis, I drew on a number of theoretical understandings of social movements, collective identity, and contractual cooperation which have been considered in detail in previous chapters of this thesis.
Phase Five: Definition and Implementation of Action Projects The written report was presented to the Management Committee for consideration, and so that they might determine if and what action recommendations should be undertaken. The report was identified as a primary agenda item for the next strategic planning day for the co-op. At this time, a number of the recommendations were discussed and prioritised. Courses of follow up action were planned, and responsibility for particular strategies allocated to various staff and Management Committee members. I will discuss the substance of these strategies in the following chapter, and will consider the status of the action outcomes in my reflections in Chapter Eight.
Phase Six: Self Reflexion - writing up the study Throughout the study, I endeavoured to maintain a self-reflexive awareness of my approach, the way in which I affected actions and discourse within the field of study, and the manner in which I ascribed meaning or intentionality to the research outcomes. During the formative phases of the research, I maintained a journal in which I recorded my observations about the process of the research and my own interactions with research participants. This journal provides the basis for my discussion in Chapter Eight.
In addition to this final reflexion on the research process, my very analysis of the results in Chapter Seven attempts to lay bare the constructedness of my interpretation. In this chapter, I endeavour to openly acknowledge the theoretical positions which inform my analysis, and to explore a plurality of possible explanations for some of the main 'themes' which emerge in the results. This self-
140 reflexive process is not intended to entirely undermine the substance of my interpretation, but to highlight the tensions and contradictions of interpretation which, by its very nature, involves a unified summative account of a field of action 'characterised' by heterogeneity and contradiction.
141 CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS
This chapter focuses on a summary of the results of the 1996 Members' Survey, which became the central focus of my study, as described in the previous chapter. Data collected from the other structured aspect of the research - the follow up interviews - is considered in the analysis of results in the following chapter.
Summary of Results - Members' Survey In keeping with the action orientation of this study, the pnmary objective of conducting a written questionnaire was to generate information about members' needs and experiences which could be incorporated into both short - term and long term planning for Alfalfa House. Consequently, some of the information collected using this research instrument is of a particularly ' nuts and bolts' nature - for example, the types of product lines members would like to see introduced - and thus required little analysis. Where this is the case, I have not summarised the information in this chapter. For a full summary of the questionnaire results, please see Appendix Three, Report on the 1996 Members ' Survey Results, which was prepared for Alfalfa House and presented to the Management Committee in April, 1997.
Response Rate One hundred and twenty members completed and returned the survey. This represents a response rate of thirty eight percent.
Period of Membership ofAlfalfa House
<6 6 months to I year to 2 years to 3 years to 4 years no months < 1 year < 2 years < 3 years < 4 years and over response TOTAL 22 21 10 15 12 39 1 120
Membership of Other Co-operatives and Like-Minded Organisations Thirty six people identified as being, or having been, members of other cooperatives. Other food co-ops were by far the most frequently cited, with eighteen responses. In
142 addition, membership of the following was identified by three people each: housing cooperatives; bookshop cooperative; fruit and vegetable buying co-ops. Two people were members of a mountain equipment co-op, and two people identified their anarchist collective bookshops as co-ops. Other co-op types nominated by one person each were: film makers' co-op; women's press co-op; multiple occupancy farming property; co-operative ski lodge; 'paper go round' co-op; communal house; 'Pipeline' co-op; World Development Tea Co-op; housing policy co-op.
Fifty two members indicated that they were involved in like minded activities and/or organisations, while a further eight said that they have been/will be involved, but are not so at present. The range of activities and organisations identified was extensive, and may be broadly categorised as follows:
• Environmental activities, including formal conservation organisations (sixteen people), direct and local action groups (three people), peace groups (three people), transport groups (three people), and student environmental groups (one person);
• Human Rights and Development issues, including formal organisations (eight people), social justice and action groups (national and international issues) (six people), and Aboriginal justice groups ( one person);
• Sustainable living activities, including Permaculture, community gardening, and waste minimisation projects (fifteen people), Local Economic Trading Systems (four people), alternative technology and design organisations (three people);
• Alternative businesses, including environmental and Anarchist bookshops (four people), and credit unions (one person);
• General community organisations, including community radio (two people), community housing ( one person), community schools (one person);
143 • Spiritual groups and activities, including church/religious groups (two people) and meditation and yoga practices (two people).
Other activities identified were: food action groups (four people); women's rights and identity projects (four people); animal liberation organisations (two people); a lesbian identity project (one person); and a child abuse survivors' support group (one person).
Alfalfa House Work Contributions
Number of Work Shifts Undertaken in the Past Year none 1-4 more than 4 no response TOTAL 18 55 46 1 120
Eighty five people indicated that they enjoyed their work contribution(s) to the co op. A number of themes emerged in response to this question. The strongest of these was people's sense of inclusion, of being a part of something which they perceive to be striving for common goals and/or for the common good. As one member put it, "I enjoy feeling part of this great organisation ... the freedom to choose how I gain my credits and the value placed on my work". A number of people recognised this as a spiritual investment in the future - "Contributing energy to the growth and maintenance of a sustainable cooperative culture is one of the things I love doing, and the karmic returns for work done with love are always choice".
Another strong theme was respondents' recognition of the social benefits of active membership. These benefits include: exchanging ideas with like minded people; meeting new people; catching up with friends.
A number of people specified that they enjoyed working in the shop as it helped increase their knowledge of the products available and their uses, while some people also found this type of physical labour a relaxing escape from the 'head work' of their jobs and/or other activism. Conversely, some people found that tasks which
144 could be done at home (such as cooking and computer work) were more convenient for them.
A further twenty respondents indicated that they did not particularly enjoy working in the coop, but described it as "okay", or commented on both the positive and negative aspects of the experience. A number of these people indicated that the work task itself was boring or menial, but that they enjoyed being involved in coop generally. One person commented that they enjoy working when in company, but solo work can be depressing and dull. Two people commented that limited access to resources (such as cleaning equipment) is frustrating and time wasting.
Four people indicated explicitly that they did not enjoy their working experience in the coop. Only one of these people elaborated with the comment, "it was boring as hell".
Reasons For Not Working Twenty nine people cited reasons for not having worked during the one year period leading up to the administration of the questionnaire. The major reasons cited were other time commitments (such as work and study), and that members were no longer living in the local area. Two people had been travelling overseas, while two were unable to work for health reasons. Three people cited the 'cliquey' atmosphere as a deterrent to working. One person had only just joined, while another was dealing with personal problems.
In response to the statement, "I would be happy to work more if... ," the overwhelming theme was 'if I had more time/didn't have a full time job', with forty four responses. Additional themes were: if I lived/ worked closer to the co-op (twenty one responses); if the work was more varied - this included issues such as people wanting to contribute out of hours, people wanting more work options, people wanting to learn new skills rather than do menial labour, people wanting to use their existing skills to benefit the co-op (nine responses); if childcare was available and/or my child was older (four responses); if the shop was less 'cliquey' and/or staff and core workers were friendlier (three responses); if there was more information
145 dissemination about Roving Kitchen gigs (three responses). Other individual comments included: "if I was healthier"; if the storeroom was better organised; if I could work with someone who knows the system; if work was rewarded on a credit for hours basis; if the co-op had a live band set up in the comer.
Member Involvement
Would You Like to Be More Involved in the Co-op? Yes No No response TOTAL 55 53 12 120 ..
Fifty one people responded to the question, "If yes, how could the co-op make it easier for you to be involved?", with twenty eight of those respondents indicating that lack of involvement was their responsibility rather than a fault of the coop. A number of other responses identified the 'closed' nature of information dissemination in the co-op as a problem. Examples of these responses included:
• "Advertise events/fundraisers more often"
• "Offer a short list in the newsletter of things to be created within the coop - at least then I could look at it and think ' I could do that' ... "
• "More info on what's going on"
• "Sometimes the management of the coop seems to work secretively and I don't know what's going on and when ... "
Two people said that they felt uncomfortable because of the 'clubby' nature of the coop. Two people suggested that more socially oriented activities would motivate them to be more involved, while one person suggested the establishment of a child care cooperative.
146 Requests for new products and discontinuation of current products Fifty one people suggested new products. There were substantially less requests for discontinuation of products, with only nineteen people responding to the question. Of the requests made, the most common one centred around "poverty labour" products, with respondents generally identifying 'ethics' as the justification for discontinuation. Conversely, one respondent commented that, "I would like more info on products - the label 'slave labour' on the cashews has prompted my whole education on the cashew industry. Rather than banning products, I can then be more informed".
Five people suggested specific product discontinuations on the basis that they were excessively packaged, while two people requested discontinuation of items containing an animal by-product. Two people requested that we discontinue dairy products, with one of these people commenting, "dairy cows lead a protracted painful life, exploited as biological milk machines, dairy farms are polluting and ecologically unsustainable ... ". Sugar was another product specifically identified by one person for environmental reasons, their comment being, "it's an addictive drug, grown in monocultures on land that should be rainforest, sprayed with herbicides, processed to hell and back with chlorine etc, and has all the good bits taken out of it...and it's mostly sold by agribusiness corporations"
Members' Likes and Dislikes There were one hundred and sixteen responses to the statement "What I like about the co-op is ... ". The majority of these responses may be divided into the following broad themes:
• the food (fifty seven responses) - within this category, twenty people explicitly identified the organic food as being the thing they liked, while nine people commented that they liked the range of food available. Other food related comments included, access to "healthy food", the availability of obscure or uncommon items, the freshness of products, and the range of vegetarian and vegan foods available;
147 • the ethos (fifty responses) - most commonly within this category, people referred generally to the ethos of the co-op, using terms such as "politics", "ideology", 'philosophy", "values", "principles", and "ethics". More specifically, people commented on the non-exploitative nature of the co-op, in relation to both people (workers/producers) and the environment. A number of people identified the non profit nature of the co-op, while others viewed it as an alternative and/or oppositional activity to mainstream business;
• the environmentally aware practices (forty six responses) - the majority of responses in this category specifically mentioned the no/low packaging policy of the co-op. Other comments referred to the "environmentally friendly" products and procedures promoted by the co-op, and the co-op's commitment to waste minimisation;
• the relaxed atmosphere (forty five responses) - within this category, people commented on the friendliness of the co-op, referring specifically to the approachability of staff/core workers, and to the general sense of friendliness experienced between members whilst shopping and/ or working;
• cooperative principles (twenty six responses) - here, people identified a number of specific features, including the equality of all members, the co-op's responsiveness to members' needs, the trust placed in members, the sense of striving for a common good, and member control and ownership of the business;
• price (twenty one responses) - respondents in this category simply identified the affordability of products as a positive feature of the co-op;
• community orientation (fourteen responses) - in this category, people commented on the community nature of the co-op in a diversity of ways. These included, the feeling of community within the co-op, the role of the co-op in community building, and the involvement of the co-op in local community life;
148 • contact with like-minded people (eleven responses) - generally, people identified this feature of the co-op as both a social opportunity, and an opportunity to exchange information and ideas.
• opportunity to purchase exact quantities (six responses) - people looked upon this feature of the co-op as useful from both a budgeting and a waste minimisation aspect.
In addition to these broad themes, other features mentioned by individual respondents included: the newsletter; the noticeboard as a form of communication; the presentation of the shop itself; the diversity of people; the sports afternoons; the availability of information about local activities; the transparency/inclusiveness of day to day operations; and the Unpackaged Tour.
Eighty one people responded to the statement, "What I dislike about the co-op is ... ". Again, these responses may be divided into a number of themes, including:
• attitudes ofstaff, core workers, and 'off-duty' active members (fifteen responses) - a number of people identified the "clubbiness" or "cliquiness" of the co-op as a negative feature. Staff and core worker attitudes were referred to as negative both in relation to members who were shopping and members who were doing work shifts. Two people also referred to the 'closedness' of the co-op to the uninitiated as a problem (that is, the lack of immediately accessible shopfront information about the co-op's activities and membership requirements);
• location (eleven responses) - these respondents reiterated the problem that Alfalfa House is too far from their homes, and several people commented on the need for more co-ops around Sydney;
• unavailability of staple items (nine responses) - all of these people indicated that frequent unavailability of staple items is frustrating, and a number of these people commented that it forced them to shop elsewhere at times;
149 • the time it takes to shop (seven responses) - in this category, respondents specified issues such as the time it takes to be served, the time it takes to use the scales, and the problem of having to clean up spills while shopping;
• lack offamiliarity with other co-op members (four people)
In addition to these themes, two or three people commented on each of the following: insufficient range of fruit and vegetables; prohibitive prices of some items; opening hours; the gloomy look of the co-op from the outside; congestion around the till; messiness/slowness of liquid dispensers; lack of cleanliness/hygiene.
Other individual points included: having to work to maintain membership excludes people who don't have time; killing cockroaches is bad and we should try more preventative measures; the co-op is too homogeneous, and therefore unrepresentative, along the lines of age; administrative confusions in relation to members' change of address are frustrating.
Describing Alfalfa House Respondents' general descriptions of Alfalfa House were predominantly complimentary of the co-op, with only two outwardly critical responses and four responses which referred to both positive and negative features. In addition, there were fourteen 'neutral' responses - that is, responses which simply described features and activities of the co-op without appearing to indicate a value judgement.
The critical and 'qualified' responses reiterated some responses to the statement "What I dislike about the co-op is ... ", and included issues of price, staff and coreworker attitudes, lack of organisational structure, cleanliness, and the physical appearance and layout of the shop. Similarly, the positive responses reinforced responses to the statement "What I like about the co-op is ... ", including issues of social justice, member control, environmental sensitivity, community orientation, healthy food, and like minded people. Two examples of these comments are:
150 • "[It is] one of the few havens of the tribal spirit remaining in this poisoned city"; and
• ""[It] is a great environment and place of change because we have a direct say not only on how much and what we buy, but also on the suppliers and any food choices we make. Because food is so essential, these small changes have a greater impact than we know"
Additional comments Responses to this question may be generally categorised as: expressions of thanks to committee members, staff, and coreworkers, both for their commitment and for their receptiveness to member input/feedback; reiteration of views expressed in other questions; comments on specific coop experiences and concrete suggestions on particular issues. These suggestions included:
• "I've spearheaded a rejuvination of the garden and I was very happy with the reception of the idea by the co-op's organisers"
• "Having a child makes it very difficult to shop/work at the co-op. Any ideas?"
• "need better food identification (ie grading of organic class)"
• "a profile of members would be interesting and what else they think could be developed with Alfalfa House in terms of community building"
• "perhaps an 'ideas' evening once a month or fortnight could be tried, even if the ideas were few it could still be a social evening where people got to know each other a little better"
• "Perhaps there should be more material on Permaculture, living a slower and simpler life (again) so that people see it as a commitment to a better world and not just shopping, might make it easier to get more people to work"
151 • "this survey has encouraged me to make time and shop more at the co-op"
152 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
It is community in action, it is ethics in action, it is empowerment in action, the miso is yummy. - Alfalfa House Member's description of the co-op, 1996 -
In this chapter, I discuss the results of the study. The primary focus of this discussion is the structured phase of the research, that is, the results of the Members' Survey and the follow up interviews. However, to discuss only these instrumental results, would mean ignoring those unstructured aspects of the research approach which were explicitly employed with a view to rendering a detailed exploration of the multiple activities and aspects of Alfalfa House. Rather than focus solely on the instrumental outcomes of the formal research phase, then, I would like to begin this chapter with a brief discussion of my observations of some key issues - and the ways in which they were addressed - within two Alfalfa House activities in which I participated actively during the course of my research - Management Committee decision making, and the development and running of Unpackaged Tours. Some of these issues will be taken up and further considered, in conjunction with the survey results, in later sections of this chapter. Further, I will briefly discuss the outcomes of the Community Food Cooperative Development Project which, as I stated in my method chapter, was the focus of my research for the first fourteen months of my involvement with Alfalfa House and my PhD candidature. Rather than entirely efface the problems associated with launching this project, I wish to briefly explore them here.
In this chapter, I am primarily concerned with analysing both the informal and formal results in term of members' constructions of collective identity. In addition to developing this 'theoretical' analysis, it is important to remember that the ARA is an action oriented and reflexive methodology. As such, it is fundamental to the analysis of this study to consider the extent to which action outcomes were facilitated, and to explore the process of the research and its possible impacts on the field of study. These issues will be taken up in the following chapter.
153 Activist research observations: Unpackaged Tours & Management Committee decision making In focusing this preliminary discussion on Unpackaged Tours and Management Committee decision making, I am drawing on my own observations and involvement in the activities of Alfalfa House. Like any other analysis, my interpretations are partial explanations which are informed by specific theoretical understandings, values, and ideological orientations.
Unpackaged Tours Attendance at an Unpackaged Tour is mandatory for all new members, and is often acknowledged by existing members as the co-op's commitment to the fifth international principle of cooperation, Education, Training, and Information. The content and structure of the tours are formalised in an Unpackaged Tour manual, which is periodically reviewed and modified in response to feedback from tour guides, participants, Volunteer Coordinators, Staff, and Management Committee. Unpackaged Tour guides are trained to follow this manual, with a view to standardising the information that is given to new members. It is worth considering some of the main issues which are raised in the Unpackaged Tours as these tours are the only regular forum in which members of Alfalfa House offer a description of the co-op to non-members. In this sense, the Unpackaged Tours provide a public and apparently unified collective definition of what Alfalfa House 'is'. I will consider this assumed unity against members' responses to the survey in detail later in this chapter.
Unpackaged Tours are designed to communicate to potential new members the following: the history of modern cooperation; the aims and objectives of Alfalfa House; the organisational structure of the co-op and opportunities for involvement; the 'nuts and bolts' aspects of shopping and working in the co-op. Within this tour programme, there are a number of key 'messages' which are explicitly stressed to new members as important features or principles of the co-op. On the basis of my own experience of conducting tours over an eighteen month period, and the Unpackaged Tour manual - which provides tour operators with guidelines for discussion - I would identify these key messages as:
154 "The co-op is what we make it" - there is a strong emphasis placed on the fact that the direction and activities of Alfalfa House are directed by the membership. The implications of this message are twofold. First, the co-op is interpellated as being both responsive to, and contingent upon, members' needs and interests, and therefore a genuinely collectively owned and run organisation. The second implication of this message is that there is a strong emphasis placed on active participation as the means by which individual members reap the full benefits of the co-op. That is, if the co-op is what we make it, then the more actively involved in it we are, the greater the influence we have over its objectives and direction;
The co-op is inclusive - it is stressed to new and potential members that, in keeping with the first International Principle of Cooperation, membership of Alfalfa House is open to any individual who is willing to abide by the rules and ethos of the organisation. The implication here is that Alfalfa House is a warm and inclusive organisation, and that it welcomes diversity within its membership. Unpackaged Tour guides invariably offer anecdotal accounts of the positive social opportunities and 'sense of community' available to members should they choose to participate.
"The responsibility for participation rests with the individual" - while the importance of active participation is stressed by tour guides, it is also explicitly emphasised that the onus of responsibility for that participation lies with individual members. Unpackaged Tour participants are told that it is their responsibility to offer their time to the co-op in the way they see fit, and that they will not be "chased, called, or hounded" to be involved. In making this point, tour guides are conveying what I would observe as an overarching principle of the co-op, which is the emphasis on active and voluntary participation over 'directed' or forced cooperation.
"Diversity in contributions to the co-op is encouraged" - Unpackaged Tour participants are told of a variety of ways in which they may contribute work shifts to the co-op, including examples such as: working a shift in the shopfront; cooking for the Roving Kitchen; delivering or collecting items for the co-op; designing or contributing to the newsletter; coordinating or performing at a benefit night; painting
155 a mural or designing a mosaic for the shop. There seem to be two maJor conceptualisations of the co-op embedded in this. Firstly, at its most ideal, the co-op is seen as a forum in which members can positively express their individual skills, interests and creativity for the good of the cooperative whole. The implication of this is that it is both a possible and desirable feature of involvement to meet one's individual needs and the needs of the collective simultaneously. The second understanding of Alfalfa House which is implicit in this particular message is that the co-op is a multifaceted site of activity, rather than simply a shopfront enterprise. There are a variety of regular and project specific activities which are carried out in the name of Alfalfa House beyond its instrumental business functions, and these are all constitutive of 'the co-op'. That these activities and projects shift with changing levels of member participation and shifts in priorities suggests that, as an 'entity', Alfalfa House is in a constant state of transformation. I will return to this in my discussion of Management Committee decisions below.
"The individual member has a responsibility to the collective endeavour" - while participation in co-op activities is recognised as the right of all individual members, their responsibilities to the collective whole are also stressed at the Unpackaged Tours. In particular, potential new members are encouraged to: undertake all work shifts to which they commit; avoid 'grazing' (that is, eating from bulk snack bins) while shopping; clean up any spills which occur while shopping; communicate any problems or concerns promptly to the staff or Volunteer Coordinator on duty. The underlying message here is, again, an emphasis on the active participation of individual members to achieve and sustain the collective aims of the organisation.
Management Committee Decision Making As summarised in Chapter Three, the Management Committee is an elected group of seven people who are legally responsible for the operations of the co-op. Management Committee meetings are, however, open to all Alfalfa House members to attend and participate. In actuality, these meetings are generally attended by staff and Management Committee members, with very infrequent attendance by individual ordinary members.
156 The activities of the Management Committee may be summarised into two main roles: (1) Making binding decisions on all business considerations of the co-op; (2) Planning strategically for future co-op activities, policy, and systems.
During the course of my involvement in the Management Committee, I have observed two recurring and related 'issues' which have affected decision making in a range of specific cases. I believe that these issues relate to frequently reflected upon questions about the identity and function of Alfalfa House. These issues are: (I) Questions surrounding what constitutes 'the co-op', and (II) The formal processes/informal (that is, spontaneous) activity dichotomy.
The Management Committee is responsible for the sound management of all aspects of the co-op. This responsibility is primarily to the membership and the organisation itself, as without such management the co-op could not continue to exist. However, the responsibility is also a legal one, by which Management Committee members have individual limited liability for the co-op. As a result of these organisational and legal responsibilities, many issues which are raised in strategic planning and the innovation of new projects are considered by the Management Committee in terms of economic costs and benefits, and legal ramifications. During my period of membership of the Management Committee, there has been an ongoing tension with regard to this basis for decision making. That is, there is general and explicit acknowledgment that the co-op is more than an economic enterprise, and that the Management Committee is equally responsible for fostering the interpersonal, member focused, and 'grass roots' activist features of Alfalfa House, as well as its financial and legal security. However, these dual responsibilities are not always complementary, with the economic responsibility sometimes leading to a certain conservatism in Management Committee decision making. This conservatism has been a source of ongoing discussion and debate, as it has been frequently seen by some as constraining Management Committee members' commitments to the other, less institutional, aspects of the co-op. It seems clear from many of these discussions that there is both a collective understanding that Alfalfa House is far more than its business operations, and an ongoing tension about how the co-op reconciles its need
157 to stay financially afloat with its need to maintain an identity as an alternative grassroots collectivity.
The second, and related issue, is the ongoing tension between the need for systematic management procedures of all aspects of the co-op's business operations and the space for spontaneous activity. It seems to me, from my observations and direct involvement, that many of Alfalfa House's less formalised practices are a legacy from a time when the co-op was being run informally and on a much smaller scale. During the four year period of my involvement, there has certainly been a push to systemise our policies and procedures (including employment practices, daily accounting procedures, and membership systems, to name a few). However, with some of these changes, there has also occurred some resistance at Management Committee, staff, and membership levels, in terms of individual members' perceptions of how the co-op should be as an 'alternative atmosphere'. Again, there seems to be a tension here between the institutional responsibilities of the organisation, and members' perceptions of its noninstitutional character and objectives. I consider this in further detail from a 'New Social Movement' perspective later in this chapter.
The Community Food Co-operative Development Project: A Brief Analysis We will recall here that, at the outset of my research, I identified the Community Food Cooperative Development Project (CFCDP) as the central focus of the study. However, as a consequence of the Activist Research methodology's responsiveness to the shifting priorities of the group being studied, the CFCDP finally took up a more peripheral place in the research. As described in Chapter Five, the primary objectives of the CFCDP were to establish a national network of food cooperatives, and to develop a handbook on establishing community based food cooperatives in NSW. This project had the support of the Management Committee, and was compatible with the history of the co-op, as previous attempts had been made to seek funding for such a project.
The CFCDP working party, of which I was a member, formed in 1995. The parameters of the project were developed collaboratively, and it was agreed that
158 substantial funding for the project would be required, as it was beyond the voluntary capacity of co-op members to systematically carry out the project. In the first instance, it was agreed that funding should be sought under the Keating government's New Work Opportunities program, which was part of the Working Nation employment scheme. The working party felt that funding from this source would allow us to fulfil the instrumental objectives of the project, while providing employment opportunities for seven people for a twelve month period, which was in keeping with the co-op's commitment to the local community.
The development of the funding proposal involved an extensive process of negotiation and discussion with two local governments for in-kind support, nearby job brokers who were required to administer the project under the rules of the scheme, other community groups who were lending their support to the project, and federal government department representatives. During the course of these negotiations, which took place over a number of months, a change of federal government took place, and all funds for the scheme, which was later disbanded, were frozen.
Following the demise of the Working Nation scheme, the CFCDP working party attempted to find new funding sources for the project. Submissions were made for local government community projects funding, a one off grant from the NSW Registry of Co-operatives, funding under the Environment Protection Authority's waste minimisation scheme, and several philanthropic trusts. Each submission was rejected and, after several months, each member of the working party identified different activities within the co-operative upon which to focus their activism, and the project spontaneously lost priority.
Upon reflection, had the human resources which were invested in seeking funding for the project actually been directed towards carrying the project out, a number of the projects' objectives could well have been fulfilled in the period prior to the working party's demise. What is more important for the purposes of this discussion, however, is a brief consideration of the reasons why the project funding submissions were consistently unsuccessful.
159 While my experiential understanding of seeking government and philanthropic funding for community projects supports the assumption that it is often a difficult process, the CFCDP seemed exceptionally fraught with obstacles. Verbal feedback from a number of the funding bodies to which we applied seems to provide a possible explanation for this difficulty. At least two of the funding bodies (one local government and the other philanthropic) were unable to reconcile the 'non-profit community' and 'retail' aspects of Alfalfa House, therefore not considering it to be an appropriate community organisation to fund. In this sense, the economic aspects of the co-op were given as a rationale for not supporting its social endeavours. Conversely, the Registry of Co-operatives seemed concerned that Alfalfa House's annual sales figures was not large enough, and therefore not stable enough, to justify them giving funding priority to the project. If the verbal feedback offered is a reliable indication, it seems that the economic functions of Alfalfa House, the quantifiable aspects of its operations, eclipsed its social functions in the decisions made by these funding bodies. I will consider this economic/social dualism in further detail in my discussion below.
The 1996 Members' Survey and Follow-Up Interviews The analysis of the results of the members' survey and follow up interviews aims to both draw out the major themes, and to explore any contradictory or conflicting discourses. Given the highly detailed nature of this analytical approach, it is impossible to present a full analysis of every theme across all questions posed. Rather, I have sought to provide a 'close' study of these themes and contradictions by focusing my analysis on and between those questions in which the themes, or conflicting discourses, emerged most strongly.
To make sense of the information gained from the formal part of the research process, I have 'grounded' my analysis by linking it to previously discussed theoretical propositions about contractual cooperation, the concept of 'community', and new social movements. By exploring thematic contradictions and conflicts, I have also sought to identify 'interruptions' to those links in order to generate further issues for consideration. In this sense, my discussion offers one 'interpretative
160 picture' of the results of this study, while also posing questions for further, or alternative, analyses.
Results In discussing the results of the Members' Survey and the follow up interviews, I use Craig' s conceptualisation of the service/meaning dualism in contractual cooperation as the springboard for my analysis. I begin by establishing the relevance of this conceptualisation to the results of this particular study. Having done so, however, I demonstrate that further analysis suggests a collapse of this dualism - that is, that the service and meaning rationales offered by Alfalfa House members appear to be inextricably linked rather than mutually exclusive, with the meaning rationale shaping the service rationale in most cases.
Having identified the extent to which 'service' is imbued with 'meaning' in the results, I link these concepts to a distinction between the 'economic' and 'social' aspects of cooperation respectively. I argue that, within this particular cooperative at the time this study took place, the social philosophy of cooperation was more important to members than the purely economic benefits of cooperation. Having argued this point, I briefly consider it in relation to the virtual absence of cooperation from New Social Movement theories.
Having discussed the link between Alfalfa House and new social movements, I will explore the concept of 'community' as it appears in the results. I will argue that this term, while employed in various ways by research participants, plays a significant role in the ongoing construction of collective identity within the coop. I will further argue that the significance of 'community' within this study suggests the potential for exploration of this concept in broader theorising of social movements.
Service and Meaning: The Rationales of Contractual Cooperation? Craig suggests that there are two rationales, or two sets of criteria derived from the values and belief systems of participating individuals, that appear to flow logically from the theory and philosophy of contractual cooperation (Craig, 1993: 66). The first of these is the service rationale, which holds that organisations exist to serve the
161 needs of their members. Contractual cooperation offers a democratic participatory structure through which individuals are able to articulate their needs, and through which those needs can be translated into tangible services (Craig, 1993: 66). Thus, it follows that, according to the service rationale, a cooperative is operating successfully when it is meeting the service needs of the greatest proportion of individual members over the longest period of time (Craig, 1993: 67).
The second rationale outlined by Craig is the meaning rationale. This rationale, which he suggests is implicit in contractual cooperation, relates to involvement in cooperative activities, or the meaning of participation (Craig, 1993: 67). The meaning rationale gives primacy to the participation and dialogue that are necessary for members to express their service needs and translate them into action (Craig, 1993: 67). That is, the actual decisions are of less importance than the process by which they were reached. The assumption behind this rationale is that "individuals gain meaning in their lives through the fulfilment of their belief systems through the simple act of cooperating" (Craig, 1993: 67).
In discussing how these two rationales operate in contractual cooperation, Craig applies them specifically to decision making processes. That is, he discusses the way these two sets of criteria are employed by contractual cooperators to justify decision making within particular cooperative organisations. Rather than replicate Craig's comprehensive discussion, however, I wish to use the service/meaning distinction to explore contractual cooperators' motivations for, and perceptions of the benefits of, participation. Given that Craig defines these rationales as being "derived from the values and belief systems that are built into the day-to-day habits of individuals" (Craig, 1993: 65), I believe that an adaptation of his discussion - to explore motivation rather than decision making - is consistent with his approach. Thus, it is from this perspective that I will use the service/meaning distinction to discuss the results of this study.
Service and Meaning: Members' motivations/or involvement in Alfalfa House In examining the results of the Members' Survey and follow-up interviews, a distinction between service and meaning rationales for involvement in the co-op is
162 apparent. This is particularly evident in response to the questions which asked members to describe what they liked and disliked about the co-op.
The most popular response to the statement, "What I like about the co-op is ... " related to the primary service objective of the co-op, that is, the retailing of food. Examples of these responses included:
• "healthy clean food"; • "large variety of food;" • "vegetarian products".
While the primary service of the co-op was the most popularly identified answer to this question, it was closely followed by a collective response relating to the 'meaning' of involvement, that is, what I have broadly identified as the 'ethos' of the co-op. Here, respondents employed terms such as "values", "ideology", "politics', and "ethics" to identify what they liked most about the co-op. Specific responses included:
• "the principles by which it operates, social justice"; • "the values underlying its existence"; • "commitment to alternative values, its politics".
On the basis of the two most popular responses to this particular question, then, it appears that members are motivated by two distinct rationales for involvement. This distinction is carried through in the less frequently cited responses to this question. Other response categories which may be defined as 'service oriented' included: the co-op' s no/low packaging policy; affordability of products; the opportunity afforded by the co-op for consumers to purchase exact quantities of products; the friendly atmosphere of the shop. Conversely, two other 'meaning' linked themes which emerged from this question were the employment of cooperative principles and the community orientation of the co-op. Thus, the responses to this question appear to be fairly balanced in their distinction between service and meaning.
163 While the responses to this question illustrate Craig's service/meaning distinction, analysis of the results across two questions - that is, responses to the statements "What I like about the co-op is" and "What I dislike about the co-op is" - seems to reveal the significance of this distinction for Alfalfa House. As I have discussed above, responses to the former question are mixed, and represent a balance between service and meaning rationales. Responses to the latter question, however, are heavily directed towards service issues. The most frequently cited response to this question related to the attitudes of staff and core workers towards shoppers and members doing work shifts. While this response may be viewed as having a 'meaning' component, in that it limits members' sense of inclusion in the coop, it is also a customer service issue22, as may be evidenced by individual comments such as:
• "long waits at the counter to pay while till person chats to friends"; • "I know personal relationships are important to members of all community endeavours, but save the chat for when the till isn't needed"; • " ... occasionally the person at the till would socialise chirpily with a friend they were serving and sort of ignore that other people were waiting in line".
In addition to this theme, virtually all other responses to this question were service related, and addressed issues such as, the location of the co-op, the unavailability of staple items, and the time it takes to shop. Distinctly meaning focused comments were limited to six out of eighty one responses, and referred to: lack of social contact, and therefore lack of familiarity with, other co-op members; lack of age diversity within the co-op membership; and the need to employ animal-sensitive pest control practices.
The heavy emphasis on service-related, or pragmatic, issues in response to a question seeking criticism about the co-op suggests two things. First, it suggests that, for some members, the co-op is not completely successful at meeting their service needs. Second, and more significantly for this discussion, it suggests that, for many
221 will further discuss this service/meaning ambiguity within responses in the following section.
164 members of Alfalfa House, the meaning of participation is recognised as being more important than the practical, or service, returns on participation. This may be evidenced by the fact that the response rate to the statement seeking praise of the co op was significantly higher, at 96.7 percent, than the statement seeking criticism, which drew a response rate of 67 .5 percent. This emphasis on meaning is further supported by the qualifications made by particular members in their critical responses. Such qualifications included:
• "The time it takes to shop there - these are really selfish reasons .... "; • "It's not open on a Sunday (however, I don't want to work on a Sunday, probably neither does anyone else)"; • "It seems a bit disorganised, chaotic ... (these are 'unfair' criticisms because it's mainly run by volunteers and I don't work there myself. .. )"; • "that it sometimes takes a bit longer to shop there (but this is not a huge problem)". (my emphasis)
All of these respondents temper their criticism of the co-op, and three of the four identify their criticism as 'selfish', that is, not 'cooperative'. The implication here is that these respondents view their own criticisms of service within Alfalfa House as contravening the act, or meaning, of cooperation.
The 'Meaning' of 'Service': a collapsed distinction Having discussed the results of this study in light of Craig's service/meaning distinction, I now want to explore the extent to which that binary distinction collapses under further analysis.
As discussed above, the area in which the service and meaning rationales were most explicitly articulated by survey participants were those questions asking about what they liked and disliked about the coop. In response to the statement, "What I like about the coop is", the most popular response identified the food, that is, the primary product of the co-op, which suggests that the dominant response here is service related. However, closer examination of the responses which were characterised by the 'food' theme, suggests a different interpretation. As I stated in the results
165 summary, twenty of the fifty seven people who responded in this category identified organic23 food as being the thing they like most. This was reiterated by one interviewee, who stated that, "that's why I came here originally. It was because I could get organic food ... ". This suggests motivations - for example, health and environmental - other than basic consumption needs. More explicitly, a number of responses to this question identified links between food and a range of issues such as: health, environmental sustainability, and ethical production. Examples of these responses include:
• "good food promotion through support of 'good food' production and supply, etc." • "that it gives city people an outlet to healthy food free of artificial ingredients, environmental degradation, and worker exploitation"; • "organic cheap unpackaged food" • "the appropriateness of food and the cost"
Of the fifty seven food related responses, only five people used the word 'food' without qualification, and all five of these identified 'food' as only one element of a range of features of the co-op which they liked.
What becomes apparent in examining survey respondents' perceptions of the coop's primary service - that is, the retailing of food to members and non members - is that they are, in virtually all cases, indivisible from respondents' espoused values and from the perceived organisational values of the coop. In other words, respondents' perceptions of the food incorporates their values about issues such as environmental preservation, social justice, and good health. In this sense, the primary service of the coop is itself imbued with meaning.
23 Where the term 'organic food' refers to food which has been grown and processed without the use of pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals.
166 Another 'service' related theme which appears indivisible from the 'meaning' of participation is that relating to the "friendly atmosphere" of the co-op. While we may view 'atmosphere' as an important service element of a retail outlet, a number of participants who responded in this category made a distinction between Alfalfa House atmosphere and 'mainstream shop atmosphere. Examples of these responses were:
• "that the staff and members are so committed and friendly"; • "the friendly and relaxed atmosphere - both staff and members ... you can chat to strangers in the shop and no-one thinks it's strange .. .it's one big happy family"; • "its informal atmosphere and commitment to alternative values"; • "the atmosphere, the people .. .! am not anonymous"; • "more time and friendliness - can get hot water for tea ... ".
An implication of such responses is that, while the friendly atmosphere is an important service aspect of the co-op, it is also viewed by members as an enactment of the principles of cooperation24•
This connection between the service and meaning aspects of the coop is reiterated by a number of respondents in the question which asks them to describe Alfalfa House. Here, a number of responses suggest a cognitive link between the two, with statements such as:
• "A cooperative run with a commitment to social justice and the environment offering good food ( and some weird and wonderful food) and great ideas";
• "cost efficient way to shop that generally supplies all my needs for healthy eating and conscience (and the world's needs) regarding packaging and the environment";
24It is important to note here that not all respondents held such positive views of the co-op's atmosphere. I will consider these criticisms and their implications in a later section ofmy discussion.
167 • "Alternative place to shop for healthy delicious food where I can be involved as much as I choose in the processes of the shop and therefore have more sense of control over the buying and packaging of my food";
• "A positive soul injection and bloody good value".
In all of these examples and, indeed, in many other individual responses to this question, respondents frame the service benefits of the co-op - such as access to good food and affordability of products- in terms of the meaning of participation, including issues such as social and environmental justice, spiritual fulfilment, and democratic control. Again, the implication is that the service related returns on involvement are viewed by members as being indivisible from the meaning of participation.
So far in this discussion of the extent to which the service/meaning dualism may be collapsed within the results of this study, I have focused of the ways in which service appears to be imbued with meaning for many of the research participants. I will now consider how the construction of meaning, or more specifically, the capacity to conduct personally meaningful activities within the coop, may itself be viewed as a 'service' of the organisation.
The responses of many research participants across a number of questions suggest that the service function of the co-op is not simply one of meeting consumer needs, but more broadly, of meeting some of the spiritual or emotional needs of members. This is apparent in responses to the question which asked if members enjoyed their work contributions to the co-op. Here, a number of people identified non-material returns on their work - such as one person who responded "Positive energy received for being proactive in a small way toward beliefs" - as the reason why they enjoyed contributing. Other responses which articulated this included:
"I guess it's just that you feel like you are contributing to something that you get a lot out of, and you get something out of contributing too";
168 " ... very satisfying to work hard at a world changing activity:'
"Feels good to be doing worthwhile work"
This expression of the non-material service function of the co-op is reiterated by a number of participants in response to the statement, "What I like about the co-op is ... ", with comments such as, "that it is a coop and thus responsive to its members, and hence an avenue for social action ... ", and, "The feeling of people working together for a good purpose".
Across both of these questions, responses such as the ones summarised here, employ terms such as "good feeling", "satisfaction", and "positive energy". The implication here is that, for some members of the co-op, the economic returns on their participation - that is, discounts on food - are eclipsed by the emotional returns brought about by the very act of cooperating. While Craig would identify this as part of the meaning rationale only, I would argue that the provision of an organisational form and an actual forum in which members feel able to "work in a small way towards beliefs", is a fundamental service function of Alfalfa House. This is another illustration of the extent to which the service and meaning rationales for involvement in the co-op are inextricably linked.
My analysis of the results so far suggests that, for many members, participation in the co-op is a personally meaningful activity, which is valuable in itself, rather than simply a means of achieving the practical, or service, returns on participation. Generally, members also perceive the services of the co-op as a reflection of the organisation's values and the shared values of its membership. In this sense, the services of the co-op are in themselves 'meaningful'.
"Service and Meaning Rationales" vs "Economic and Social Philosophies" So far, I have discussed some of the results of this study in light of an exploration of the distinction between service and meaning rationales for the benefits of cooperation, and the extent to which this distinction collapses under more detailed analysis. In doing so, I have suggested that, for the Alfalfa House members who
169 participated in this study, the meaning rationale is both dominant over, and indivisible from, the service rationale. Another way of viewing this dominance of meaning over service - or the abstract over the tangible - in the results, is to explore the ways in which members stress the social benefits of the co-op over the economic benefits.
We will recall here that, in Chapter Three of this thesis, I identified contractual cooperation as being an economic form based on a specific and espoused social philosophy. That is, I suggested that contractual cooperation is comprised of economic and social elements. In a brief comment on the virtual absence of cooperation from sociological theorising about social movements, I suggested that this was the result of an assumed primacy of the economic aspects of cooperation over the social aspects. In this section, I wish to explore the importance ascribed to both the economic and social aspects of cooperation by the participants in this study, with a view to redressing this assumption, and to identifying the importance of a conceptualisation of Alfalfa House which focuses on the comprehensive, rather than the contractual aspects of cooperation.
Across the responses to the Members' Survey, an emergent theme was that of the importance of the social aspect - that is the day to day enactment of face to face relationships - of contractual cooperation. This is particularly evident in the questions which asked members to describe if and why they enjoyed their work contributions to the co-op, what they liked about the co-op, and how they would describe Alfalfa House.
One of the two most common responses to the question which asked if and why members enjoyed their work contribution relates directly to the social benefits of cooperation. Here, respondents identified benefits such as, "exchanging ideas with like minded people", "interacting with people", "seeing people coming and going", catching up with friends and fellow members, and making new friends. As one interviewee put it, "it's nice coming in here and being with other people who are aware". The importance placed on social interaction was reiterated by a member who
170 conducts their co-op work from home, rather than on-site, in their comment that "home based coop stuff can be a bit alienating".
Respondents further identified the significance of the social interaction afforded by the coop in response to the statement, "what I like about the co-op is ... ". Here, forty five respondents ( or 38.8% of the total response rate for the question) referred to the "relaxed atmosphere" of the co-op, with specific comments including, "[it's] full of lovely friendly people", and "the staff are friendly and always helpful". Other social themes which emerged in response to this question related to the community orientation of the shop - which one person described as being, "that it is a community co-op (and the shop actually feels like a community)" - and the fact that the coop's existence facilitated contact with like minded people.
The importance of the social aspects of the co-op was further reinforced by responses to the statement "What I dislike about the co-op is ... ", where the most common theme related to attitudes of staff and core workers and the perceived 'cliquiness' of the co-op. A number of people commented on the judgmental nature of some active members, with statements such as, "If you don't wear the 'uniform', [some workers] can be anything from unfriendly to ignoring you completely". Several people indicated that this lack of friendliness, or social inclusion, acted as a disincentive for greater involvement. As one interviewee commented, "I think I come across as ... a bit conservative .. .! can find [some active workers] quite intimidating".
That the most common criticism of the co-op relates to its tendency towards social exclusion suggests that the social benefits of the co-op are not freely available to all members. What is more significant at this point in the discussion is that, in making this criticism, several respondents echo the sentiment of one member, who describes Alfalfa House as "a great idea, but one that won't really work well 'til organisers treat their volunteers with enthusiasm, concern, friendliness. I don't look forward to working there due to impersonal treatment...". Comments such as this suggest that, where positive social interaction is not experienced, individual members are less likely to participate actively in the co-op. As such, the criticisms of some members
171 support the point that social interaction is an important motivation for, and benefit of, involvement in the co-op.
In contrast to this strong emphasis on social interaction, economic issues are less frequently cited. Only twenty one people ( or 18.1 % of the total responses to the question) identified the economic benefits, or, more simply, the price of products, as being one of the things they like about the co-op. The difference in frequency of 'social' versus 'economic' responses to this question suggest that the social returns on cooperation are generally more important to respondents than the economic returns. This is further supported by the responses to the statement "What I dislike about the co-op is ... ", where fifteen people (18.5% of all responses to the question) indicated that the "cliquiness" or unfriendly attitudes of coreworkers and staff was of concern to them, whereas only two people (2.5%) mentioned the expense of some products as a negative issue. The point here is that, in identifying both the positive and negative aspects of the co-op, respondents on the whole give primacy to social interaction over economic returns.
This emphasis on the social function of the co-op is further reiterated in a diversity of responses to the question asking members to describe Alfalfa House. Again here, many respondents variously identified the collective spirit and friendliness of the co op, and the avenue it provides for social interaction with people with shared values and belief systems. While it is impossible to capture the range of responses in this analysis, some examples of specific comments were:
• "A friendly, enthusiastic and interesting place ... ";
• "One of the few havens of tribal spirit remaining in this poisoned city", and;
• "A terrific aggregation of good hearted, practical souls interested in good food and good causes".
Again, in response to this question, the economic benefits of cooperation were much less frequently cited than the social benefits. Where price was identified, it was
172 always as part of a broader comment about the principles of cooperation in general, and Alfalfa House in particular. Examples of such comments included:
• "A shop that sells wholefoods to the community at the lowest prices possible whilst trying to create an awareness about the various political issues about food and its production", and;
• " - a basic resource (food) provided at cheaper than usual prices by a communal voluntary effort".
In exploring the greater emphasis placed on the social, rather than the economic, benefits of cooperation for participants in this study, I wish to illustrate that, at least for many Alfalfa House members, the social process of contractual cooperation is given primacy over the economic process. In so doing, I do not want to discount the economic function of the co-op - that is, the retailing of consumer goods on a discount system which recognises members' participation - as this constitutes the co op's historical purpose, and thus provides its reason for existence. However, what I do wish to recognise is the significance of this cooperative as a social collectivity with an economic function, rather than as an economic institution with some social benefits.
By shifting the emphasis from the economic to the social dimensions of cooperation, we can begin to explore the 'meaning' of co-operation in new ways. Rather than limiting our focus to the 'contractual' elements of co-operation, where members' interactions are confined to economic exchange, this approach allows us to begin to consider the complex 'comprehensive' aspects of member involvement, the development of interpersonal relationships and the fulfilment of cooperative principles in everyday lives. In this sense, Alfalfa House is not simply a food retailing business with a legally defined cooperative structure. Rather, it is for many members a site of social exchange and the enactment of shared values.
173 'Action', 'Collectivism', and 'Community': Collective Identity and Alfalfa House While the analysis so far clearly indicates that Alfalfa House provides a forum for social interaction and the expression of values for its members, I have not yet fully considered if and how members construct the co-op as an action system. At this point, I wish to briefly recall Melucci's concept of the process of collective identity, which he defines as "an interactive and shared definition produced by a number of individuals ( or groups at a more complex level) concerning the orientations of their action and the field of opportunities and constraints in which such action is to take place" (Melucci, 1996: 70). As I discussed in detail in Chapter Two, Melucci views collective identity as an ongoing construction and renegotiation operating simultaneously along cognitive, relational, and emotional axes. In the following sections, I will consider this formation of collective identity in relation to the 'action', 'collectivist', and 'community' aspects of the co-op, which were articulated in the results of the study. It is important to note here the limitations of exploring 'collective identity', which is a process, within a fixed set of written results. This is a mode of analysis rather than an empirical description, and it is important to acknowledge how necessarily incomplete any written account of a dynamic process must be.
Cooperation as Collectivism In discussing the significance of the social aspects of cooperation above, I suggested that, for many members of Alfalfa House, the engagement in face to face relationships within the co-op was a valued outcome of participation. In this sense, we may see the co-op as being a forum in which members reap the emotional benefits of positive social interaction. Beyond these individual emotional returns, many members also described the 'social' nature of the co-op as providing a basis for feeling part of a collective. For example, in response to the question which asked if and why members enjoyed their work contribution, the strongest theme related to the sense of inclusion respondents felt when participating in work activities for the co op. Here, people indicated that they enjoyed feeling part of something which they perceived to be striving for the common good. Examples of these responses included:
• "Yes. Achievable goals. Tangible working towards something with others";
174 • "Yes. Great atmosphere, good fun, good team spirit"; • "Yes. I had a great feeling that I was really part of a network of people and I was striving for common ideals ... ".
In responses such as these, members are identifying the collective nature of cooperation - that is, the working towards an espoused goal with others - as the aspect of participation which they most enjoy. While these comments reiterate the importance placed on the personal emotional benefits of participation, they also suggest that many members perceive their involvement as a contribution to a collective effort. This notion of collectivity implies that the co-op is more than a forum for warm social interaction. Indeed, the members' responses cited above, with their references to "working towards", "team spirit", and "striving for common goals", suggest that the membership of the co-op have a common purpose, which provides the basis for collective action. In this sense, the concept of 'collectivity' takes on a political dimension which the 'social' does not. Members' cognitive understanding of the co-op as a site collective action may be further explored in relation to the shared language of 'community', which I discuss below.
'Community': Popularly cited, variously used We will recall here that, in the social movement theory chapter of this thesis, I introduced the concept of 'community', its contested status within sociological literature in general, and its virtual absence from social movement theory in particular. I suggested that 'community' is a concept of some significance to social movement activists, and therefore worthy of greater attention in the literature. In this section, I will discuss the term 'community' as it was used by respondents, and thus consider how this concept contributes to co-op members' ongoing construction of collective identity.
Across several questions in the Members' Survey, the word 'community' was used by respondents with some frequency. In response to the statement, "What I like about the co-op is", 'community orientation' emerged as one of the broad themes, with fourteen respondents explicitly using the word community to identify some positive aspect of the co-op. Conversely, three people identified a lack of 'sense of
175 community' as one of the things they did not like about the co-op. When describing Alfalfa House, a number of respondents also referred explicitly to 'community'. While the term was used with some frequency within the results, an analysis of the contexts in which respondents used it indicates a variety of conceptualisations of 'community'.
The co-op as part of 'the community' A number of respondents referred to the co-op as part of a broader local community, with one person stating that they were "proud to have [Alfalfa House] in my local community", and another identifying one of the benefits of involvement being that "you [get to] hear about community events". In identifying Alfalfa House as part of the local community, some people explicitly posited the co-op as a positive feature, such as one member who described it as "a good thing for the community" and another, who suggested that co-op members think positively "about [their] role in the community". What seems apparent here is that there is some shared perception of the co-op as both a distinct part of a local community, and a positive feature, or active participant, in that community.
A variation of this understanding of the co-op as part of the community, was the identification of the co-op as a site in which the community comes together. A number of people indicated that one of the benefits of participation was "the opportunity for community involvement", and the fact that Alfalfa House offers a site for "community interaction". In the context of these participants' broader comments, it is evident that they are employing the term 'community' as a means of emphasising the importance of the co-op in supporting the enactment of face to face relations, and the opportunities for local action afforded to members by the co-op. This conceptualisation of community supports the emphasis on social interaction and collective purpose which I discussed above.
Yet another conceptualisation of the co-op as a distinct feature of the greater community emerged from the responses of members who identified community ownership as an definitional element of the co-op. A number of participants described the co-op as "a community run and owned ... shop", and some directly
176 linked this to its "democratic" nature, a feature which they perceived to be both important and positive. Again, this conceptualisation of the co-op defines it as a distinct 'object' which is owned by, and therefore a part of, a distinct (although undefined) 'community'. A further implication of the link between community ownership and democratic involvement is that, for these respondents, community ownership is equated with inclusive participation. I will return to the issue of inclusivity and collective identity at a later point in this discussion.
The co-op as 'community' While a number of participants in this study described Alfalfa House, in various ways, as being a feature of the broader community, others identified it as a community within itself. In commenting on why they had enjoyed their work contributions to the co-op, one member stated that they "enjoyed feeling part of a community". Another member, when describing what they liked about the co-op, said "that it is a community co-op (and the shop actually feels like a community). Comments such as these define the co-op as 'a community', and, in framing this in a complimentary way, suggest that 'community' is a positive thing. In a converse, but similar response, one member stated that they would participate more in co-op activities if the co-op "felt more like a real community". While this comment was made in criticism of Alfalfa House, it implies that a "real community" is something for which to strive. Similarly to the conceptualisation of the co-op as part of a community (described above), this notion of the co-op as a community emphasises a feeling of inclusion, the importance placed on being a recognisable participant in a network of interpersonal relationships.
The conceptualisation of Alfalfa House as a 'positive community' is reiterated by members who describe the "community atmosphere" of the co-op as an attractive feature of the co-op. Examples of these comments, which appeared in response to the statement, "What I like about the co-op is ... ", included: "the feeling of community"; "the community/caring environment", and; "the interactive/community spirit". Comments such as these suggest that the co-op is 'a community', and that involvement in such a community yields positive emotional rewards. This interpellation of community may be linked to the warm collectivist understanding of
177 the term which, as I discussed in Chapter Two, Smith (1996) identified as being popular with participants of new social movements.
While some responses to the survey suggested that Alfalfa House was a distinct community, and therefore conceived 'community' as a unified and distinct entity, other responses indicated that the co-op was in the business of "community building". One person commented that "the co-op builds community", while another defined the co-op, in part, as "community in action". All of these comments, which recognise Alfalfa House as 'community - in - progress', suggest that 'community' may be perceived as both a process and a goal. As a process, community is dynamic, shifting, and responsive to change. As a goal, it is a coherent signifier of the range of values, beliefs, and priorities brought to the cooperative endeavour by its diverse membership.
Community and Collective Identity In outlining the variety of ways in which the term 'community' has been employed by participants in this study, I have drawn out two main points. The first of these is that, at least within this study, 'community' acts as both a point of cognitive unity - in the sense that it is part of a shared language - and as an 'umbrella' term which covers a range of definitions and uses. The second major point is that, without exception and regardless of the way in which it was employed, 'community' was perceived as valuable and positive by all respondents who explicitly used the term. I should point out here that there is an important distinction to be made between 'community', which was always viewed as positive, and 'Alfalfa House", of which some members were critical. Those who were critical of the co-op, however, expressed without exception visions for an ideal co-op which were in keeping with the various conceptualisations of community discussed above.
While the term 'community' was used in a variety of ways by a number of respondents, my analysis suggests that a commonality between these uses was a tacit link between community and localism. By localism, I refer not simply to physical proximity to one's home, as this would reduce the concept of community to the geographical definition, which is only one of the usages expressed. Rather, I use
178 localism here to refer to meaningful small-scale activity based on face to face interaction and involvement. In this sense, I am suggesting that the emphasis placed on localism here refers to the collective construction of a particular space as a community (Day & Murdoch, 1993: 91 ), rather than to the physical location of a particular place25• Whether respondents viewed Alfalfa House as part of a community, as a community in itself, or as in the business of building community, all placed some emphasis on the notion of community as a distinctly meaningful and positive network of social relationships operating at a local level. The value placed on local action by members of Alfalfa House and, indeed, the extent to which the co op is defined by localism, is worthy of further attention, and will be discussed in greater detail in the 'new social movement interpretation' section below.
Exclusion vs Inclusion: Disruptions to Collective Identity In the discussion so far, I have briefly acknowledged that there was a small, but highly relevant, number of members who found their participation in the co-op to be an emotionally negative experience, and identified the exclusionary nature of other active members as the cause of this. As summarised in Chapter Six, the highest ranking response to the statement, "what I dislike about the co-op is ... " related to the attitudes of core workers, staff, and 'off-duty' active members, with fifteen people identifying this as a problem. In the words of one respondent, the co-op "is a bit club by - I [get] the sense that people [are] suspicious of my motives". Others described the atmosphere of the co-op as "cliquey" and "intimidating". A number of these members indicated that they continued to participate despite their experiences of the co-op, rather than because of them, and did so often in order to maintain their commitment to principles of conscious consumption. Two people explicitly stated that they would contribute more work hours to the co-op if they felt more welcome.
25 The notion of 'locality' - as a means of overcoming the theoretical problems of 'community' discussed in Chapter Two - has gained some ascendancy in community studies, and may be traced to Stacey's 1969 article, "The Myth of Community Studies" (Stacey, 1969: 34 - 47). For an overview of the emergence of locality studies, see Day and Murdoch, 1993.
179 In all of these cases, it seems that the espoused organisational values of Alfalfa House were in keeping with participants' personal values, while the social process of contractual cooperation at this particular cooperative was neither pleasant nor fulfilling for them.
As was touched upon in the summary of results in the previous chapter, exclusion is not limited to interpersonal issues. It seems that some members experience 'structural' exclusion also. In particular, responses to the members survey suggested that people with young children found it difficult to participate as the co-op is not a child-safe environment. Further, people working full time had difficulty making their work contributions and participating actively, as their professional commitments clash with the co-op's opening hours.
The experiences of these disenchanted members do not feature largely in the co-op' s public presentation of itself. Accounts of negative experiences are certainly never offered in promotional leaflets or advertising, nor are they discussed in the newsletter. To do so would contravene the unified positive face of Alfalfa House. In terms of the presentation of information to new members in the Unpackaged Tours, I have observed that tour guides rarely mention these negative, and possibly off putting examples. Those who do tend to frame these situations as examples of where an extra effort to participate may be needed in order overcome the feeling of exclusion. This account of the issue implies that the problem of exclusion rests with the individual, rather than with the collectivity.
In the case of the more structural problems, the response of the Management Committee during the period of my involvement, has been to attempt to facilitate the coming together of those people affected, in order to develop viable and creative solutions. In principle, this response demonstrates a commitment to 'grass roots' or 'bottom up' action for organisational change. In practice, however, the formation of these collectives has not been achieved and, consequently, resolving the issues of structural exclusion have been tacitly deprioritised or placed in the 'too hard basket' by various Management Committees.
180 While the problem of exclusion is rarely externally acknowledged, internally it serves as an important disruption of the co-op's sense of a common 'we'. Throughout the course of this research - including both the unstructured and structured phases of investigation - the issue of exclusion, and some members' negative perceptions of the co-op, were the subjects of much discussion, and consequent action, in a number of different 'subgroups' of the co-op. For example, during the Staff and Volunteer Coordinators' conflict resolution workshop, the issue was raised by several Volunteer Coordinators, who were concerned that others were not sufficiently aware of the needs of members who were shopping or working in the store. Several people felt that some Volunteer Coordinators were not fulfilling their responsibilities as the 'public face' of co-op, as they were paying little attention to members who they didn't, know while focusing their energy on members who were friends. This perception was reinforced by other co-op members in their responses to the survey.
Similarly, both Management Committee members and Unpackaged Tour guides recognised exclusion as a problem. Unpackaged Tour guides have explicitly discussed ways of overcoming this problem, including making a distinct personal effort to welcome new members, whom they recognise from tours, while shopping or working in the shopfront. While the membership of the Management Committee has not remained fixed during the course of my research, the issue of exclusion is one which is regularly raised and considered. For Management Committee members, this problem has been seen not only as one for the individuals concerned, but as a problem for the co-op, as it is assumed to be a major inhibitor to active participation. Given that the day to day operations of the co-op rely on members' voluntary contributions, threats to participation are a serious management issue. At the time of writing this, the most recent management strategy for dealing with the problem has been to direct staff to make the issue explicit when training new Volunteer Coordinators.
The issue of exclusion, which is clearly experienced by some members, disrupts the warm collectivist construction of Alfalfa House upon which the co-op successfully operates. At the same time, however, I would suggest that negative realities such as
181 this one are fundamental to the ongoing negotiation of the co-op's collective identity. That is, they provide 'material' for ongoing and wide ranging discussions about what the co-op is, and what it should be. They serve as points of collective reflexion, encouraging 'well entrenched' members to reconsider their own perceptions and constructions of the co-op, and to analyse their own behaviours.
Further, negative issues which are identified as problems act as catalysts for organisational change. Reflexion does not simply end with identification of the problem, but leads to the development of strategic action aimed at overcoming the problem. This is done with a view to achieving the 'ideal' version of the co-op which is articulated in its espoused values. This is certainly the case with regard to the issue of exclusion at Alfalfa House. It has remained an issue throughout the period of this research, and has prompted a variety of responses from various individuals and 'sub collectives' within the co-op. The existence of this problem continues to challenge the positive and unified identity of the co-op. Consequently, the ongoing responses to this challenge contribute to the dynamic and shifting nature of Alfalfa House, as its membership perpetually strives to cohere the day to day 'realities' of the co-op with its organisational principles. In this way, negative issues associated with Alfalfa House generate action, as the co-op perpetually attempts to unify its internal operations with its external presentation.
Cooperation as Action As I touched on briefly when considering the service functions of the co-op, several respondents indicated that the importance of the co-op to them lies not simply in its organisational reflection of their values, but also in the opportunities which it provides for individuals to act, through their participation in co-op activities. In my discussion of the emphasis placed on the 'social' and 'collective' aspects of cooperation by many Alfalfa House members, I have not yet dealt with two other related themes - that is, the perception of cooperation as a form of collective action, and the extent to which members perceive cooperative activity as distinct from, and oppositional to, mainstream economic activity.
182 Across a number of questions in the Members' Survey, respondents frequently employed 'active' terms such as "working towards", "working together", "action", "acting", and "doing", in articulating their perceptions of the coop and their reasons for involvement. One member made a link between the action facilitated by contractual cooperation and her/his spiritual beliefs, with the comment that:
• "In zen practice, practice isn't just sitting for meditation. Practice is doing. Doing practical things for a practical reason - long range view for the development of all".
Another member, commenting on why they enjoyed working in the co-op, offered the more general statement, "positive energy received for being proactive in a small way towards beliefs". An implication of comments such as these, which appeared regularly in the results, is that many respondents perceive the co-op not simply as an organisation which reflects their beliefs and values, but as a site in which they express those beliefs and values through action. Indeed, for participants such as the zen practitioner cited above, and others such as one who described the co-op as an "avenue for social action", 'action' seems to be inextricably, and positively, linked to beliefs. In this sense, 'action' is not simply viewed as a means of expressing values, but becomes, in itself, a discrete value. As I have discussed above, many members also explicitly placed value on the collective aspect of cooperative action.
While many respondents linked the 'active' nature of cooperation to the tangible expression of their beliefs, others framed it as culturally transformative, or as oppositional to mainstream economic practices. Examples of the former include comments such as:
• "[it's] very satisfying to work hard at a world changing activity", and; • "maintenance of a sustainable cooperative culture is one of the things I love doing" ....
Comments such as these again reiterate the importance of individual emotional fulfilment as a motivation for involvement. They also suggest that some members
183 perceive cooperation as a proactive means of achieving societal change. In this sense, participation in Alfalfa House activities is conceptualised not simply in terms of personal satisfaction, but in relation to the broader society.
While some respondents expressed their perception of cooperation as a proactive, or transformational approach to social change, others described it as being in opposition to mainstream social processes. Here, people spoke positively of the co-op while criticising the supermarket culture, capitalism, and society in general. Comments along these lines included:
• "I like the [co-op] atmosphere, you run into nice people and I like the way the co op smells. Also, going to the local supermarket and watching people walk out with their dreary overpackaged groceries in a dozen plastic bags can be a depressing experience, and [the co-op] is the opposite";
• "[the co-op is] an alternative to the middle of the road media force fed pap and hype bullshit the we have to put up with every day of our lives";
• "[what I like about the coop is] the sense of doing something against the system";
• "good to be working in the front line against capitalism", and;
• "[the co-op is] a little beacon in a dark world".
Interestingly, one member also made a qualitative distinction between Alfalfa House and other 'whole foods' businesses, with the comment that:
• "Alfalfa House is a certified uncommercial place, free of multinational/advertising/packaging stuff that other organic food places are NOT free of'.
For both those members who describe the transformational potential of Alfalfa House, and those who described the co-op in comparison to mainstream economics
184 and culture, it is apparent that this form of cooperative activity is viewed positively as an alternative. The marginality of the co-op - that is, its very difference from mainstream economic practices - is viewed by these members as both a defining characteristic, and a positive attribute. This suggests that the co-op has a 'political' dimension in Offe' s sense of the term- that is, "that the actor make some explicit claim that the means of action can be recognized as legitimate and the ends of action can become binding for the wider community" (Offe, 1987: 69). I consider this further in my new social movement analysis below.
Co-operation & Collective Identity: A 'New Social Movement' Interpretation In my discussion of the multiple features of Alfalfa House members' construction of their co-op above, I have identified a number of themes. I now wish to analyse those themes in the light of a new social movement interpretation based on my earlier discussion of Offe's theory. Given the broadly deconstructive orientation of my analysis, I will also consider the underlying contradictions and tensions of the themes I have identified.
We will recall here that, in Chapter Two, I suggested that Offe's theory of new social movements provides a useful interpretative approach for the study of small scale collective activity in two senses. First, it requires an investigation of the informal and noninstitutional political aspects of the field of action. Second, it encourages us to consider such activity in terms of a response to the conditions of contemporary society.
In his text, Social Movements: The politics ofMoral Protest, Jan Pakulski offers this summative description of new social movements:
Despite their apparent heterogeneity, they display some common features: a self-reflexive nature, anti-statism, scepticism towards comprehensive ideological blueprints, self-limitation and reformist orientations. They resist the (increasingly futile) expansion of political administrative interventions in everyday life or, in Habermas' words, they attempt to arrest the 'colonisation' of life worlds by 'formal, organised spheres of action."' (Pakulski, 1991: 26).
185 Pakulski' s definition echoes Offe' s distinction between contemporary social movement action and mainstream cultural and political organisation which I discussed in Chapter Two. While I am not concerned here with 'measuring' Alfalfa House against this definition of new social movements as such, an analysis across the emergent themes from this perspective may shed further light on the complex field of action which I seek to describe.
In my discussion so far, I have highlighted a number of themes which emerged from the results of this study. These include:
• the predominance of the meamng rationale over the service rationale for involvement in the co-op, suggesting that, for many members, the very means, or process, of cooperation is of greater importance than instrumental ends, or outcomes;
• the emphasis placed on the social, rather than the economic returns on cooperation, and thus the importance placed by members on feeling a sense of inclusion in the co-op's activities;
• members' sense of collective purpose, which suggests a politicisation of the social aspects of the co-op;
• members' perceptions of Alfalfa House as both reflective of their espoused values, and as a site in which they can enact those values;
• the culturally and politically transformative potential of the co-op, and;
• the importance placed on the co-op by members as alternative and/or oppositional to mainstream economic and social life.
• The role of the co-op as a forum for local action and involvement
186 All of these themes are resonant of the 'features' of new social movements as summarised by Pakulski, and as discussed in detail in chapter Two. They emphasise the significance of the social, collective, and action orientations of the co-op. Significantly, these 'dimensions' of cooperative involvement seem to be both discretely valuable and indivisible. For example, social interaction is both a precondition for, and consequence of, collective involvement. Similarly, a sense of collectivism prefaces action, while sustained action over time reinforces the feeling of inclusion which is fundamental to a sense of collective purpose.
The themes articulated above locate members' understandings of their organisation in a cultural and noninstitutional political context, rather than a formal political or economic setting. That is, while the activities of the co-op are perceived by many members as affecting, or having the potential to affect, the broader society, they are seen to do so in opposition to the mainstream, and by providing alternative ways of 'being' in the world. One of the positive features of Alfalfa House for its members, then, is that, in its very 'difference' from the mainstream, it is autonomous. This autonomy is seen as being both valuable in itself, and in providing an example for the broader community of how to 'do things differently'.
This common conceptualisation of Alfalfa House as being autonomous is in keeping with the International Statement on Cooperative Identity, which explicitly defines cooperatives as autonomous organisations. However, the notion of autonomy is particularly interesting, given that the co-op is a legally registered business and, therefore, an institutionalised economic enterprise. Externally, Alfalfa House must comply with a range of legislative requirements, including health regulations, auditing and taxation requirements, employment practices, and so on, as well as being reliant upon a variety of business relationships with suppliers, growers, and consumers. In this sense, the co-op is no less 'dependent' or 'institutionalised' than the large scale supermarket located 300 metres down the road. Conversely, the day to day operations of the co-op - which include volunteer labour, non-profit motive, and an organisational commitment to conscious consumption - differ significantly from mainstream commercial practices.
187 This contradiction is apparent at an organisational level. As I discussed at the beginning of this chapter, there is an ongoing tension within the decision making of the Management Committee, between the need to meet the institutional (legal, economic, practical) requirements of the business, and the need to be true to the alternative values and organisational practices of the co-op. In one sense, the need to be legally compliant may be seen, and is sometimes argued by individual members, as having a conservatising influence on the co-op, and therefore limiting its potential for alternative action. At the same time, the very discussions which this ongoing tension demands, affords members the opportunity to explicitly consider the organisational principles of the co-op, and the strategies necessary to remain true to those principles. Similarly to the issue of exclusion which I discussed above, this issue acts as an ongoing point of organisational reflexion.
Offe has suggested that new social movements mostly garner attention for their causes through legal, yet unconventional means (Offe, 1987: 71). As a generalised statement, I would challenge the validity of this claim, as it seems that civil disobedience, and other illegal activities, have played an important and ongoing role in many forms of social movement activity26. However, as a formal co-operative, Alfalfa House is legally institutionalised, while at the same time may be defined as being organisationally unconventional. While the tension between these two extremes clearly occurs, it seems equally clear that members predominantly view their co-op in terms of its alternative organisational principles rather than in terms of its institutionalised responsibilities.
Another way in which the themes described above are congruent with theoretical understandings of new social movements, is in the extent to which they stress the importance of process over outcome. The value of process is certainly enshrined in
26 For example, civil disobedience has played a major role in the network of activities associated with the Australian environment movement - the 1440 arrests during the 1982-3 Franklin river dam campaign (Burgmann, 1993: 199), being one of the largest acts of civil disobedience in Australian
188 the organisational structure of Alfalfa House, which operates on the principle of consensus decision making and direct democracy. We will recall here that, in my discussion in Chapter Two, I pointed out that new social movement theorists view these forms of collective action as reinvigorating the principle of democracy by claiming new and 'direct' forms of political participation. As I discussed above, a number of survey respondents viewed the collective ownership and decision making of the co-op as an important positive feature. What is worth noting in observing these processes at work, however, is the extent to which the right to participate in decision making is exercised by individual members. An obvious example to explore is decision making at Management Committee meetings.
The co-op's Management Committee meetings are open to all members, and are run by consensus, which means that any member has the right to 'block' a decision with which they can't live. Throughout my period of involvement with the Management Committee, however, members not centrally involved with the committee have only attended meetings on three occasions ( out of some thirty-three possible meetings). At a formal level, it would seem that, while the systems for participation, or direct democracy, are part of the co-op' s formal organisational structure, they are rarely utilised by the membership.
Less formally, however, I would suggest that participation, or 'direct democracy' takes place every day. In a structured sense, many members of Alfalfa House contribute directly to the co-op through their active involvement in specific working groups (such as the Roving Kitchen, newsletter, Unpackaged Tour, Product Information, and Volunteer Coordinator groups) or projects (for example, the design of a mosaic, the development of an Alfalfa House cook book, and the coordination of benefit functions). Many of these contributions form the basis for practices which, over time, become enmeshed in the policies and procedures of the organisation.
history (for a detailed analysis of this campaign, see Runciman et al, 1986).
189 At the most informal level, small acts of direct democracy occur within the co-op on a regular basis. These acts take place while members are shopping or working, and include: moving a product or changing a product display; designing or redesigning a sign; displaying material for an activity unrelated to the co-op; conveying suggestions or concerns to staff and Volunteer Coordinators so that they may be acted upon immediately, or taken to the Management Committee for further discussion. It may be argued that these are simple pragmatic contributions, rather than acts of direct democracy. However, I would suggest that, in as much as these small changes are initiated by members in order to change the face of the co-op, they do represent tangible expressions of these members' visions of Alfalfa House and the way it should operate.
To the extent that members suggest changes to Staff and Volunteer Coordinators, I would also observe that many co-op members invest a great deal of trust in the formal decision making mechanisms of the Alfalfa House. That is, I would suggest that - in not taking up the option to attend committee meetings - members trust that their concerns and proposals will be raised and argued, regardless of their presence, with the Management Committee, and that a decision will be thoughtfully arrived at and acted upon. Again, this level of trust seems to indicate a belief that decision making at Alfalfa House is true to the spirit of participatory democracy, without necessarily adhering to the practice of it at a formal level. For many of the respondents to the members survey, it seems that the value placed on the 'meaning' of participation is not undermined by the co-op's actual decision making processes at a formal level.
The final themes which I wish to explore in the light of new social movement theory dovetail with these issues of autonomy and participatory democracy. These are the emphasis placed on localism in co-op members' construction of collective identity, which I touched upon in my discussion of the multiple uses of the word 'community' in the survey results, in conjunction with the perception of the culturally and politically transformative potential of the co-op. The simultaneous emphasis placed on local action and broader socio-political transformation suggests an adherence to the "think globally act locally" catchcry which was reportedly formulated by Rene
190 Dubos some decades ago (Esteva and Prakash, 1998: 21), and has been popularised in Australia by contemporary social movements, the environment movement in particular. This slogan has important implications if we view it in terms of contemporary societal conditions.
Burgmann ( 1993) has suggested that, unlike the other new social movements, the environment and related peace movements are universalist, in that they claim to challenge traditional relations of power on behalf of us all and the natural environment in which we live (Burgmann, 1993: 187). Esteva and Prakash state that the "think globally, act locally" slogan, reflects the encroachment of new global paradigms on the lives of ordinary people, as it has "captured the moral imagination of millions of people across the globe" (Esteva & Prakash, 1998:20 - 21). Clearly, those members of Alfalfa House who viewed their involvement in the co-op as a "world changing activity", and as being "at the frontline in the fight against capitalism" are expressing the view that their local activity has global consequences. I wish to now consider these responses in terms of 'postmodern' responses to the conditions of complex society.
We will recall here that, in my discussion of postmodernism in Chapter One, I discussed the socio-cultural effects of globalisation as simultaneously inducing homogeneity and heterogeneity. That is, while globalisation leads to cultural convergence through the production of universal cultural products and global market consumers, the pressures of globalisation also stimulate the local and specific, and induce effects of cultural specificity (Edwards, 1997: 15). As both a part of, and a response to, the conditions of contemporary society, then, postmodernism may be viewed as simple capitulation to the effects of globalisation, or as an ongoing resistance to these effects.
It may be argued that the emphasis placed by some members on the global impacts of their local action suggests an adherence to the myths of globalisation, a modernist attempt to globalise the 'alternative' practices and discourses of Alfalfa House. However, I would suggest that greater interrogation of the 'think globally act locally' sentiment, as it is expressed by co-op members, suggests something altogether
191 different. By way of example, let us further consider the results of the written survey - in particular, the call for additional comments. In adding final comments to their surveys, a number of members suggested the need for more co-ops like Alfalfa House. These comments included:
• "Should be more co-ops in other places around Sydney"; • "I look forward to a time when everyone belongs to a [food] co-op and they are in every suburb"; • "it's a shame there's not more [co-ops] where people can have a greater choice and say in the food and quality that is bought".
These and other similar comments suggest that some members see the need for, and/or the benefits of, the existence of more food cooperatives similar to Alfalfa House. However, none of them propose an expansion of Alfalfa House itself or the establishment of a 'chain' of Alfalfa House cooperatives. Indeed, of the twelve people who explicitly articulated suggestions of this nature in their survey responses, only one stated that Alfalfa House itself should have "more shops in different areas". It seems that, for the other respondents, the broader social benefits or transformational potential of Alfalfa House lie not in its capacity to expand and act as a 'globalising force' for change, but in its capacity to act as a working example of small scale resistance which may encourage the development of other context specific resistances. As I pointed out in my discussion of the term, 'community', the very small scale or 'local' nature of the co-op is viewed by many members as both a defining feature and a valuable attribute.
This emphasis on the transformational potential of networked, yet autonomous, small scale collectivities is reinforced by the articulated principles of the co-op, and reflected in management decisions. In the rules of Alfalfa House it is explicitly stated that an objective of the co-op is to "encourage the development of... autonomous community based organisations with similar objects". In practice, since the time of my involvement, this has involved Management Committee members and staff resourcing potential new groups by: attending collective meetings and public meetings to discuss the principles of Alfalfa House and practical operational issues;
192 advising groups or individuals about legislative and other organisational requirements and, where necessary, referring them to appropriate government bodies; recommending relevant literature and electronic resources; providing people with access to, and information about, the co-op's accounting and ordering systems; inviting group representatives to attend Management Committee meetings. All advice and practical support is freely offered to interested groups in a manner which explicitly stresses the importance of new initiatives not replicating Alfalfa House, but taking up systems or practices which may support their own vision of a cooperative, and the specific needs of their local community.
In addition, Alfalfa House offers newly formed cooperatives in the Sydney region the opportunity to order their first lot of stock through Alfalfa House, with an extended repayment period, so that they may stock their shop and pay as the stock is sold, rather than requiring a substantial amount of capital upfront. All of these practices represent a substantial proportion of Alfalfa House's broader community commitment, and are considered by many members to be both a desirable and necessary part of the management of the co-op. This is articulated as Alfalfa House's commitment to the sixth International Principle of Cooperation, that co-operatives should cooperate with other cooperatives.
To date, Alfalfa House's adherence to this principle has prevailed over commercial concerns about the co-op's own 'competitive edge'. This is particularly evident in the example of Sydney University food cooperative, which was established during the period of this study, and which is located sufficiently close to Alfalfa House to act as a genuine commercial threat. In addition to the co-ops' geographical proximity, Sydney University students committed to co-operation have traditionally joined Alfalfa House, and thus represent a meaningful proportion of the older co-op's membership and volunteer support base.
Despite the obvious organisational threats represented by the establishment of a food co-op at Sydney University, there was never any question amongst the Management or staff of Alfalfa House about whether or not to support the students' initiative. Here, the principle of inter-cooperative cooperation, and of encouraging cultural and
193 economic transformation through the development of other local enterprises, overrode any commercial concerns the decision makers of Alfalfa House had.
The support offered by Alfalfa House to groups, such as the Sydney University students, during the time of my involvement, has been explicitly concerned with sharing knowledge and practical support in order to empower other groups to define and establish their own autonomous enterprises. That is, rather than attempt to prescribe the policies and practices to which all 'good' community consumer cooperatives should adhere, Alfalfa House members' commitments to cooperative development have been grounded in an understanding that local autonomy is an important feature of contractual cooperation. In this sense, the strength and 'global' consequences of Alfalfa House lie in its capacity to contribute to a network of small scale enterprises through the sharing of knowledge and information, rather than in its potential to establish itself as a dominant or homogenising force within a community cooperative 'movement'.
Esteva and Prakash (1998) have talked about the development of networks of resistance as forming "effective coalitions for specific purposes" (Esteva & Prakash, 1998: 24). They suggest that such networks represent a grassroots postmodernist approach by small scale collectivities which remain focused on local action rather than 'global territory'. In the case of Alfalfa House, it is clear that some members view their participation as having global consequences. However, paradoxically, it would seem that the co-op's transformational possibilities are inexorably linked to local action and autonomy.
To the extent that these principles of autonomy and localism are viewed by members as an intrinsic part of Alfalfa House's capacity to transform broader community practices and/or values, they may be seen as constituting "new political demands" (Esteva & Prakash, 1998: 26). In terms of Offe's new social movement paradigm, this politicising of traditionally private, or non-political, concerns is both characteristic of new social movements and reflective of the conditions of contemporary society in which these movements have developed.
194 Another way of exploring the links between members' conceptualisations of Alfalfa House and current theoretical understandings of new social movements is to specifically examine members' understandings of what types of activities and organisations were 'similar' to the co-op's. The survey included the question, "Are you involved in any other like minded organisations/activities (if yes, please describe)". In constructing the research instrument, I did not offer any definition of what a like minded organisation was. My intention here was to avoid prescribing members' responses, in order to explore their own perceptions of what constituted 'like mindedness'. Sixty people (fifty percent of participants) responded to the question, with some of these respondents identifying multiple activities or organisations with which they were involved.
Only two people questioned the definition of like mindedness, with the responses:
• "Not sure. Not sure what you mean. Alfalfa House is fairly unique. More broadly [I'm involved in] the Wilderness Society", and;
• "What does this mean? What is the 'mindset' I am comparing with ... ? I guess I suspect the co-op attracts people with differing ideologies and I'm not sure what the co-op's is".
As summarised in Chapter Six, the issues covered by the organisations and activities identified by the remaining fifty eight respondents included: the environment and sustainable living; human rights and development; alternative business; community action; spirituality; politics of food; women's rights; lesbian identity politics; animal liberation; socialist politics.
The results of this question have two important implications. First, they suggest that Alfalfa House members are involved in a heterogeneous range of activities and organisations, which they perceive as sharing values, goals, or some other commonality with the co-op's activities. Second, almost every activity or organisation named by Alfalfa House members as being 'like minded' is clearly identified in the literature as forming part of the new social movements. It certainly
195 appears that many members of Alfalfa House reify their co-op as a site of activity consistent, in a number of ways, with theoretical understandings of new social movements.
Alfalfa House and New Social Movements: Two Interpretative Possibilities In the above analysis, I have used Offe's definition of new social movements as a means of drawing out and making sense of some of the multiple aspects of Alfalfa House as it is constructed by its members. My concern has not been to measure the cooperative against the 'social reality' of a 'new social movement', but rather to use this theoretical construct as an interpretative device. While proving Alfalfa House to be a manifestation of a new social movement is not of concern to this thesis, the results discussed so far are highly suggestive of interpretative possibilities for new social movement theorists. Given the constructivist aims of this study to build on existing theoretical understandings of collective action, it is important to briefly consider these possibilities here.
My analysis of the results poses two questions for consideration by new social movement theorists. First, do the emergent themes suggest that the community based, or 'new wave', food 'branch' of the cooperative movement constitutes a previously unexplored new social movement? Given the highly context specific nature of this study, the resulting datum is insufficient - or, more accurately, inappropriate - to answer this question with any authority. I would suggest that the interrogation of this question would require a comparative analysis of a number of similarly constituted cooperatives, as well as a greater analysis of cooperative principles in the light of the 'typology' of new social movements developed by Offe. However, to the extent that the present analysis of Alfalfa House offers a 'snapshot' of this form of co-operation, there are clearly some parallels between the organisational practices and values of the co-op, as defined by its members, and the theoretical definition of new social movements. In particular, the constitution of the co-op as an 'alternative' enterprise, the emphases placed on autonomy and localism, and the broadly political nature of its objectives and activities, resonate of Offe's theoretical understanding of these forms of collective action. Further, the importance placed on autonomy, self-help, and democratic member control in the International
196 Statement of Cooperative Identity, clearly suggests strong parallels between the espoused values of cooperatives and Offe's new social movement paradigm.
Another way of making sense of the collective activities of Alfalfa House in terms of a new social movement interpretation, however, may be to explore the relationship between the espoused values of the co-op and the values of the environment movement, which is already well established as a new social movement within the literature. The environmental values of Alfalfa House are explicit. They are enshrined in the co-op's rules, which state regard for the protection of the world's ecosystems as an organisational objective. They are also supported by the co-op's business practices, which include purchasing preference for locally produced and organic products, and a strong focus on commercial and individual waste minimisation using the 'reduce, reuse, recycle' hierarchy. The results of the Members Survey suggest that these aspects of the co-op's operations were viewed by many respondents as important and positive features of the co-op. Further, the survey revealed that a substantial number of respondents are actively involved in 'environmental' activities outside the co-op, and that they identify these activities as being compatible with the values and practices of Alfalfa House.
I have identified at a number of points throughout this discussion that the daily necessity of consumption is imbued with meaning for many members of Alfalfa House. As I discussed briefly in Chapter Two, my own experience of environmental activism suggests that environmental 'principles' are implicit in many activists' day to day lives; their social networks, their formal political choices, their living arrangements, and their consumption choices. The results of this study suggest that many respondents view their co-op as supporting environmentally and socially sustainable patterns of consumption. In this sense, the organisational practices of the co-op, and the ongoing negotiation of collective identity upon which those practices are based, may be interpreted as both supporting, and being perpetually influenced by, the environmental and associated social justice principles held by many of its members. That is, Alfalfa House may be interpreted as supporting the lifestyle characteristic of participants of the 'new social movement' of environmentalism, as defined by Offe.
197 Conclusion Throughout this chapter, I have explored a variety of features of Alfalfa House, and the multiple ways in which many of its members construct the meaning of their co op. So, what 'is' Alfalfa House? In the words of some of its members, it is:
• "a co-operative providing healthy, ecologically sound, ethically produced food to its members";
• "a brilliant idea based on socialism .. ";
• "A great idea, but one that won't work really well 'til its organisers treat their volunteers with enthusiasm, concern, friendliness.";
• "A wonderful example of group action"
• "A community co-op ... encouraging member participation (ie democratic)"
At the time of this study, Alfalfa House 'is', variously: a retail business which provides members and non-members with the opportunity to engage in 'conscious' or 'meaningful' consumption; a democratically controlled enterprise which places importance on direct participation; a site of positive social interaction; a site of social exclusion; a forum for politicised action towards meaningful social change and environmental justice. The emergent themes which have been considered here suggest that Alfalfa House is both a 'place', in which people carry out tangible day to day shopping activities, and a 'space' in which members constantly construct and reconstruct the meaning of their co-op, and the 'reality' of their common identity. The ongoing formation of collective identity at Alfalfa House is both influenced by, and, simultaneously, influences: the 'shared language' of the espoused values of the organisation, and the associated international principles of cooperation; interpersonal relationships and opportunities for social interaction within the co-op; members' personal experiences of shopping, working, and other forms of participation, and the
198 emotional benefits (and liabilities) of such participation. In the words of one member, Alfalfa House is "an evolving place"
199 CHAPTER EIGHT: REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION
In keeping with the focus on process of the activist approach used in this study, it is important to reflect on the research process and the advantages and limitations of the methodology used within the context of the research. In this chapter, I discuss the research process in terms of two related themes: issues of power, and the 'researcher as activist' dynamic. I then outline some of the action outcomes of the research in terms of the more transferable strengths and weaknesses of the activist research framework. Finally, I consider the theoretical contributions made to social movement studies and cooperatives research in this study.
Power, research, and reflective 'paralysis' In the introduction to this thesis, I discussed power in terms of a Foucauldian definition which views relations of power as shifting, ever-present, and accompanied by resistance. In Chapter Four, I went on to explore the different understandings of power in the research approaches of PAR and collective identity. When defining the Activist Research Approach, I rejected as impossible PAR's conceptualisation of power, which sought the elimination of researcher power from the research process by rendering the researcher transparent and surrendering control of the project entirely to its participants. Further, I was critical of Melucci's emphasis on researcher distance in the collective identity approach, as I believe it to be bound up with the myth of researcher objectivity which is central to traditional positivist social science. In contrast, I proposed an approach which focuses on the exploration of relations of power between researcher and researched, the tensions experienced by the researcher in their dual activist/researcher roles, and the impact which this has on the field of study.
The linear nature of a PhD thesis, and the fact that the research account is completed retrospectively suggests that I approached this study with a clearly defined conceptualisation of power and the related issue of the role of the researcher. In fact, in the preliminary stages of my research, I was employing a predominantly PAR approach which was bound to the powerful/powerless dichotomy which PAR assumes. In keeping with the principles of PAR, I endeavoured to relinquish control
200 of the research to the research participants, and to constantly reflect on my role as researcher with a view to eradicating the traditional researcher/researched power imbalance. This approach failed on two accounts; first, the willingness of the participants to accept control of the project and, second, the researcher immobilisation facilitated by a purely reflective approach.
Research participant control of the research While indicating their support for the project and willingness to contribute, the Alfalfa House members involved in preliminary discussions of the project did not wish to take control of it in the sense of taking on its conceptual and practical initiation. A number of people who offered their support indicated that they did not have time beyond their existing voluntary contributions to the co-op to participate in collective planning of the project. It also became apparent during Management Committee discussions of the project, that members were actively willing to entrust me with the responsibility of developing the project in a consultative manner. As my journal entry of September 3rd, 1996 states:
While Alfalfa House constructs itself on an idea of collective action and collective decision making, the actual [activities] of the co-op are generally carried out by one or two individuals in consultation with the larger group. Information is brought back to the group for reflection/modification prior to action being taken ... This research is my task and I have to carry it out in consultation with the Management Committee and other interested folk..
It became clear that the ideal PAR approach to collaborative research design, in which there is equal participation of researcher and researched, was not appropriate to the context of my study as it was not in keeping with the established decision making and action processes of the co-op. I should note here that this is a research experience not uncommon to PA researchers, who often have to adapt the participative nature of the study to the practical necessities of the social group in which the study is taking place. However, I would point out that I diverge from a PAR understanding of this issue by identifying it not as simply a pragmatic one, but as an indication that PAR' s conceptual base was not entirely congruent with the
201 notions of collective action and decision-making embedded in Alfalfa House's day to day operations.
Further, the empowerment aims of this form of research did not seem broadly relevant to Alfalfa House. One of the primary objectives of PAR in involving participants in the research design and implementation is to empower them by facilitating their learning of new skills. While I have previously criticised the potentially patronising implications of this research objective, it was, on a more practical level, unnecessary at Alfalfa House, where I observed that many of the active members were as skilled and educated, if not more so, as I was. In this context, the temporal commitments of a purely collaborative project were beyond the capacity of many interested members, while the educative benefits of such collaboration seemed generally minimal.
I would also suggest at this point that the PAR oriented assumption of collaborative research as requiring collective decision making and action in a physical location at a particular point in time is not entirely compatible with a study of collective identity formation, which views the notion of 'collectivity' as a dynamic process which occurs across time and space. My point here is that, in envisaging the development of a unified working group as the only means of bringing about a collaborative approach to the research, I was limiting my conceptualisation of collective activity to the physical, and should have included relational, cognitive, and emotional dimensions. The 'collective' work of Alfalfa House never requires - and rarely garners - the physical presence of its entire active membership at a given moment. Rather, the 'action' of the co-op is defined and carried out within and between various 'sectors' of the membership, through constant interaction and communication, and on a variety of formal and informal levels. In order to defuse my 'research paralysis', I had to renegotiate my understanding of 'collaboration' in a manner which took the specificities of my research context into account.
Researcher Immobilisation In my initial attempts to redress the power traditionally afforded to the researcher, I took on an explicitly reflective approach, with the goal of establishing non-
202 exploitative relationships with the research participants. As my research project progressed, however, it became apparent that such an approach was inappropriate on a number of levels; practically, in terms of my theoretical and experiential understandings of power relations, and in relation to my personal values.
As discussed above, one of the primary problems associated with 'relinquishing power' in this context, was that the research participants as a whole did not wish to accept the associated responsibility of implementing the project. On this practical level, such an approach was not in keeping with the needs of the membership. Beyond this issue, I found this conceptualisation of power increasingly inadequate as a way of approaching the study, as it required that I constantly reflect upon, and attempt to nullify, my attempts to assert any power as the researcher. This became particularly problematic as I moved from the first to the second phase of the research, where I was required to identify and design the research project. The effect of my constant reflection and consequent attempts to avoid taking an authoritative approach to the research was that I became "immobilised by my fear of doing research" (Journal entry, 1st July, 1996). That is, I was so concerned with neutralising my impact on the research that I gave it very little direction, and became an apologist for the project, which had been positively identified as an important priority by a number of active co-op members. In short, my concern with not affecting the process through the assertion of power became, in reality, an 'act' of passivity which itself negatively affected the progress of the research.
At this point, I became increasingly aware of the falsity of a research approach which, in its attempts to neutralise the power of the researcher, actually denies or inadvertently conceals, the very basis of that power. In the most basic sense, as Ristock has observed, the very fact that the researcher gains access to the research context is an indicator of their power (Ristock &Pennell, 1996: 69). As my own research progressed, my aim became not to attempt to eliminate the power which is inherent in the role of researcher, but to explore it. At the same time, I viewed this power as being indivisible from responsibility, and was concerned with exercising my role as researcher in a manner which was responsible to my research participants and my own personal values.
203 Another aspect of the PAR conceptualisation of power with which I was unable to reconcile was the interpellation of research participants as powerless which accompanies the notion of power as a fixed and binary concept. In the preliminary discussions of the research, several Alfalfa House members asserted power variously by choosing when and how to participate, by forwarding their existing conceptualisations of the co-op, and by defining what issues to focus on and how to do so. This occurred in the very early stages of my involvement with the co-op, and thus was not the result of some 'empowerment process' designed and implemented by me, the 'benevolent' researcher. Rather, the roles taken up by various participants seemed to develop as a 'natural' consequence of the decision making systems of the co-op and the individual's level of personal empowerment within the particular social context of Alfalfa House.
Conversely, during the course of the more formal aspects of the research, several participants expressed an uncertainty, and even fear, of being involved, and clearly entered the process feeling disempowered. For example, two people who participated in the face to face interviews indicated their concern prior to the interview taking place, with one participant asking me, "it's not going to be very threatening is it?". While I will return to this specific case in my consideration of the action outcomes of the study, what is important here is the realisation that conceptualising my research participants as entirely powerless was just as inaccurate as presuming them entirely powerful. By maintaining PAR's understanding of relations of power within the research process, I risked developing a patronising approach which was not in keeping with my research objectives, nor with my own experience of Alfalfa House and its membership.
Faced with these practical and conceptual difficulties, I became increasingly critical of some of the basic foundations of PAR, and began an intellectual shift away from the structural understanding of the powerful/powerless dichotomy towards a more Foucauldian understanding of shifting relations of power. This led to a practical change in my research approach, whereby I became less concerned with reflecting on my role as researcher in order to nullify the power associated with that role, and
204 more focused on developing a reflexive approach which allowed me to openly acknowledge shifting relations of power, and their impact on the field of research. Simultaneously, I was gaining a detailed understanding of Melucci's collective identity approach through ongoing literature review, and found that a number of the principles of this approach converged with my experiential understanding of social movement activities. These intellectual and practical shifts provided the basis for the development of the activist research approach.
The Researcher as Activist: Tensions, Contradictions and Possibilities One of the principle features of the activist research approach which converges with PAR and diverges from the collective identity approach is its acceptance of the researcher's dual roles as researcher and activist. That is, rather than attempt to preserve the 'objectivity' of the researcher, the ARA radicalises their subjectivity by exploring the tensions and possibilities of an activist based approach to research. I now wish to consider some of the problems, contradictions and benefits of the dual activist/research approach which developed within this particular study. Later, I will offer a more general account of the possibilities and limitations of the Activist Research Approach.
Possibilities There were a number of practical and theoretical benefits associated with my activist involvement in Alfalfa House for both the research project itself, and my personal objectives. As I discussed in my method chapter, I was active in a number of specific projects and decision making forums in the preliminary phases of the research. My participation in some of these activities is ongoing. This participation allowed me to develop positive relationships with many of the people who would later participate in developing the research, and an in-depth knowledge of the working context of Alfalfa House. It also allowed me to feel that I was an effective member of the organisation, thus facilitating my own empowerment within the research context. I believe that this knowledge and sense of effectiveness enhanced my ability to develop a research project which was both substantively responsive to the needs of the co-op, and in keeping with its organisational structure.
205 Another positive practical outcome was that the emphasis placed on the building of relationships within the first phase of the research allowed me to engage actively in a range of 'unstructured' activities which were either instrumental to the co-op's operations, or 'peripheral' social activities which were organised by and participated in by Alfalfa House members. In so doing, I gained a first hand understanding of many of informal aspects of the co-op, from particular interpersonal relationships, to the variety of small scale 'resistance' activities being undertaken by members in the name of Alfalfa House, to the diversity of cognitive understandings of what constitutes the co-op. All of these enriched my knowledge of the field of activity I was studying, and thus allowed me to develop a highly detailed understanding and consequent analysis which I would not have been able to achieve using a more distant research approach.
Finally, my active involvement in both the formal and informal aspects of the co-op was beneficial in terms of potential research participants' reception of me. That is, my research work was 'authorised' by my activism, in that I was recognised by others as an active and committed member of the co-op collective. I believe that this elicited greater trust from co-op members in my research motives, and a greater candidness and willingness to participate in the structured aspects of the research than would have been apparent if I was unknown to the potential research participants.
Tensions The activist research approach is, by its very nature, a highly labour intensive one for the researcher. It requires active engagement in a diversity of activities and relationships over an extended period of time. The time commitments necessary to gain a sound knowledge of the working context, and to feed back information to the research participants and explore action outcomes, have the potential to far exceed the commitments of a more traditional research approach. In addition, the objective of the research to be contextually responsive demands that the researcher be flexible with their timeline in order to accommodate the temporal needs of the research participants and the collectivity being explored. Within the context of a scholarly study such as a PhD, this type of approach can lead to divergence or conflict in the
206 dual researcher/activist roles. That is, where the researcher is constrained by the need to record some tangible outcome at a given moment in order to meet particular academic requirements, the activist is freer to accommodate shifting priorities and timelines. In this sense, the activist research approach may be seen as a 'luxury' which many academic researchers can ill afford.
Another problem which I identified during the course of the study relates to the issue of access which is afforded to the activist researcher. As an activist researcher, one is both 'inside' the field of action which they study, in the sense of being a trusted and acknowledged member of the collectivity involved, and 'outside', in terms of being an observer and interpreter of that field. This is problematic in that it affords the researcher the possibility of (consciously or unconsciously) exploiting the access to the research group which they have gained as an activist in order to fulfil their objectives as a researcher27. While I would suggest that the reflexive nature of the approach encourages exploration of the possible tensions between the researcher/activist agendas, it is clear that the activist research approach, like all other methodologies, has the potential to reinstate traditional relations of power within social research.
Contradictions The activist research approach openly acknowledges the doubled and divided nature of any approach which seeks to redress dominant discourses of research while remaining inexorably linked to those discourses. Because of this, there are potentially a number of research outcomes which may be viewed simultaneously as both limitations and possibilities of the methodology. I will now briefly consider an apparent contradiction which emerged during the course of this study. This relates to the extent to which the activist/researcher roles are conflated within the ARA approach, and the effect that this may have on research participants.
Melucci has identified research as a highly specific form of action in itself (Melucci, 1996: 389). Within the context of my study, the simultaneous researcher/activist
27 This potential for exploitation has been identified as a residual problem of other qualitative methods - for example, participant observation, in the social sciences.
207 roles meant that, at times, my research and my activism were not only indivisible, but indistinguishable. The conflation of research and activism has the potential to be used to the advantage of both the action objectives of the research and the more instrumental research outcomes. The different priorities and objectives of the activist and researcher, however, can also limit the outcomes for both. A clear example of this contradiction lies in the face to face interviews which I carried out.
As part of the formal research phase of this study, I conducted face to face interviews with five members of the co-op. Members who completed the written survey were invited to attend an interview, or rather, a discussion. While it was openly acknowledged in the survey that information from these discussions would form part of my studies, the offer was framed as an opportunity to " ... find out more about the mysterious workings of the co-op ... [by meeting] with an experienced Alfalfan for some discussion about life, the co-op, and everything!". My hope in conducting the interviews in this way was to facilitate a more equal exchange in information between researcher and researched than that which is achieved through the largely extractive process of a formal research interview.
The use of face to face interviews as a secondary research instrument was introduced in an attempt to meet simultaneous research and activist aims. As a researcher, I was interested in expanding on the information available from the completed surveys, and in exploring whether the use of this research method affected the nature of the information rendered. As an activist, my aim was to provide co-op members with a forum in which they could express concerns and seek information from a Management Committee member (and staff members or volunteer coordinators, where they were involved in the interviewing). The dual activist/researcher roles were further conflated by my overarching objective in conducting these interviews, which was to, in some small way, empower those who were involved. That is, in the activist sense, I hoped to further facilitate others' activism by making personal contact, as my experiential understanding of individual participation in collective action is that it is inhibited when individuals do not feel a sense of inclusion. At the same time, as a researcher, my aim was to renegotiate the traditional boundaries of
208 the research interview as a means of reordering the associated power relations between researcher and researched.
The design of an activity aimed at generating two different kinds of outcomes simultaneously did, in this case, seem to succeed, at least in part. Three of the members interviewed appeared to enjoy the spirit of exchange from the outset, and participated in both requesting and offering information about the co-op and their associated experiences. As the researcher, I found that these participants became increasingly candid and forthcoming about their observations of the co-op during the course of our discussions, and provided me with a wide body of information which I do not believe would have been accessible in a more formal interview context. At the conclusion of these discussions, each of the members concerned were planning to initiate a new project within the co-op. To my knowledge, two of these projects were initiated, and one of them is successfully ongoing. One of the members concerned actually went on, very soon after these discussions, to become a staff member of the organisation, a position in which he initiated a number of innovative projects. Another member, whose story I detail in my discussion of the action outcomes below, came to the interview situation with obvious trepidation, but, through the course of our discussions, responded positively to the informality of the situation, and became increasingly involved. Again, this seems to be another context in which the dual activist and research aims worked to mutual advantage.
While the process of the activist research proved collectively advantageous in these specific cases, there was one case in which it became rather limiting. One member of the co-op came to the discussion with the very clear understanding that this was to be a formal research interview. She seemed willing to respond to questions in a highly specific way, but did not seek any information herself. I was unable to draw her out, and believe that the participant's knowledge that I was 'conducting research' limited the possible outcomes in terms of both research and action. From a research perspective, this discussion rendered little in the way of 'full bodied' information. From an activist perspective, the interview seemed to do little for the member involved, and certainly would not have contributed positively to her activism at Alfalfa House.
209 I would suggest that the contradiction of the ARA evident in the above example - that is, its simultaneously limiting and advantageous possibilities- does not represent a strength or weakness of the methodology, but rather, a basic condition of it. Each of the members interviewed brought to the situation their own expectations, their own understandings of the researcher/researched roles, and their own level of willingness to participate. As I discussed in detail in Chapter Four, it is not sufficient to view research participants as entirely powerless, and thus to position oneself as the 'benevolent researcher' who will 'emancipate' the research participants. Rather, the researcher is engaged in a necessarily interdependent process with the participants, and the full realisation of this process is as contingent upon the participants as it is on the researcher. In the situation described above, it was, paradoxically, the person who seemed the most disempowered in relation to the research process, who had the most powerful effect. That is, this respondent withheld in a way which rendered the substance of her responses almost useless in developing a strong picture of Alfalfa House.
Strengths & Weaknesses of the Study: Some 'Local' Considerations Having already considered the possibilities and limitations of the dual activist/researcher roles, I now wish to reflect on some of the strengths and weaknesses of my study in terms of the objectives of the activist research approach. In the Chapter Four, I discussed the ARA in terms of four features: multiplicity; dynamism; reflexivity; action orientation. I will now return to these 'categories' as a means of considering the extent to which my study fulfilled the objectives which I broadly defined in this earlier discussion. It is important to note that the following discussion is not intended to be a generalised discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the activist research approach, as to provide such a discussion would be in direct contradiction with the basic tenets of the methodology, which is concerned with the local and the particular in highly specific research contexts.
210 Multiplicity In discussing the ARA in terms of 'multiplicity', I was referring to two objectives: first, the use of multiple methods to explore similarities, contradictions and differences in the datum; and, second, the deliberate analysis of a variety of aspects of the field of action, including those informal aspects which are traditionally ignored by social research.
In terms of the first of these objectives, I do not believe that my study fulfilled its potential. Within the structured phase of the research, I used two research instruments - a written survey and unstructured interviews - with a view to comparing the qualitative data rendered by both. However, as I alluded to in the method section, I was only able to interview five people, while one hundred and twenty surveys were completed. It is not in keeping with the framework established in this thesis to discuss the issues of validity and reliability which are features of quantitative positivist research. Rather, what I would suggest is that the five interviews completed - while rendering meaningful information in their own rights - did not reflect the diversity of experiences and 'voices' which were signified in the survey responses. While I was able to use the interview data to support some of the trends and contradictions apparent in the survey data, then, I was unable to draw any clear conclusions about the different methods used, and their possible impacts on the field of study.
The objective of exploring a multiplicity of aspects of the field of action was, I believe, more successfully fulfilled. As I have discussed already in this chapter, the preliminary unstructured phase of the research allowed for the development of a depth of knowledge of the research context which informed both the construction of the formal research phase and the subsequent analysis of the data. This allowed me to interpret members' constructions of Alfalfa House in a number of ways, and to draw out the multiple and sometimes contradictory 'realities' which contribute to the co op's ongoing process of collective identity.
While I believe that the research approach used facilitated the consideration of a variety of organisational features and personal perspectives in the final analysis, it is
211 important to note that this inclusivity was by no means complete. As was noted in Chapter Five, the response rate to the Members Survey was thirty eight percent, which means that sixty two percent of members did not voice their views in the structured phase of the research. To the extent that my analysis of the results is based on the structured research, then, it has been shaped ...
Dynamism The generally dynamic nature of the research approach was practically beneficial in the Alfalfa House context. The methodology embodied change by being actively open to the shifting priorities of the co-op, and adapting or modifying the research objectives in accordance with those shifts. This allowed the research approach to be extremely flexible to the needs of the cooperative, and thus to produce research findings which were relevant at the time they were presented. The most visible example of this flexibility was the change in research focus from the Community Food Cooperative Development Project to the 1996 Members' Survey, which reflected the shifting priorities of the Management Committee of the time from external to internal issues. The dynamic nature of the research approach was very useful in achieving positive outcomes for Alfalfa House, which I will discuss in more detail below. It allowed the research to be extremely context specific, as it was developed over a period of time and employed the skills and experiences of a number of people active within the co-op over that time. I believe that this facilitated the development of a research instrument which was sensitive to the research participants, and thus drew out a rich body of results. In this sense, the dynamic nature of the research process aided the development of a highly contextualised picture of the needs and concerns of Alfalfa House members with regard to their co op.
As I discussed when exploring the 'activist as researcher' issue, the ARA is, comparatively, an extremely time consuming approach. This caused some tension within the specific context of this study, which was simultaneously an action oriented research project and a study aimed towards the fulfilment of the requirements of a PhD. I do not view the temporal investment of the activist researcher as necessarily a weakness of the study in itself. Nevertheless, it did prove somewhat problematic in
212 terms of meeting the internal milestones of both a PhD study and my scholarship requirements. In this sense, the study as action and the study as academic research were not always congruent.
Self-Reflexivity Self-reflexivity has informed the overall process of this study, including the write-up of the thesis. In this sense, it is more of an overarching characteristic of the ARA, rather than a discrete feature of the methodology. In terms of the development and implementation of the formal aspects of the research, this involved maintaining a consistent awareness of the ways in which my own values, priorities, and shifting understandings of how to 'do research' were affecting the process. I maintained a record of my observations in this respect through the recording of the journal which has provided the basis for much of this chapter. This chapter, then, is a self-reflexive case in point.
A self-reflexive approach was also central to the analysis of the research results which is represented in my discussion in the previous chapter. By recognising my own impact on that analysis, I was able to acknowledge the contingency of my explanation, grounded as it is in my own ideological, cultural, and historical experiences. I was also able to 'problematise' these explanations by considering some of their underlying contradictions and silences. This was not simply an exercise in 'postmodern play', but a means of drawing out some of the tensions and differences which suffuse the process of collective identity formation at Alfalfa House. While I have engaged in this process within a highly specific and non generalisable research context, I believe that it offers an example for the study of small scale forms of collective action which has not been advanced by existing social movement methodologies.
Action Orientation The final important aspect of the research approach which requires consideration is the extent to which it was action oriented. The methodology used was action oriented in three main ways. First, in the preliminary phase of the research, I made a significant contribution to a range of activities within the co-op, including seeking
213 funding for the CFCDP, membership of the Management Committee, and conducting introductory tours for new members. While this involvement was necessary in allowing me to gain a detailed understanding of the organisation, and to develop trusting relationships with active members, it also gave me the opportunity to make an active contribution to the co-op as an individual member. In this sense, the boundary between my roles as 'researcher' and 'activist' became less distinct.
Beyond the contribution of my individual activism, one of the objectives of the research design was to facilitate the activism of other individuals. Within the formal phase of the research, this appeared to happen for at least two members. In the written survey, one member commented that the survey had raised their awareness of the co-op and that they were consequently going to make a greater effort to be actively involved. While the anonymous nature of the survey data makes it impossible to observe the extent to which this individual followed through on their comment, the comment itself suggests a small shift in personal priorities which may have led to a higher level of involvement in the co-operative.
Perhaps more significant - or, at least, more visible - is the example of one member who participated in an interview. As my journal entry describes:
She came to the interview expressing trepidation and obvious nervousness. However, during the course of the interview - which took about forty-five minutes - we had a lot of informal discussion about the workings of the co-op, her concerns about her involvement, and our previous experiences of community based organisations. Over the course of the interview, she visibly relaxed, and about three quarters of the way through, she answered the co-op' s phone, and confidently regaled the caller with the information they were seeking (information which I had just shared with her). The transformation was quite remarkable. At the conclusion of the interview, she said "It wasn't how I thought it would be at all. I thought I was going to get a grilling, but it was good".
214 Since the time of that journal entry, the member concerned has become very active within the co-op, particularly in the area of running introductory tours for new members. She has on two occasions commented to me informally that she feels that her increased involvement is a direct result of the interview experience.
A final aspect of the action orientation of the study, and perhaps the most important for the co-op itself, is that the research was carried out with the explicit purpose of ascertaining membership needs, so that these could be acted upon in planning for the co-op' s future. The results of the research identified a number of issues which were of concern to the management, and which have been acted upon in various ways at the time of this write-up. By way of illustration, I will now describe the action outcomes which developed in response to one of the themes which emerged from the research.
One of the main issues which was revealed by the questionnaire was that a small but meaningful number of members participated and shopped at the co-op under the misconception that all products in the shop were organic. This caused serious concern among management and staff, as it suggested that the co-op was marketing itself inaccurately, and consequently misinforming its members. In a broad sense, this contravened the very principles of the co-op as a member controlled organisation which promotes conscious consumption.
The action outcomes of the identification of this issue were twofold. First, staff and management undertook to revise written information within the shop, to ensure that both organic and non-organic products were clearly marked as such, and that there were visible signs which stated that not all products were organic. Secondly, a Product Information Group was established. The initial aim of this group was to collate existing information about the products stocked, in order to provide it to co op patrons so that they could make informed purchasing decisions. However, since the time of its establishment, and as other interested members have begun to participate, the objectives of the group have expanded to include information about packaging, research on multinational corporations, and nutritional information. Activities of the group so far have included: the development of labels which identify
215 a range of features of every product in the co-op; the research and production of a "Product Information Group Bumper Edition" of the co-op's newsletter; the coordination of a direct protest action outside the premises of a local supermarket. While there is a causal link between the research and the establishment of the Product Information Group, then, the group has since developed its own momentum and objectives.
While I would identify the facilitation of action outcomes as one of the greatest strengths of the research approach, however, it is important also to note the tensions associated with the explicit objective of 'creating' positive action. As I have described above, the Product Information Group has developed its own momentum, and periodically involves a variety of members in its activities. However, there has also been a general understanding among several members that, because I revealed the problems surrounding product information through the research project, I can be relied upon to 'steer' the Product Information Group at times when it requires direction. In this sense, my discoveries as a researcher have been conflated, somewhat inaccurately, with my interests as an activist.
From a personal perspective, there is certainly a tension for the activist researcher who sees the collective action outcomes of their research waning, or being apparently distorted. Conversely, however, is the personally gratifying experience of seeing those action outcomes taken up in unanticipated and positive ways. For example, at the time of writing the final draft of this chapter, a staff member of Alfalfa House who was not central to the development of the 1996 members' survey has proposed that the survey be done again, as it rendered such informative results when it was first administered. The current Management Committee has agreed to prioritise this project and, while I remain a member of that committee, there is no apparent expectation that I take responsibility for the project.
In keeping with the understanding of collective identity formation which is central to the ARA, it is important to recognise that shifts in action outcomes, the demise, reinvigoration, or transformation of such outcomes, are a 'natural' part of any action in-progress. While the formal aspects of the research have discrete temporal
216 boundaries, then, the implications for action are no more governed by these boundaries than the participants involved are governed by the researcher.
A Note on Irreducibility and the Research Write-Up In discussing the possibilities and limitations of the study in relation to the features of multiplicity, dynamism, self-reflexivity, and action orientation, it is imperative to consider an issue which is at the core of each; that is, the problem of writing up a study which eschews reductionism and universalised knowledge. Like all so called postmodern methodologies, the ARA which renders any form of written research report is inexorably bound to the very discursive practices which it seeks to resist. As I mentioned in my introduction to Chapter Seven, the analysis of qualitative data is an artform which is contingent upon the objectives, values, and experiences of the interpreter, and on the interpretative method( s) employed. Regardless of my attempts to reveal the 'real' picture of collective identity formation within the Alfalfa House context, my very acceptance of the theory of collective identity prescribed the reality which I would seek.
Further, in writing up the study in the present format, I have necessarily 'fixed' a dynamic process, imposed upon it textual limitations while it remains itself an ongoing process. While I do not wish to discount the significance of the knowledge which this study has produced, I would point out that, like any other discursive practice, it is necessarily incomplete, just as it is necessarily instated at the expense of other discourses. The challenge for the activist researcher, it would seem, is to value that which is produced, while at the same time maintaining an awareness of the contingency of the project.
Conclusion In this thesis, I have developed a new approach to the study of collective identity formation within the highly specific research context of a community based food cooperative. The Activist Research Approach contributes to the study of social movement activities in a number of important ways. First, by adopting a broadly postmodern approach, the ARA takes as its theoretical starting point a presumption that what we know as social movements are not unified fields of action. This
217 challenges the assumption of unity upon which traditional social movement theories are predicated. The nature of this challenge demands a detailed study of the field of action, which allows the researcher to explore the complex emotional, cognitive, and relational means by which a network of individuals construct a common 'we'. The ARA does not discount or refute the common values, beliefs, or goals which are articulated by the activists involved, but seeks to 'unpack' some of the differences and contradictions which underpin the formation of collective identity. In this way, the ARA is a step away from dominant theories of social movements which presume unity as the starting point for analysis.
In the case of Alfalfa House, the ARA illuminated my understanding of the 'meaning' of the co-op as it is constructed by its members. I found that the very act of cooperation was more important to almost all participants than the outcomes. Investigating this further, I suggested that the service aspects of the co-op which relate to instrumental outcomes, were themselves imbued with meaning. This suggests that the interpersonal and emotional benefits of cooperation exceed the economic rewards, and thus directs us towards a greater sociological understanding of contractual cooperation which, to date, has received minimal attention within the discipline. Within the parameters of this study, which does not seek to instate a new 'grand theory' of contractual cooperation, I have suggested that we view Alfalfa House as a site of social action with an economic dimension, rather than as an economic enterprise with social consequences. This illuminates our understanding of co-operation as a social process, meaningful in itself to members, rather than as a process incidental to the achievement of material objectives.
My analysis of Alfalfa House also suggests that cooperation at Alfalfa House is not simply 'social', but also, 'noninstitutionally political'. That is, I found that, despite the legally instituted status of the organisation, many members view the co-op as: oppositional to mainstream economics; a site of potentially world changing action; a working alternative to accepted economic and cultural life; and, an expression of their values, and a forum in which to enact those values. These findings clearly suggest that the active membership recognise their co-operative as far more than a shopfront activity. Cooperation at Alfalfa House is, for many members, a
218 manifestation of small scale resistance to dominant cultural, political, and economic practices.
Finally, I found that there were a small, but highly relevant, number of members who found their participation in the co-op to be an emotionally negative experience, and identified the exclusionary nature of other active members as the cause of this. a number of these members continue to participate despite their experiences of the co op, rather than because of them, and did so often in order to maintain their commitment to principles of conscious consumption. Clearly, the experiences of these disenchanted members do not feature in the co-op's public presentation of itself, and yet they do serve as a disruption to the internal sense of common 'we'. As I discussed in Chapter Seven, such disruptions are a fundamental feature of the ongoing negotiation and renegotiation of collective identity at Alfalfa House.
The ARA owes much to Alberto Melucci's collective identity concept, as this understanding of action systems as dynamic, multifaceted, and internally diverse provides the theoretical basis for the methodology. However, where the ARA differs from Melucci's own methodology - and where it takes up a feature of Participatory Action Research - is in the eschewal of the distant or objective researcher in favour of a radically subjective activist researcher. Active researcher involvement in the field of study allows for a detailed and intimate understanding of many aspects of the field of action which is not achievable by a more formal and distant approach. It encourages the development of trusting and mutually beneficial relationships with many of the activists involved, and a strong experiential understanding of that which is being studied, which in tum facilitates a more sophisticated analysis of the recorded results.
In the given research context, my understanding and explanations of Alfalfa House (including my analysis of the structured phase of the research), would have been extremely different had I, for example, observed the shopfront activities, conducted content analysis on the public documents, and interviewed a sample of members, rather than become actively involved over an extended period in a variety of organisational, interpersonal, formal, and informal activities. An interpretation based
219 on such a distant understanding of the co-op would have necessarily relied on the more obvious aspects of the co-op, listened more carefully to the voices of those perceived to be leaders (such as Management Committee and Staff), in short, accepted the 'dominant discourses' of the co-op, without detailed investigation. My experiential understanding of a range of aspects of the Alfalfa House - including organisational rules and policy, the decision making processes and issues handled by the Management Committee, the ongoing concerns and common conflicts experienced by Volunteer Coordinators, and the public presentation of the co-op to new members in Unpackaged Tours - allowed me to make sense of the formal results, and to detect discursive tensions and contradictions in ways I would not have been able to without such knowledge. A positivist researcher may refute this interpretation as highly subjective, and therefore inaccurate. I would argue that all interpretation is art, and that the analysis presented here renders a highly detailed understanding of a complex, contradictory, and dynamic field of action at a given moment, rather than an abstract representation capable of producing only generalised results. This analytical understanding of Alfalfa House is rendered all the more accurate for including a variety of 'voices', and for considering a range of formal and informal activities carried out in the name of the co-op.
Clearly, the technique of doing a close study by 'getting involved' with the community one is studying is by no means unique, given its recognised (and strongly criticised) use in ethnomethodology, to name the obvious example. However, where the ARA is distinct from such approaches is in its deconstructive mode of analysis - which I have discussed above - and in its self-reflexive nature. This process of self reflexivity ensures that the researcher explicitly considers power dynamics within the research process while seeking to redefine traditional relations of power, and makes their own impact on the field of research an important part of their analysis.
In my study, adopting a self-reflexive approach allowed me to develop a context appropriate research project in which I explored the effects of power relationships, rather than become immobilised by false attempts to nullify my 'absolute power' as a researcher. I found that, throughout the process, I was variously powerful and powerless, able to act decisively and access information as a result of my activist
220 involvement, while simultaneously dependent on other activists to share their experiences and to provide me with the substance of my research. In terms of my analysis of the formal results, a self-reflexive approach demanded that I view my analysis as a partial and contingent explanation of an ongoing process, rather than as a universal and fixed explanation of a generalised social phenomenon. This is in keeping with the ( de )constructive orientation of the ARA, which is concerned with contributing to a diversity of understandings of social movement formations.
A final important aspect of the ARA, which facilitates a further contribution to the field of social movement theory and practice, is its action orientation. The research conducted at Alfalfa House was explicitly aimed at achieving positive action outcomes for the co-op in accordance with the aims of participating members. The structured phase of the research was designed in ongoing consultation with Staff, Management Committee Members, Volunteer Coordinators, and other interested members. It reflects the information priorities of those 'leading' the co-op at the given time, and was designed to render practically useful results which could benefit the co-op as a whole.
The action orientation of the ARA reflects my personal values as an activist. It is also a deliberate attempt to renegotiate the traditional role of theory as serving the intellectual community over the 'lay' community from which most sociological theory is derived. In this sense, the approach developed in this thesis is explicitly ideological. In terms of social movement theory, the ARA carries on from the action theories established by Touraine and Melucci. However, where these theorists were concerned with 'giving back' to the activists involved by sharing their research findings, my emphasis has been on participating in the activism itself, and collaboratively defining the research objectives. In this sense, the research data is 'collectively owned' before it is even gathered.
The ideological tenets of the approach developed in this study are indivisible from its theoretical basis. As a broadly postmodern approach, the ARA locates resistance to the homogenising tendencies of grand narratives in the privileging of the particular and the local, and the explication of the diversity of discourses operating within a
221 field of action at any given moment. The methodology and research developed in this thesis have been an exploratory attempt to develop our sociological understandings of a form of contractual cooperation, and our existing understanding of collective identity formation and social movement activity within a specific context. As a preliminary exploration, this thesis attempts to shift the 'lens' of analysis, in order to encourage alternative ways of seeing and defining the complex web of activities, relationships, and organisations which constitute so called social movements.
222 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexrod, R. M. (1984) The Evolution a/Cooperation Basic Books, New York
Alfalfa House, The Community Food Store News Issue Number Two, August 1985
Alfalfa House, Rules, registered with NSW Registry of Cooperatives, October, 1987
Alfalfa House, 'Unpackaged Tour Notes', date and author unknown
Alinsky, S. D. (1969) Reveille for Radicals Vintage, New York
Alinsky, S. D. (1972) Rules for Radicals Vintage, New York
Argyle, M. (1991) Cooperation: The Basis ofSociability Routledge, London
Baldry, E. (1992) The Development of the Health Consumer Movement and its Effect on Value Changes and Health Policy in Australia, 1992, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, unpublished
Barber, B. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics in a New Age, University of California Press, Berkeley
Batov, V. (1945) Co-operatives in the Soviet Union Soviet News, London
Birchall, J. (1994) Co-op: the people's business Manchester University Press, Manchester & New York.
Blaikie, N. (1993) Approaches to Social Enquiry Polity Press, Cambridge
Bolger, P. (1977) The Irish Co-operative Movement: its History & Development Institute of Public Administration, Dublin
223 Brattleboro Food Co-op [Homepage of Brattleboro Food Co-operative}, [Online]. (Last update: 7th June 1996) Available: http://www. brattleborofoodcoop. corn/ [24'h October, 1996J
Brown, R. H. (1994) "Rhetoric, textuality, and the postmodern turn in sociological theory" in Seidman, S. 1994 The Postmodern Turn New Perspectives On Social Theory Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 229 - 241
Bryson, L. & Mowbray, M. (1981) "Community the Spray On Solution" m Australian Journal a/Social Issues Vol. 16 (4) 1981: 255 -266
Buechler, S. M. (1993) "Beyond Resource Mobilization? Emerging Trends in Social Movement Theory" in The Sociological Quarterly Vol. 34 (2) 1993: 217 - 235
Burgmann, V. (1993) Power and Protest Movements for Change in Australian Society Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism Routledge, London
Callinicos, A. (1985) "Postmodernism, Post-Structuralism, Post-Marxism?" m Theory Culture and Society Vol. 2 (3): 85 - 101.
Carroll, W. K. (1997) "Social Movements and Counterhegemony: Canadian Contexts and Social Theories" in Carroll, W. K. Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice Second Edition, Garamond Press, Toronto: 3 - 38
Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements University of California Press, Berkeley
Chisolm, R. F. and Elden, M. (1993) "Features of Emerging Action Research" in Human Relations Vol. 46 (2): 275 - 298.
Clifford, J. (1994) "On ethnographic allegory" in Seidman, S. (ed) 1994 The Postmodern Turn New Perspectives on Social Theory Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 205 - 228.
Combs, A. (1992) ed Cooperation: Beyond the Age of Competition Gordon & Breach, Philadelphia
224 Comstock, D. E. & Fox, R.(1993) "Participatory Research as Critical Theory: The North Bonneville, USA, Experience" in Park et al 1993 Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada Bergin & Garvey, London: 103 - 124
Co-operatives 2000 Steering Committee (1993) Securing the Future: Recommendations report to the NSW Ministerial Council of Co-operatives, April, 1993
Craig, J.G. (1993) The Nature ofCo-operation Black Rose Books, Montreal
Craig, J. G. & Saxena, S. K. (1986) "The Cooperative principles and communities" in Levi, Y. & Litwin, H. (eds) 1986 Community and Cooperatives in Participatory Development Gower Publishing Company Ltd; Aldershot, Britain
Cronan, G. (1994) "The Changing Co-operative Landscape" conference paper presented at the Key Issues Conference New South Wales Registry of Co-operatives, October 24-25, 1994
Day, G. & Murdoch, J. (1993) "Locality and community: coming to terms with place" in The Sociological Review Vol. 41 (1) Feb., 1993: 82 - 111
Derrida, J. (1981) Positions (translation by Bass, A.) University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Edwards, R. (1997) Changing Places? Flexibility, lifelong learning and a learning society Routledge, London
Escobar, A., & Alvarez, S. E. (eds) (1992) The Making ofSocial Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy Westview Press, Boulder.
Esteva, G. and Prakash, M. S. (1998) Grassroots Post-Modernism Zed Books, London
Eyerman, R. and Jamison, A. ( 1991) Social Movements A Cognitive Approach Polity Press, Cambridge.
Fook, J. (ed) (1996) The Reflective Researcher Social Workers' Theories ofPractice Research Allen & Unwin: St Leonards.
225 Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison Penguin, Harmondsworth
Foucault, M. (1979a) "On Governmentality" in Ideology and Consciousness No. 6: 5 -22
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Select Interviews and Other Writings 1972 - 77 Harvester Press, Brighton
Foucault, M. (1981) The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction Penguin, Harmondsworth
Foucault, M. (1994) "Genealogy and Social Criticism" in Seidman, S. (ed) 1994 The Postmodern Turn New Perspectives on Social Theory Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 39 - 45.
Foweraker (1995) Theorizing Social Movements Pluto Press, London
Friere, P. ( 1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed translated by Ramos, M. B., Penguin. Harmondsworth
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences ofModernity Polity Press, Cambridge
Habermas, J. (1968) Knowledge and Human Interests Heinemann: London
Habermas, J. (1981) "New Social Movements" in Telos Vol. 49, Fall: 33 - 7
Hannigan, J. A. (1985) "Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells and Social Movement Theory: A Critical Appraisal" in The Sociological Quarterly Vol. 26 (4): 435 - 454.
Hedland, H. (1992) Coffee, co-operatives and Culture: An Anthropological Study of a Coffee Co-operative in Kenya Oxford University Press, Nairobi
Held, D. (1987) Models ofDemocracy Sage Books, Los Angeles
Hellman, J. A. (1992) "The Study of New Social Movements in Latin America and the Question of Autonomy" in Escobar, A., & Alvarez, S. E. (eds) 1992 The Making ofSocial Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy Westview Press, Boulder: 52 - 61
Hoyt, A. (1982) "The Renaissance of Consumer food Cooperatives: sources of growth, 1960 - 1980" in Cotterill, R. ( ed) Consumer Food Cooperatives the Interstate Printers and Publishers Inc, Danville, Illinois
226 Hoyt, A. (1996) And Then There Were Seven: Cooperative Principles Updated [online]. Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/staff/hoyt/princart.html [5 th March, 1999]. Originally published in The Cooperative Grocer, Jan-Feb 1996
Hubbard, R. (1983) "Have Only Men Evolved?" in Harding, S. and Hintikka, M. B. "Introduction" in Harding and Hintikka (eds) Discovering Reality Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland: pp 45 - 69.
Hughes, R. (1990) The Philosophy ofSocial Research Longman, London
Huyssen, A. (1986) After the great divide: modernism, mass culture, postmodernism Indiana University Press, Bloomington
International Co-operative Alliance (1995) International Statement of Cooperative Identity [online]. Available at: http://columbia.edu/~jw 157 /ps/co-op principles.html [15 th January, 1996]
Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic ofLate Capitalism Verso, London
Jay, M. (1996) "For Theory" in Theory and Society Vol. 25: 167 - 183.
Kasmir, S. ( 1996) The Myth of Mondragon: Cooperatives, Politics and Working Class Life in a Basque Town State University of New York Press, Albany
Kellehear, A. (1993) The Unobtrusive Researcher Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, Australia
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy Verso, London
Lash, S. (1990) Sociology ofPostmodernism Routledge, London
Lemert, C. C. (1994) "Post-Structuralism and Sociology" in Seidman, S. (ed) (1994) the Postmodern Turn New Perspectives on Social Theory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 265 - 281.
Levi, Y. & Litwin, H. (eds) (1986) Community and Cooperatives in Participatory Development Gower Publishing Company Ltd, Aldershot, Britain.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge Manchester University Press, Manchester
227 Maclure, R. (1990) "The Challenge of Participatory Research and Its Implications for Funding Agencies" in International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy Vol. 10 (3): 1 - 21. Magnusson, W. (1997) "Globalization, Movements, and the Decentred State" in Carroll, W. K. (ed) Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice Second Edition, Gammond Press, Toronto: 94 - 113
Maguire, P. (1987) Doing Participatory Research: a feminist approach University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Melucci, A. (1985) "The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements" in Social Research Winter 1985: 789 - 816.
Melucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the Present Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society Radius, Hutchison.
Melucci, A. (1995) "The Process of Collective Identity" in Johnston, H. & Klandermans, B. (eds) Social Movements and Culture UCL Press: London: 41 - 63.
Melucci, A. (1996) Challenging codes Collective action in the information age Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Moreau (1984) "Education, Ideology, and Class/Sex Identity" in Kramarae, C., Schulz, M., & Obarr, W. M. (eds) Language and Power Sage Publications, Beverly Hills
Moscow Food Co-op in Moscow, Idaho [Homepage of The Moscow Food Co operative], [Online]. (Last update: unknown) Available: http://csf.colorado.edu/co op/moscow.html [24th October, 1996]
Mulenga, D. C. (1994) "Participatory Research for a Radical Community Development" in Australian Journal ofAdult and Community Education Vol. 34 (3), November 1994: 253 - 261.
Munro-Clarke, M. ( ed) (1992) Citizen Participation in Government, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney.
Nakagawa, Y. (1992) The Co-operative identity sought for by the First /CA Congress Institute of Social Sciences, Meiji University, Tokyo
Nash, J., Dandler, J., and Hopkins, N. S. (eds) (1976) Popular Participation in social change: cooperatives, collectives, and nationalized industry Mouton, The Hague
New South Wales Government (1985) What is a Co-operative? Booklet printed in Sydney, Australia
Oberschall, A. (1973) Social Conflict and Social Movements Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
228 Offe, C. (1987) "Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics: social movements since the 1960's" in Maier, C. (ed) 1987 Changing Boundaries of the Political Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 63 - 105.
Owen, D. (1997) "The Postmodern Challenge to Sociology" in Owen, D. (ed) Sociology After Postmodernism Sage Publications, London: 1 - 22
Pakulski, J. (1991) Social Movements the Politics of Moral Protest Longman Cheshire, Melbourne
Park, P. (1993) "What is Participatory Research? A Theoretical and Methodological Perspective" in Park, P., Brydon - Miller, M., Hall, B. and Jackson, T. (eds) 1993 Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut: 1 - 19
People's food Co-op [Homepage of People's Food Coop], [Online] (Last updated: April, 1996] Available: http://www.izzy.net/-pfc/ (24th October, 1996)
Piven, F .F., and Cloward, R. A. (1977) Poor People 's Movements Why They Succeed, How They Fail Pantheon Books, New York
Popple, K. (1995) Analysing Community Work Its Theory and Practice Open University Press: Buckingham
Potter, B. (1987) The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain Gower, Aldershot (first published 1891)
Ristock, J. L. and Pennell, J. (1996) Community Research as Empowerment: Feminist Links, Postmodern Interruptions Oxford University Press, New York
Ritter, A. & Bondanella, J.C. (1988) (eds) Rousseau's Political Writings: discourse of Inequality, Discourse on Political Economy, On Social Contract Translated by Bondanella, J.C., W.W. Norton and Company, London
Rosenau, P. M. (1992) Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences Princeton University Press: New Jersey
Rousseau, J. J. (1988) "On Social Contract" in Ritter, A. & Bondanella, J.C. (1988) (eds) Rousseau's Political Writings: discourse of Inequality, Discourse on Political Economy, On Social Contract Translated by Bondanella, J. C., W. W. Norton and Company, London: 84 - 173
Runciman, C., Barber, H., Parlane, L., Shaw, G., & Stone, J. (1986) Effective Action for Social Change: the campaign to save the Franklin River self published in Melbourne.
229 Schratz, M. & Walker, R. (1995) Research as Social Change Routledge, London.
Seidman, S. (1994) "Introduction" in Seidman, S. (ed) 1994 The Postmodern Turn New Perspectives On Social Theory Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 1 - 23.
Seidman, S. (1994a) " The end of sociological theory" in Seidman, S. ( ed) 1994 The Postmodern Turn New Perspectives on Social Theory Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 119 - 139.
Selener, J. D. (1992) Participatory Action Research and Social Change: Approaches and Critique MI University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Smart, B. (1993) Postmodernity Routledge, New York
Smith, G. (1996) 'Community-arianism' Community and Communitarianism: Concepts and Contexts [online], published by Communities Online Forum. Available: http://www.webserve.bt.com/communities/ [10th March, 1997]
Sommer, R. (1991) "Consciences in the Marketplace: The Role of Cooperatives in consumer Protection" in Journal ofSocial Issues Vol. 47 (1), 1991: 135- 148
Soper, K. 1991 "Postmodemism, Subjectivity and the Question of Value" in New Left Review Vol. 186, 1991: pp 120 - 128.
South, N. (1997) "Late-Modem Criminology: 'Late' as in 'Dead' or 'Modem' as in 'New'?" in Owen, D. (ed) Sociology After Postmodernism Sage Publications, London: 81-102
Stacey, M. (1969) "The Myth of Community Studies" in British Journal ofSociology Vol. 20(2) 1969: 34 - 4 7
Stettner, L. (1984) Chinese Co-operatives: Their Role in a Mixed Economy Plunkett Foundation, Oxford
Strong, A. L. (1964) The Rise of the Chinese People's Communes - and six years after New World Press, Peking
Tilly, C. (1984) "Social movements and national politics" in Bright, C. and Harding, S. (eds) Statemaking and Social Movements University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Tilly, C. (1985) "Models and Realities of Popular Collective Action" in Social Research Vol. 52 (4) Winter 1985:717- 747.
Tonnies (1955) Community and Association (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft) translated by Loomis, C. P., Routledge & K. Paul, London
Touraine, A. (1985) "An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements" in Social Research Vol. 52:
230 Touraine, A. (1977) The voice and the eye An analysis of social movements (Alan Duff translator) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vio Grossi, F., Martinie, S., Tapia, G., & Pascal, I (1983) Participatory Research: theoretical frameworks, methods and techniques International Council for Adult Education, Montreal
Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory Blackwell: Cambridge, Massachusetts
Wheatsville Food Co-op [Homepage of Wheatsville Food Co-operative]. (Last update: unknown). Available: Wheatsville Food Co-op, 1995: http:/csf.colorado.edu/co-op/wheatsville.html (24th October, 1996)
Whyte, W. F. & Whyte, K. K. (1988) Making Mondragon: Their Growth and Dynamics ofthe Worker Cooperative Complex ILR Press, New York
Wild, R. A. (1981) Australian Community Studies and Beyond Allen & Unwin: Sydney.
Windstrand, C. G. (1970) ( ed) Cooperatives in Rural Development in East Africa Africana Publishing Corporation, New York
231 HOWYOU CAN PARTICIPATE • help make decisions at committee meetings • work in the shop - filling bins, cleaning, labelling • get involved with a working group; shop layout, accounts, • education > • help with regular large scale clean-ups ~ ~ • pick up stock from wholesalers t:r'j • become a volunteer co-ordinator '.Zt, • write articles, do graphics for the newsletter ~ • find out more about food and share the knowledge through a ~ bin label 0 '.Z • design/build shelving or shop fittings and general shop : ..t:r'j renovations > • help with administrative work; either at home or in the office ~ ~ • help out at Unpackaged Tours for new members > ~ • check the notice board for special or urgent requests ~ • help out on stalls and with Roving Kitchen ACOMMUNITY BULKFOOD STORE > • make calico bags 0= • anything else you think of ... e C'1 t:r'j WHENYOU CAN PARTICIPATE ~ ~ • anytime that suits you but the shop opening hours are as follows 0t, MONDAY CLOSED e TUESDAY 10 am -6 pm C.) >-3 · WEDNESDAY 10 am-6 pm ~ ~ THURSDAY 10 am - 8 pm C'1 FRIDAY 10 am -6 pm >-3 N (.,J N SATURDAY· 10 am -6 pm SUNDAY CLOSED THE PRODUCT LIST 113Enmore Road Enmore • TEL 02 9519337 4 [email protected]
The The
system system
cheaper cheaper
Wt Wt
So So Prlcts Prlcts
Rd, Rd,
decisions decisions
supermarket supermarket
goods goods
conditions conditions the the
Wt Wt
Saturday
months
price. price.
from from book-keeping book-keeping
vegetables. vegetables.
Allalla Allalla
methods. methods.
also also
burgers, burgers,
bread, bread,
Most Most
packaged packaged
kilo kilo
pay pay
pour pour
if if
try try
stock stock community community
Enmore Enmore
for for
shop shop
stock stock
is is
this this
of of
or or
this this
We We
are are
produced produced
the the
teas teas
to to
Hou1111 Hou1111
is is
. .
unnecessary unnecessary
what what
ladle ladle
the the
herbs herbs
If If
. .
appeals appeals
, ,
~hat ~hat
are are
We We
supply supply
product product
and and
is is
For For
also also
competitive competitive
SAVE SAVE
same same
a a
surprisingly surprisingly
you you
Just Just
and and
and and
goods goods
run run
range range
(just (just
chains chains
made made
•• ••
out out
also also
•••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••
the the
minimally minimally
more more
and and
NOT NOT
employ employ
and and
coffees, coffees,
by by work work
whether whether
as as
that that
a a
by by
ethically ethically
by by
11II 11II
to to
exactly exactly
non-profit non-profit
opposite opposite
more more
of of
sell sell
extensive extensive
list, list,
are, are, what what
MONEY MONEY
accounting accounting
spices spices
at at
members members
other other
we we
your your
information information
supports supports
packaging. packaging.
laundry laundry
is is
more more
PACKAGING PACKAGING
meetings meetings
and and
handicrafts handicrafts
it it
part-time part-time
the the
wide wide
JUST JUST
unpackaged. unpackaged.
have have
oils, oils,
involved involved
methods. methods.
includes includes
you you
processed processed
culinary culinary
the the
as as
and and
worker worker
the the
more more
the the
often, often,
well well
as as
lots lots
co-operative. co-operative.
a a
range range
amount amount
who who
and and
buy buy
us. us.
environmentally environmentally
profits profits
concern concern
processes processes
the the
Enmore Enmore
AND AND
WHOLESOME WHOLESOME
held held
Also, Also,
people people
of of
workers workers
call call
you you
as as
11n111, 11n111,
the the
cleaning cleaning
you you
cooperatives cooperatives
0
made made
Hence, Hence,
work work
supermarket supermarket
.
of of
wholesome wholesome
refrigerated refrigerated
yummy yummy
005 005
monthly monthly
You You
9519 9519
staples staples
you you
art art
are, are,
foods foods
you you
are are
HELP HELP
for for
Theatre). Theatre).
will will
kg kg
by by
for for
are are
NOT NOT
why why
recycled. recycled.
bring bring
the the
to to
we we
Our Our
want. want.
eligible eligible
3374. 3374.
only only
who who
products). products).
or or
local local
for for
a a
homemade homemade
freely freely
be be
provide provide
like like
endeavour endeavour
and and
cheaper cheaper
minimum minimum
500 500
not not
sound sound
main main
SAVE SAVE
involved! involved!
and/or and/or
such such
your your
food food
goodies goodies
buy buy produces produces
shelves shelves
Neither Neither
PROFITEERING PROFITEERING
people people
dried dried
We're We're
which which
for for
kg. kg.
call call
The The
available available
FOOD FOOD
a a
what what
aim aim
own own
an an
to to
products. products.
a a
the the
small small
in in
by by
fruits, fruits,
shop shop
beauty beauty
but but
our our
THE THE
pastas pastas
and and
over-all over-all
of of
open open
like like
where where
are are
is is
you you
and and
In In
the the
goodies goodies
organic/biodynamic organic/biodynamic
you you
containers containers
two two
to to
more more
members. members.
for for
shop. shop.
addition, addition,
open open
members members
(bulk) (bulk)
at at
visit visit
goods, goods,
nor nor
nuts
Tuesday Tuesday
provide provide
PLANEl PLANEl
and and
need need
of of
Unlike Unlike
extra extra the
possible possible
hours hours
member member
continuity. continuity.
the the
the the
nutritious nutritious
, ,
to to
As As
us us
become; become;
a a
grains, grains,
tofu tofu
-
selection selection
all all
under under
at at
and and
cooperative cooperative
environment environment
you you
every every
all all
to to
minimally minimally
the the
the the
through through
113 113
members
and and
to to
discount discount
scrutiny
support support
scoop, scoop,
can can
legumes, legumes,
price price
purchase purchase
and and
what what
Enmore Enmore
three three
Major Major
(We (We
tempeh tempeh
of of
see see
the the
to to
per per
sea sea
. .
. .
SOME SOME
YOUR YOUR
YOUR YOUR
· ·
whole, whole,
power power
• •
fee fee
payment payment
• •
• •
spillages spillages
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
be be
special special
• •
• •
a a subcommittees subcommittees
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
Community Community
committee committee
first first
the the
(ii) (ii)
(i) (i)
The The
The The While While
There There
Shares Shares
to to
to to
to to
to to
to to regular regular
to to
to to
to to
to to
to to
to to
to to
to to
to to
prepared prepared
RULES RULES
RESPONSIBILITIES RESPONSIBILITIES
RIGHTS RIGHTS
and and
in in
contribute contribute
criticise criticise
provide provide
refill refill clean clean
be be
refrain refrain
remember remember
pay pay
have have
attend attend
shop shop
take take
buy buy
in in
value value
named named
management management
minimum minimum
cases cases
to to
and and
cases cases
considerate considerate
meetings meetings
do do
is is
payment payment
are are
your your
you you
food food
can can
an an
co-op co-op
suspend suspend
FOR FOR
access access
containers containers
at at
up up
a a
of of
AS AS
two two
when when
RIGHTS RIGHTS
committee committee
from from
joining joining
of of
active active
refundable refundable
of of
to to
Alfalfa Alfalfa
constructively constructively
your your
where where
on on
Supplies Supplies
be be
any any
the the
make make
MAINTAINING MAINTAINING
A A
membership membership
in in
group group
the the
take take
to to
hours hours
two two
or or
MEMBER MEMBER
product, product,
sought sought
to to
the the
activity activity
etc
bulk bulk
shares
grazing grazing
circumstances circumstances
for for
mess mess
show show
own own
a a
by by
role role
coop coop
the the
of of
cost cost
committee committee
the the
fee fee
. .
person's person's
part part
House, House,
AS AS
hours hours
membership membership
from from
shares shares
memberships, memberships,
work work
just just
the the
in in
(usually (usually
meetings meetings
co-op co-op
of of
you you
A A
jars, jars,
in in
, ,
fees fees
£ £
The The
to to
in in
your your
the the
to to
in in
there there
Katoomba. Katoomba.
required required
we we
MEMBER MEMBER
as as
$20 $20
members members
the the
doing doing
some some
the the
the the
of of
RESPONSIBILITIES RESPONSIBILITIES
absorb absorb
resolving resolving
fee, fee,
any any
make make
go go
per per
co-op co-op
Pigweed Pigweed
bottles bottles
you you
is is
YOUR YOUR
may may
membership membership
your your
newsletter, newsletter,
card card
running running
storeroom storeroom
(20 (20
member member
non-negotiable, non-negotiable,
is is
is is
unpaid, unpaid,
10 10
due due
quarter
aspects aspects
instances instances
require, require,
and and
shop shop
a a
things things
financially financially
form; form;
still still
while while
or or
x x
to to
legal legal
MEMBERSHIP MEMBERSHIP
to to
money; money;
the the
time time
E) E)
and and
$1 $1
working working
at at
the the
take take
25kg) 25kg)
maintain maintain
them. them.
at at
the the
-
be be
the the
of of
shares shares
shares) shares)
with with
and and
. .
requirement requirement
that that
and and
NSW NSW
of of
to to
shopping shopping
bags; bags;
because because
share share
the the
member member
able able
your your
plus plus
if if
part part
(e.g., (e.g.,
start start
(e
the the
the the
and and
you you
the the
.
and and you you
two two
management management
g
at at
and and
and and
to to
.
value value
Uni, Uni,
any any
which which
membership membership
co-op co-op
in in
co-op co-op
, ,
co-op co-op
exemption exemption
of of
value value
when when
the the
receive receive
because because
find find
every every
legally legally
get get
feel feel
decisions decisions
provisos provisos
Rs Rs
cancel cancel
each each
and and
at at
other other
Manly Manly
counter; counter;
can can
it it
the the
on on
them them
need need
you you
every every
is is
of of
by by
on on
for for
to to
little little
year; year;
a a
£ £
refundable refundable
liable liable
the the
only only
the the
of of
counter counter
information information
the the
joining joining
5% 5%
very very
remember remember
feel feel
you. you.
committee committee
-
RULES RULES
to to
to to
Co-op Co-op
empty; empty;
stealing). stealing).
about about
three three
is is
management management
fees fees
nibble nibble
membership. membership.
discount
the the
be be
be be
are are
to to
for for
long long
done done
owing owing
refunded refunded
working working
pay pay
when when
yearly yearly
months; months;
the the
a a
the the
and and
adds adds
upon upon
problem problem
holidays)
that that
the the
co-op co-op
co
regarding regarding
has has
. .
at at
If If
you you
exceeds exceeds
-
fee fee
up; up;
op op
yearly yearly
any any
leaving
it's it's
the the
bees bees
to to
shop; shop;
as as
and and
. .
the the
not not
a a
or or
. .
M M
M M N N .
Sat)
.
GOODS
and
(de/
apricot,
(Dutch)
.
5053)
honey,
(de/
chocolate
Buds
(0)
delivered
miso
( (0)
(0)
BAKED
carob
fruit
Pies
Friday.
(non-vegan)
white
Ho,se.
Powder
LIST
(9565
Belgian
organic
(vegan)
Dallas
Helios Naturis
and
Tuesday)
•
organic
Thursday) fax
• •
Loaves
Pastries
Humble Pappadams
buds Belgian Cocoa Dark Rapunzel
Balls
Alfalfa
Buttons
including
bulk
BREADS+
CHOCOLATE
CAROB
Standard
or
or'janic
at
bulk
INCLUDE:
(S):
goodies
stock
tahini,
fresh
Thursday
Milk
co-op
we
coffee,
malt
)
of
(B)
.
Ecofarms
carob
Rice
L)
the
(0)
(1
tL}
organic
of
Own Own
(Aust
Organic
Juice
goodies
Grape
(0)
powder
(calci-plus)
MILKS
call
Juice
ran'je
(0)
(0)
(0)
organic
Tuesday,
Dream
(fridge}
HIGHLIGHTS
bulk
tlle
Soy
range
(0):
(250ml,
milk
of
/RICE
Lloyds
Apple
Orange
bulk
Waratah
beans
decaf[
ground
info,
wide
Vita Bonsoy
Australia's THE
• Australia's • Pureharvest • Aussie •
•
•
•
Soy
insecticide-free
(750ml)
(0)
every
A
Coffees
• •
• •
JUICES SOY
• •
wide
free
oil,
a
tempeh,
OF
more
ildkatlo1
olive
and
and
fair
PRODUCT
For
a
SOME
Biodynamic
delivered
Is
tofu
bitter
S)
is
-
organic
(B): &
FRUIT+VEGIES.
Below
yellow/green
(0
whole/split
-
green/brown
bulk
organic
DELIVERY.
(0)
-
red
Powder
beans
Powder
eye
turtle
Dhal
Mix
Dutch
peas
kidney
(0)
Bulk
e'jetables
Adzuki
Black Black Broad ORGANIC Dhal-Urad Chickpeas Lentils
Lima
Mung(O) or Pinto Red HOME
THE whole,
Urad
Split Soup Soy
Carob dark Cocoa
BEANS
BEVERAGES
&
clary
dry,
25ml,
brown,
bulk
washing
basil,
ylang
bulk plain scented, cleaner
in
orange,
red,
,mbleached
-
-
tangerine,
-
(0)-
soap
frankincense,
&
-
lime,
chamomile,
base
jasmine,
evening
·
bulk
peppermint,
mandarin,
citronella,
dish
rosewood,
dishwashing,
lemon,
(0)
oils
geranium, -
oil,
-
Oil
dark
ointment
oil
-
blond
oil
neroli, grapefruit,
vanilla,
-
oil
plain
clay
paper
clove,
remover
powder
rose
ground
-
Tree
recycled
Condoms Ecokind Conditioner Essential
laundry
cedarwood, cinnamon,
lavender, ginger, sage,
hypericum,
marjoram, primrose myrrh, lemongrass, rose, rosemary,
Facial Henna thyme,
sandalwood,
palmarosa, neutral, Herbon
Massage
ylang
Multi-purpose laundry Pawpaw Pure
Shampoo
&
Soap
Soap
Stain 50ml
hemp
Jojoba Tampons Tea pre-wash
Toilet
Toothpaste
.
raw,
liquid
200ml
6L}
-
(fridge)
(tins) (blocks)
(fridge)
(0)
bulk
soap
(4L,
(0)
brown,
baking
(0) fudge
(0) tonic
J00ml,
FOR
baits
sea
bulk
hearts
-
Tartar
cream cream
lozenges
Mineral
husks
-
Dijon
lozenges
granules
powder black
green
Crystals
dark
Rice liquid
Iron
Salts
of
syrup
cider
soda - -
-
coolers
rock,
Wine
Delights
Snax
-
Maple Peppermint Propolis
Soy
organic Apple
Soy Brown Sugar Balsamic Red
Arrowroot Artichoke
White Umeboshi
Bouillon
Coconut
Coconut Cold-ez
Creme Echinacea Custard Herbal Lecithin Low-allergy
Epsom
powder Nuttalex
Molasses Mustard
Olives Psyllium
Olives
Salt Benzoin Bicarb
Castille Cockroach
Water
Spirulina
VINEGARS
MISCELLANEOUS
HOME+SELF
SOLUTIONS
&
&
&
&
whole
&
sticks
ground
&
hot
&
yellow
&
Carob)
ground
&
(dry)
-
yellowbox
·
green,
&
bark,
whole
ground
-
syrup
(see
concentrate
-
-
-
powder
ground
stock
seeds
sweet
ground
whole
ground
ground
bush,
pastries seeds
leaves
whole
ropes
seeds
-
-
-
Masala
-
beans
-
-
flakes
flakes
malt
THANGS!
-
balls
quai
juice
root
leaves
leaves
spice
seeds
Anise
Allspice
Bay
Caraway Cardamom brown,
Chilli Cinnamon
Cloves Coriander ground
whole
Cumin Dill Curry- Dong Fenugreek
Garam Garlic
Five powder
Lime ground Ginger
Mace Mustard
Nutmeg-
brown
Paprika
SPICES whole
Onion Pepper Orris Peppercorns
Honey
Apple Star
Vanilla Licorice Vegetable Turmeric
Barley
Demeter Carob
(0)
SWEFT
N
w
.is. almonds, banana, chewy DAIRY+EGGS Apricots - fancy (S) Hibiscus MACROBIOTIC Jasmine nut,coffee nut, date, Bananas · Horsetail Rissotto · . CHEESES. Agar Agar V) ginger; macadamia, , Banana chips . Juniper Berries (0) White - med (B) M • Brie Arrowroot N peppermint, plain, rough, • Camembert Capsicum - sulphur-free Lavender (0) Kuzu White - glutinous sultanas, whirls · · • Dunoon · Currants (0 & S) Lemon balm (0) Mirin Wild • Fetta ..:.cow, goat Dates - Iranian (sulphur Lemongrass (0& S) M iso - genmai (0), natto, CEREALS+GRAINS • Nimbin free), Chinese c~ Licorice root (0& S) shiro (0), chunky mugi SAVOURYSNACKS Barley - pearl & rolled (B • Timboon California Medjool (0) Marjoram (0) & hatcho (0) Bhuja &S) . YOGURT I~igs - Turkish, Mate (0) Seaweed/vegetables - Corn chips (0) Buckwheat - raw & • Soy yogurt (600ml) (0) sulphur-free Mugwort (0) arame, kombu, sushi nori, Corn nuts roasted • Hakea - mild (500ml), Fruit salad Nettle (0) wakame (Aust.) Munchie mix Burghul skim (500ml),fruit Mixed fruit Oregano - French (0 & S) Shitake mushrooms Popping corn (0) Couscous (0 & S) (390ml) · Mixed peel Passionflower (0) Shoyu (0) Soy crisps Millet - hulled (0) & meal Eggs - free range (0) Mango pieces (0) Pennyroyal Tamari (0) Soy chips (0) . . Mayonnaise (Golden Paw Paw spears Peppermint (0 & S) Umeboshi vinegar Tapioca chips Millet & linseed (0) Soya) Peaches (0 & S) Psyllium husks Umeboshi plums (fridge) Thai Rice Crackers Muesli - J sorts (0 & S) Pears (0 & S) Raspberry leaf (0 & S) Oats - rolled (0 & S) FLOURS+OTHERBAKING Prunes (0 & S) Red clover NUTS SEEDS Oat bran FLOURS Raisins - musratel (0 & S) Rosehip Almonds - kernels & Alfalfa Sultanas & S) Rosemary (0 & S) Polenta • Besan (S) (0 slivers (0 & S) Buckwheat Tomatoes - sulphur-free Sage - French, whole Puffed millet (0) • Brown Rice (0) Almond meal Fenugreek (O&S) Puffed white rice • Buckwheat (0) Brazil Linseed (0) HERBS& TEAS Sasparilla (0) Puffed wheat • Cornflour Coconut - shredded Millet - hulled (0) Senna pods Quinoa • Gluten-free Alfalfa Leaf (0 & S) Hazelnut Pepitas - raw Skullcap Rice flakes • Millet meal (fridge) (0) Angelica Macadamia Poppy Slippery Elm Rye - flakes & whole (0) • Millet and linseed meal Bancha/Kukicha (0) (0) Mixed nuts Radish Semolina....: fine (0) Basil (0 & S) Spearmint (0 & S) Peanuts - raw, roasted Sesame(O) St Mary's Thistle (0) · Semolina - medium (0 & S) • Rice (B) Buchu (0) Pecans - whole & kernel Sunflower (0 & S) S Rabaudiana Tapioca • Rye (0) Burdock (0) Pistachios (0) Sunflower - sprouting Taheboo (0) Wheat - whole (0) • Self-raising - Calendula (0 & S) Pinenuts Wheat (0) Wheatgerm - natural & stoneground (0) Catnip (0) Tarragon Walnuts plus a wide variety of Thyme - rnlinary & tea stabilised (fridge) • Spelt (0) Chai non-hybrid 'Green Patch' Trade winds tea Wheat Bran - processed(S) • Wholewheat - soft & Chamomile (0 & S) PASTA+NOODLES seeds for planting Valerian (0) & unprocessed(0) · hard(B & 0) Coltsfoot Corn spaghetti (0) Yarrow (0) • Wheat - soft white (0) Daintree tea (0) Garlic & parsley ribbons SOY PRODUCTS CHUTNEYS PASTES • Wheat -hard white (0) Damiana Tempeh - bulk (0) OILS (0) +PICKL S • Wheat - Kia/la lite Dandelion root - fine, Mugwort/soba Tempeh burgers Ginger pickle unbleached (0) coarse, spiced Olive - virgin, Pesto twists Tofu - bulk (0) Green masala paste DongQuai cold-pressed (0) Soba - 50% & 100% Tofu - smoked Safflower Hot mango pickle YEASTS Echinacea (O) ' (0) Udon Sesame Madras curry powder · • Brewers Elderflower (0) -·toasted Vegetable spirals (0) SPREADS Samba) Olek (chilli paste) • Dry fermipan . Eyebright Sesame (0) Jams -range (0) Sunflower - Sweet mango • Torula Fennel - whole & ground cold-pressed RICES Peanut butter (0) Tamarind chutney (0) Basmati Prune spread (0) Garaina Peanut Tomato paste (0) FRUITSETC. - DRIED (0) Black - glutinous Tahini-hulied (0) & Gingko Biloba (0) Tomato puree (0) . Apples . Brown - short & long unhulled (0) Ginseng Vindaloo curry paste Apricots - low sulphur (0) B) Green tea (0) grain (0, APPENDIX TWO: 1996 MEMBERS' SURVEY
This questionnaire has been designed to help us (which includes you) find out more about Alfalfa House members and their experiences and expectations of the co-op. This information will be used to help the Coordinators, Management Committee, and other interested members to identify what's working well, what needs attention, and how we can make the co-op work better for all of us. It will also help a fellow Alfalfan - Jo Barraket - complete her university studies on food co-ops and social action. Please help by taking the time to fill in and return this survey, either by dropping it into the shop (a box will be located near the counter), or mailing it in using the Reply Paid envelope. Information about the results of this survey will be made available through the newsletter upon completion.
Please return this questionnaire by 30th November, 1996.
1. Approximately how long have you been a member of Alfalfa House? ......
2. Are you, or have you been, a member of any other food co-op or other type of co-op (if yes, please give details)?
3. Are you involved in any other like-minded organisations/activities (if yes, please describe)?
236 4. How many times have you done work for Alfalfa House in the past year?
none ( ) (please go to question 7) one to four ( ) more than four( )
5. What sort of work was this?
6. Did you enjoy it (please explain)?
7. If you haven't worked, could you explain why?
8. How could the co-op make it easier for you to be involved?
9. On average, how often do you shop at the co-op?
237 10. Are there any products currently unavailable at the co-op which you would like to see introduced?
11. Are there any products currently available at the co-op which you would like to see discontinued (please give reasons)?
12. Please complete the following statements about the co-op:
(a) I would be happy to shop more if...
(b) I would be happy to work more if....
(c) What I like about the co-op is....
238 (d) What I dislike about the co-op is ....
13. How would you describe Alfalfa House?
14. Anything more you would like to add?
Now Alfalfa knows more about you, do you want to know more about Alfalfa?
This questionnaire will provide some information about you, but maybe you would like to say more and/or find out more about the mysterious workings of the co-op. If so, perhaps you would like to meet with an experienced Alfalfan for some discussion (say, half an hour) about life, the co-op, and everything!
15. Would you be interested in further discussing your views of the co op and/or finding out the answers to all those nagging questions about how it all works?
239 No ( )
thankyou for your time (please do not add your name to this
questionnaire)
Yes ( ) please include your name and contact number here
Thankyou for CO-OPerating (hee-hee)!!!! Please return this questionnaire to the co-op by 30th November, 1996.
240 APPENDIX THREE: REPORT TO THE ALFALFA HOUSE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON THE 1996 MEMBERS' SURVEY
Report on the 1996 Members' Survey
prepared by Jo Barraket for the Alfalfa House Management Committee March,1997
1.0 Introduction
In October 1996, a written survey was designed and distributed to all current members of Alfalfa House Community Food Cooperative. This report has been written for the benefit of the Management Committee, staff, and other interested members of the co-op. It outlines the methods used in collecting this information, as well as offering a summary of the results, and some analysis of those results. The aim of the report is to assist active members in planning for the co-op's future by providing a picture of members' needs, concerns, and suggestions. It also reflects on the process of conducting such a survey, so that it may provide a useful resource for members who may wish to do further member surveys in the future.
2.0 Method
2.1 Questionnaire Design The questionnaire was designed m consultation with staff and Management Committee members. All were asked to fill in an 'ideas page' (see Appendix One), which allowed me to identify specific issues which people were interested in hearing from the members about. In addition to this information, I adapted questions from previous Member Surveys which seemed to have generated high response rates. A draft of the questionnaire was then presented to the Management Committee, and was approved with one amendment.
241 The resulting questionnaire (see Appendix Two) contained three closed questions (ie questions with specified responses) and seventeen open ended questions. The emphasis on open ended questions was a deliberate attempt to avoid prescribing members' responses, to encourage detailed answers, and to allow members to explain responses where necessary.
2.2 Distribution The questionnaire was distributed by mail to all paid up members of Alfalfa House (the mailing list was cross referenced against fees receipt books to ensure accuracy), and included a Reply Paid envelope for easy return. Three hundred and twenty seven questionnaires were mailed out. However, eight were returned, "addressee unknown".
2.3 Summary and Analysis of Results The qualitative (or open ended) results were summarised and analysed by identifying emerging themes across respondents' answers. In addition for looking for these themes, I have tried to comment on particular contradictions, or differences of opinion over specific issues, which were apparent in the completed questionnaires. The quantitative ( closed question) results have simply been summarised, and their implications are considered in whatever the number is, Analysis a/Results.
The fact that this report is a summary of the results means that not every comment or attitude is presented. The completed surveys themselves will be archived in the co-op filing cabinet should anyone want to explore them further.
In addition to summarising the results on a question by question basis, I have provided some analysis of the 'big picture' illustrated by the results. That is, I have further drawn out issues or themes which have been addressed by respondents across a number of questions, in order to identify both positive and negative trends within people's co-op experiences which we can build upon or redress in future planning.
242 3.0 Summary of Results One hundred and twenty completed questionnaires were returned. This represents a response rate of 38%.
3.1 Period ofMembership ofAlfalfa House
< 6 6 1 year to 2 years 3 years 4 years no months months <2 to < 3 to < 4 and over response TOTA to < years years years L lyear 22 21 10 15 12 39 1 120
3.2 Membership of Other Co-operatives and Like-Minded Organisations Thirty six people identified as being, or having been, members of other cooperatives. Other food co-ops were by far the most frequently cited, with eighteen responses. In addition, membership of the following was identified by three people each: housing cooperatives; bookshop cooperative; fruit and vegetable buying co-op. Two people were members of a mountain equipment co-op, and two people identified their anarchist collective bookshops as co-ops. Other co-op types nominated by one person each were: film makers' co-op; women's press co-op; multiple occupancy farming property; ski lodge; 'paper go round' co-op; communal house; 'Pipeline' co op; World Development Tea Co-op; housing policy co-op.
Fifty two members indicated that they were involved in like minded activities and/or organisations, while a further eight said that they have been/will be involved, but are not so at present. The range of activities and organisations identified was extensive, and may be broadly categorised as follows:
• Environmental activities, including formal conservation organisations (sixteen people), direct and local action groups (three people), peace groups (three
243 people), transport groups (three people), and student environmental groups (one person);
• Human Rights and Development issues, including formal organisations (eight people), social justice and action groups (national and international issues) ( six people), and Aboriginal justice groups ( one person);
• Sustainable living activities, including Permaculture, community gardening, and waste minimisation projects (fifteen people), Local Economic Trading Systems (four people), alternative technology and design organisations (three people);
• Alternative businesses, including environmental and Anarchist bookshops (four people), and credit unions ( one person);
• General community organisations, including community radio (two people), community housing ( one person), community schools ( one person);
• Spiritual groups and activities, including church/religious groups (two people) and meditation and yoga practices (two people).
Other activities identified were: food action groups (four people);women's rights and identity projects (four people); animal liberation organisations (two people); lesbian identity projects ( one person); and child abuse support groups ( one person).
3.3 Alfalfa House Work Contributions
Number of Work Shifts Undertaken in the Past Year none 1-4 more than 4 no response TOTAL 18 55 46 1 120
Eighty five people indicated that they enjoyed their work contribution to the co-op. A number of themes emerged in response to this question. The strongest of these was
244 people's sense of inclusion, of being a part of something which they perceive to be striving for common goals and/or for the common good. As one member put it, "I enjoy feeling part of this great organisation ... the freedom to choose how I gain my credits and the value placed on my work". A number of people recognised this as a spiritual investment in the future - "Contributing energy to the growth and maintenance of a sustainable cooperative culture is one of the things I love doing, and the karmic returns for work done with love are always choice".
Another strong theme was respondents' recognition of the social benefits of active membership. These benefits include: exchanging ideas with like minded people; meeting new people; catching up with friends.
A number of people specified that they enjoyed working in the shop as it helped increase their knowledge of the products available and their uses, while some people also found this type of physical labour a relaxing escape from the 'head work' of their jobs and/or other activism. Conversely, some people found that tasks which could be done at home (such as cooking and computer work) were more convenient for them.
A further twenty respondents indicated that they did not particularly enjoy working in the coop, but described it as "okay", or commented on both the positive and negative aspects of the experience. A number of these people indicated that the work task itself was boring or menial, but that they enjoyed being involved in coop generally. One person commented that they enjoy working when in company, but solo work can be depressing and dull. Two people commented that limited access to resources (such as cleaning equipment) is frustrating and time wasting.
Four people indicated explicitly that they did not enjoy their working experience in the coop. Only one of these people elaborated with the comment, "it was boring as hell".
245 3.4 Reasons For Not Working Twenty nine people cited reasons for not having worked over the past year. The major reasons cited were other time commitments (such as work and study), and that members were no longer living in the local area. Two people had been travelling overseas, while two were unable to work for health reasons. Three people cited the 'cliquey' atmosphere as a deterrent to working. One person had only just joined, while another was dealing with personal problems.
In response to the statement, "I would be happy to work more if... ," the overwhelming theme was 'if I had more time/didn't have a full time job', with forty four responses. Additional themes were: if I lived/ worked closer to the co-op (twenty one responses); if the work was more varied - this included issues such as people wanting to contribute out of hours, people wanting more work options, people wanting to learn new skills rather than do menial labour, people wanting to use their existing skills to benefit the co-op (nine responses); if childcare was available and/or my child was older (four responses); if the shop was less 'cliquey' and/or staff and core workers were friendlier (three responses); if there was more information dissemination about Roving Kitchen gigs (three responses). Other individual comments included: "if I was healthier"; if the storeroom was better organised; if I could work with someone who knows the system; if work was rewarded on a credit for hours basis; if we had a live band set up in the corner.
246 3.5 Member Involvement
Would You Like to Be More Involved in the Co-op? Yes No No response TOTAL 55 53 12 120
Fifty one people responded to the question, "If yes, how could the co-op make it easier for you to be involved?", with twenty eight of those respondents indicating that lack of involvement was their responsibility rather than a fault of the coop. A number of other responses identified the 'closed' nature of information dissemination in the co-op as a problem. Examples of these responses included:
• "Advertise events/fundraisers more often"
• "Offer a short list in the newsletter of things to be created within the coop - at least then I could look at it and think 'I could do that' ... "
• "More info on what's going on"
• "Sometimes the management of the coop seems to work secretively and I don't know what's going on and when ... "
Two people said that they felt uncomfortable because of the 'clubby' nature of the coop. Two people suggested that more socially oriented activities would motivate them to be more involved, while one person suggested the establishment of a child care cooperative.
3. 6 Requests for new products and discontinuation of current products
Fifty one people suggested new products, with the most common response being a larger range of fruit and vegetables (eight people). For a complete list of product
247 requests, please see Appendix Three - a memo which I passed on to Coordinators in January, 1997.
There were substantially less requests for discontinuation of products, with only nineteen people responding to the question. Of the requests made, the most common one centred around "poverty labour" products, with five people specifying cashew nuts. Arguments against stocking cashews generally stated that they are unethically harvested . Conversely, one respondent commented that, "I would like more info on products - the label 'slave labour' on the cashews has prompted my whole education on the cashew industry. Rather than banning products, I can then be more informed".
Four people indicated that they would prefer that we stock less individually packaged items, including soy milk and rice cakes. Two people requested discontinuation of carob bullets, honeycomb, and other carob products that contain gelatine, as this is an animal by product. Two people requested that we discontinue dairy products, with one of these people commenting, "dairy cows lead a protracted painful life, exploited as biological milk machines, dairy farms are polluting and ecologically unsustainable ... ".
Other specific requests for product discontinuation were:
• "the toothpaste {powder) which created a few dental problems for my sensitive teeth"
• "blended vegie oil as I think it's not up to our general standards of quality"28
• "Nuttalex - margarine is a foul product, it's carcinogenic, tastes disgusting and packaging is really bad too"
• "sugar - it's an addictive drug, grown in monocultures on land that should be rainforest, sprayed with herbicides, processed to hell and back with chlorine etc,
28Note: this product has been discontinued since the survey was conducted
248 and has all the good bits taken out of it...and it's mostly sold by agribusiness corporations"
3. 7 Shopping
Frequency of Members Shopping every 2 less than no > weekly weeks monthly monthly not at respons TOTAL 1/week all e 10 16 22 27 38 6 1 120
Of the six people who are not shopping at all, four indicated that they have moved out of the area. A number of people who stated that they shop monthly or less than monthly stressed that they shop in bulk at the co-op. Further, several people who shop less than monthly indicated that they only shop on the days they do their work shifts.
By far the most common response to the statement, "I would be happy to shop more if... ," (forty four responses) related to the distance and convenience of the co-op from people's homes. In addition to this theme, thirteen people indicated that they would shop more if they had more time. Thirteen people identified co-op prices as an issue, suggesting that they would shop more if prices were more affordable/more comparable to supermarket prices, or if they had more money to spend. Eleven people said they would shop more if the co-op's opening hours were longer and/or different. Ten people commented that they were already shopping enough and did not need anything more. Eight respondents indicated that they would shop more if the shopping process itself was quicker and easier. This theme included issues of people being more organised with bringing containers, and the general 'user friendliness' of the shop. Finally, three people said they would shop more if they were contributing more, and hence able to claim discount prices.
249 3.8 Members' Likes and Dislikes There were one hundred and sixteen responses to the statement "What I like about the co-op is ... ". The majority of these responses may be divided into the following broad themes:
• the food (fifty seven responses) - within this category, twenty people explicitly identified the organic food as being the thing they liked, while nine people commented that they liked the range of food available. Other food related comments included, access to "healthy food", the availability of obscure or uncommon items, the freshness of products, and the range of vegetarian and vegan foods available;
• the ethos (fifty responses) - most commonly within this category, people referred generally to the ethos of the co-op, using terms such as "politics", "ideology", 'philosophy", "values", "principles", and "ethics". More specifically, people commented on the non-exploitative nature of the co-op, in relation to both people (workers/producers) and the environment. A number of people identified the non profit nature of the co-op, while others viewed it as an alternative and/or oppositional activity to mainstream business;
• the environmentally aware practices (forty six responses) - the majority of responses in this category specifically mentioned the no/low packaging policy of the co-op. Other comments referred to the "environmentally friendly" products and procedures promoted by the co-op, and the co-op's commitment to waste minimisation;
• the relaxed atmosphere (forty five responses) - within this category, people commented on the friendliness of the co-op, referring specifically to the friendliness of staff/core workers, and to the general sense of friendliness experienced between members whilst shopping and/ or working;
• cooperative principles (twenty six responses) - here, people identified a number of specific features, including the equality of all members, the co-op's
250 responsiveness to members' needs, the trust placed in members, the sense of striving for a common good, and member control and ownership of the business;
• price (twenty one responses) - respondents in this category simply identified the affordability of products as a positive feature of the co-op;
• community orientation (fourteen responses) - in this category, people commented on the community nature of the co-op in a diversity of ways. These included, the feeling of community within the co-op, the role of the co-op in community building, and the involvement of the co-op in local community life;
• contact with like-minded people (eleven responses) - generally, people identified this feature of the co-op as both a social opportunity, and an opportunity to exchange information and ideas.
• opportunity to purchase exact quantities (six responses) - people looked upon this feature of the co-op as useful from both a budgeting and a waste minimisation aspect.
In addition to these broad themes, other features mentioned by individual respondents included: the newsletter; the noticeboard as a form of communication; the presentation of the shop itself; the diversity of people; the sports afternoons; the availability of information about local activities; the transparency/inclusiveness of day to day operations; and the Unpackaged Tour.
Eighty one people responded to the statement, "What I dislike about the co-op is ... ". Again, these responses may be divided into a number of themes, including:
• attitudes of staff, core workers, and 'off-duty' active members (fifteen responses) - a number of people identified the "clubbiness" or "cliquiness" of the co-op as a negative feature. Staff and core worker attitudes were referred to as negative both in relation to members who were shopping and members who were doing work shifts. Two people also referred to the 'closedness' of the co-op to the uninitiated
251 as a problem (ie the lack of immediately accessible information about the co-op's activities and membership in the shop front);
• location (eleven responses) - these respondents reiterated the problem that Alfalfa House is too far from their homes, and several people commented on the need for more co-ops around Sydney;
• unavailability of staple items (nine responses) - all of these people indicated that frequent unavailability of staple items is frustrating, and a number of these people commented that it forced them to shop elsewhere at times;
• the time it takes to shop (seven responses) - in this category, respondents specified issues such as the time it takes to be served, the time it takes to use the scales, and the problem of having to clean up spills while shopping;
• lack offamiliarity with other co-op members (four people)
In addition to these themes, two or three people commented on each of the following: insufficient range of fruit and vegetables; prohibitive prices of some items; opening hours; the gloomy look of the co-op from the outside; congestion around the till; messiness/slowness of liquid dispensers; lack of cleanliness/hygiene.
Other individual points included: having to work to maintain membership excludes people who don't have time; killing cockroaches is bad and we should try more preventative measures; the co-op is too homogeneous, and therefore unrepresentative, along the lines of age; administrative confusions in relation to members' change of address are frustrating.
3.9 Describing Alfalfa House
Respondents' general descriptions of Alfalfa House were overwhelmingly positive, with only two outwardly negative responses and four responses which referred to both positive and negative features. In addition, there were fourteen 'neutral'
252 responses - that is, responses which simply described features and activities of the co-op without indicating a value judgement.
The negative and 'qualified' responses reiterated some responses to the statement "What I dislike about the co-op is ... ", and included issues of price, staff and coreworker attitudes, lack of organisational structure, cleanliness, and the physical appearance and layout of the shop. Similarly, the positive responses reinforced responses to the statement "What I like about the co-op is ... ", including issues of social justice, member control, environmental sensitivity, community orientation, healthy food, and like minded people. Two examples of these comments are:
• "[It is] one of the few havens of the tribal spirit remaining in this poisoned city"; and
• '"'[It] is a great environment and place of change because we have a direct say not only on how much and what we buy, but also on the suppliers and any food choices we make. Because food is so essential, these small changes have a greater impact than we know"
3.10 Additional comments Responses to this question may be generally categorised as: expressions of thanks to committee members, staff, and coreworkers, both for their commitment and for their receptiveness to member input/feedback; reiteration of views expressed in other questions; comments on specific coop experiences and concrete suggestions on particular issues. These suggestions were:
• "a doof would make an excellent fundraising event"
• "I've spearheaded a rejuvination of the garden and I was very happy with the reception of the idea by the co-op's organisers"
• "With the range of products available could you highlight one product by providing recipes (eg quinoa) and/or uses"
253 • "I would find it fantastic if till person and whoever works there would wear a name tag very clearly written and obvious"
• "Having a child makes it very difficult to shop/work at the co-op. Any ideas?"
• "I like the leaving of petitions to be signed. Could there be a petition board?"
• "As I am not a coordinator any more I miss being on the cash register - perhaps if people did agree to work at least once a month or more (without being a coordinator) they could go on the till?"
• "need better food identification (ie grading of organic class)"
• "discounts would be good for people who are on low income but who are unable to work at the co-op"
• "a profile of members would be interesting and what else they think could be developed with Alfalfa House in terms of community building"
• "perhaps an 'ideas' evening once a month or fortnight could be tried, even if the ideas were few it could still be a social evening where people got to know each other a little better"
• "perhaps try some backyard crop exchanges/bartering"
• "to make being served easier, how about one price on each product and when all your shopping has gone through the till then take off the appropriate percentage for discount/x discount"
• "Perhaps there should be more material on Permaculture, living a slower and simpler life (again) so that people see it as a commitment to a better world and not just shopping, might make it easier to get more people to work"
254 • "this survey has encouraged me to make time and shop more at the co-op"
4.0 Analysis of Results
While the results summary above indicates particular trends which emerged in response to specific questions, it is important to consider also the themes which emerged across questions - that is, from the survey as a whole. This will allow us to identify broad areas within the co-op's operations which we can improve and/or build upon.
The first point to note is that, overall, the response to the survey was positive. This is apparent in both the substance of responses, and the volume of responses offered to 'positive' questions compared to the much lower volume offered in response to 'negative' questions. Of course, it is important to note here that only 120 out of approximately 300 people returned the questionnaire. While this is a healthy response rate by research standards, the generally positive nature of the results may not reflect the attitudes of those members who did not return the survey. Nevertheless, on the basis of the results we received, it appears that the 'collective spirit' of the co-op is in good health.
In addition to this general point, I have identified four main themes which arose from the survey results. Below is a brief discussion of each, followed by possible actions which we may take ...
4.1 Social Aspects of the Co-op The social benefits of co-op involvement were repeatedly mentioned by respondents as positive and important to their sense of satisfaction with the co-op. These benefits include: meeting new people; feeling like part of a community; meeting like minded people; exchanging ideas and information; working as part of a team. It is also apparent from the results that, within our membership, we have a large pool of people with a diversity of interests, skills, and information. While members generally
255 enjoy the social interaction within the shop itself, there was also a trend of requests to expand co-op based social life outside shop hours. I believe that this is an important area to build upon in order to facilitate greater member involvement in the co-op.
Possible Actions/Strategies: Increase and diversify co-op social functions (such as benefits, dinners, film nights, etc); introduce socially oriented 'information' sessions (possibly evening talks with casual dinners) where specific members can share their skills and information with others; expand reciprocal relationships with other community based organisations, including the expansion of reciprocal rights arrangements and collaborative social/fund raising functions.
4.2 Limits to Inclusion While the overall response to the survey was positive, it is important to note that members perceive some systematic limits to the co-op's ability to include everyone. These limits include: attitudinal issues (that is, lack of inclusiveness of new/prospective members by established members and staff due to lack of awareness and/or indifference); inconsistent/poor dissemination of information about upcoming events, meetings, and tasks; insufficient consideration of needs of members with small children; insufficient flexibility for members with limited time. While those of us 'in the know' may argue that some of these limitations do not exist, it is important to reflect upon members' perceptions that they do.
Possible Actions/Strategies: more consistent information dissemination through co-op noticeboards, blackboards, newsletter, and Unpackaged Tours; more emphasis on customer service and responsibilities to shift workers when training Volunteer Coordinators (this may involve some consideration of the rights and responsibilities of unpaid workers); some thorough exploration of the needs of members with small children.
256 4.3 Food Related Issues and Perceptions The survey results indicate an overwhelming assumption that all or most Alfalfa House products are ethically produced, with regard to both worker rights and protection of the environment. This assumption appears to motivate a large number of members to shop and maintain their involvement in the co-op. There also appears to be an assumption among some members that all co-op products are organically produced. Given these assumptions, and given the lack of information we have about many of our products, I would suggest that this area should be prioritised by the Management Committee.
In addition to this particular point, there is a strong feeling amongst the membership about the role of the co-op in providing information about food uses, preparation methods, and nutrition. Again, I believe that this is an area which could be expanded.
Possible Actions/Strategies: rejuvenate/promote the Adopt a Product project, with a view to providing information on as many products as possible; develop comprehensive guidelines for Coordinators to use when considering the introduction of new products; develop more shop front information about individual products - their sources, nutritional value, and methods of preparation; produce and publish an Alfalfa House cook book.
4.4 Geographical and Size Limitations ofAlfalfa House It is apparent from the survey results that distance from the co-op is the dominant factor which limits members' ability to work and shop. In addition, members generally perceive the size of the co-op to be appropriate in that it allows for genuine
member control, which may decrease if the co-op expanded significantly29• The small scale nature of the co-op, then, may be perceived as both a positive and negative feature of the co-op - positive in offering a genuinely ' grass roots' activity, and negative in being oflimited use to those outside the immediate community.
29Note: the only point on which the size of the co-op may be problematic is price, as we do not have the buying power of larger food retailing businesses.
257 Possible Actions/Strategies: explicitly promote 'off site' co-op tasks for the benefit of members who live outside the area; continue to promote the establishment of new community food cooperatives throughout Sydney.
5.0 Reflections on the Survey Process: The 1996 members' survey had a dramatically higher response rate than similar surveys conducted in previous years. I would suggest the reason for this was the provision of a Reply Paid envelope. Should future members wish to conduct such a survey, I would recommend the use of Reply Paid envelopes, as this enhances both the validity and representativeness of the research results. Of course, cost is a factor which must be considered.
As the size of this document no doubt suggests, the process of conducting the survey and producing a comprehensive report was extremely labour intensive (I have invested approximately 60 hours in it). While I believe that this document may provide a useful frame of reference for future planning, it is important when planning future surveys to consider the labour intensive nature of the process. I believe that any genuine dialogue between the membership and management needs to be this comprehensive. However, a commitment from Management to listen and respond to member feedback should be secured prior to conducting future research. It's a big job and shouldn't be done in vain.
258