Conceptualising Horizontal Politics Eloїse Harding Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2012 1 Abstract This project investigates the likelihood of a distinctive ideology emerging from what are known as ‘horizontal’ political movements – those which, in brief, aim to operate non-hierarchically guided by principles such as affinity – and furthermore to identify the potential components of such an ideology. The methodology is broadly based on that developed by Freeden, namely an analysis of the conceptual morphology of the ideas put out by horizontal movements. The sources used derive largely from the output of the movements themselves in various forms. I conclude that horizontal politics does have a recognisable ideological configuration, and that this is distinctive from other related ideologies such as anarchism. 2 Contents Introduction 4 Ideology: A Thematic History 31 The Background Literature 55 Hierarchy 76 Organisation 113 Power 145 Culture 176 Conclusion 203 Appendix 1 214 Appendix 2 215 Appendix 3 216 Bibliography 217 3 Introduction Aims, objectives and questions In general terms, this project aims to identify and examine the central ideas of the variety of political movement generally termed ‘horizontal’, and establish whether this political outlook constitutes a distinctive ideology. The question under discussion here is how such movements attempt to distinguish themselves. This investigation begins with the output of various elements of the horizontal ‘movement of movements’. The distinguishing features of such movements will be discussed in terms firstly of ethos and tactics and secondly of more theory-based reflections: both elements feed in to an overall investigation based on Freeden’s conceptualisation of an ideology as containing elements of both theory and practice. Horizontal politics, broadly conceived, has played a role in the global justice movement since its early days. While the term ‘horizontal’ did not achieve widespread use until the early 2000s, the political principles and tactics it denotes were among the mainstays of mobilisations from the late 1990s onwards. The contribution of horizontal movements later became more explicit, as demonstrated by the existence of a convergence site named the ‘Hori-Zone’ during the 2005 mobilisation against the G8 summit. The Hori-Zone was the largest of the convergence sites, and was organised using horizontal principles. This level of influence, coupled with the explicit prefiguration of alternatives not only to capitalism but also to hierarchical power and political leadership, imply some level of significance on the overall political landscape. Furthermore, the previous decade saw a decline in traditional forms of political participation such as voting1. Protest and other non-state based forms of participation went some way towards filling in the gap left by this decline.2 It is interesting to note here the increasing prominence of movements which explicitly reject and propose alternatives to representative politics. The two preliminary chapters provide some background to the overall project. The first deals with ideology: how it has been conceptualised and its relevance today. The second outlines the literature which forms a backdrop to a study of horizontal politics. The four substantive chapters are arranged thematically, each dealing with a concept which helps to define the overall nature of horizontal politics. These concepts are hierarchy, organisation, power and culture: the reasons for this selection from a wider range will be discussed in general terms in this chapter and in more 1 The most recent general election being an exception 2 Idea advanced most strongly by Norris, P. (2002) ‘Democratic Phoenix: Agencies, Repertoires and Targets of Political Activism’ online at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/APSA%202002%20Democratic%20Phoenix.pdf accessed 06/12/11 4 specific terms in the relevant substantive chapters. Each chapter is focused on answering the question of how horizontal political movements aim to distinguish their political outlook. This will include some assessment of what is new to these movements, either intrinsically or regarding the ways in which certain elements are used. Each chapter follows a similar structure, focussing on key areas of proclaimed distinctiveness. The introduction will outline the background of the relevant concept and the reasons for its importance in distinguishing horizontal politics. The first section, based on the horizontal ethos which gives the concept its importance and the tactics which arise from this, will posit the idea of distinctiveness in practical terms, while the second will identify the main theoretical undercurrents. A third section will explore how horizontal movements respond to potential criticisms, which in itself can be a distinctive current. This chapter begins by outlining the contextual aspects of the project: introducing the main protagonists and the case studies around which this project is to a great extent based, providing some immediate history, naming some of the main tactics used and outlining the general ethos from which the themes discussed in later chapters are drawn. The themes themselves are then introduced, with some explanation of why they were selected for future examination. A general outline is then given of the challenges faced by and critiques levelled at horizontal movements. Summit mobilisations and process Broadly speaking, the term ‘horizontal politics’ refers to a political outlook which rejects hierarchical practices and questions the power relations both in society and in the internal practices of horizontal movements. The term – along with its opposite, ‘vertical’, usually deployed as a pejorative – came into widespread use in the context of the 2004 European Social Forum in London, but has since then been adopted more generally and absorbed into the wider activist lexicon. The focus of this project is largely on one major aspect of ‘horizontal’ political practice and its interaction with political theory. At certain points this covers a fairly wide remit: for the most part, however, the focus shifts between the more open surface manifestations and the behind-the-scenes process by which these are organised. The summit mobilisation can be taken as an example of horizontal protest in action – both in terms of the tactics used and the means of organising – but it is also worth noting the relevance of ‘process’. The first piece of evidence for describing summit mobilisations as ‘horizontal’ comes from the self-definition of those involved, encapsulated by the name ‘Hori-zone’ which was attached to the protest camp near the Gleneagles hotel. However, I would also argue that the evidence goes beyond this factor, as should become apparent throughout the remainder of this project. Within this remit, I have selected the mobilisation against the 2005 5 G8 at Gleneagles for particular focus. At the most pragmatic level, this is due firstly to the predominance of English as the language for relevant documents – naturally not the case for mobilisations in non-Anglophone countries – and secondly to having done previous academic work on and participated in the mobilisation. However, there are some less prosaic reasons for selecting this case, which will be discussed in more detail shortly. It is worth remembering at this point that such manifestations of horizontal politics did not spring ready-formed from thin air: as such, there will also be some discussion of the immediate history of the movement, in order to place the more recent actions and debates in context. Gleneagles and other stories While the tactic broadly known as the summit mobilisation (but applied in practical terms to occasions other than major summits, and not always in the same geographical location as the summit it is focused on) has been criticised, there is much to be learned from accounts of both the actions themselves and the motivations behind them. In particular, the coming together of a diverse range of individuals and groups with some measure of common purpose has theoretical implications for the functional potential for non-hierarchical organising. There will be a particular focus here on the mobilisation against the 2005 G8 summit at Gleneagles; partly for the reasons given above, but also due to the significance of the mobilisation in terms of resurrecting a tactic whose future had been in doubt at the time it was mooted. The attitude prior to the planning of the mobilisation is summed up by Trocchi, Redwolf and Alamire (participants from the earliest stages) thus: ‘As Britain’s turn came to host the G8 in 2005, things looked grim’3 as there ‘had not been a “Global Day of Action” in Britain in six years, and many anarchists in Britain were simply not interested, as they were convinced that mass mobilisations were no longer an effective means of resistance.’4 For the most part, they regard the Gleneagles mobilisation as having changed this perception, as it ‘turned a scattered and divided activist scene into a well-organised network of resistance, capable not only of hosting an explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian mobilisation, but also of continuing beyond the G8.’5 However, the tactic itself is of wider interest. The history of this variety of protest is often traced to the actions against the World Trade Organisation summit in Seattle in November 19996, but the events of June 18 19997 – where 3 Trocchi, A., Redwolf, G. and Alamire, P. ‘Reinventing Dissent! An Unabridged Story of Resistance’ in D. Harvie, K. Milburn, B. Trott and D. Watts (eds) Shut Them Down! The G8, Gleneagles 2005 and the movement of movements Leeds: Dissent! Pp.61-100 (quote from p.63) 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. p.61 6 For analysis of this event, see Whitney, J. (2004) ‘Shattering the myths of Seattle: It’s time to break more than windows’ online at http://www.daysofdissent.org.uk/seattle.htm last accessed 10/11/2008 Part of Dissent! (eds) Days of Dissent available at http://www.daysofdissent.org.uk/. 7 For much discussion of this mobilisation, see ‘Reflections on June 18’ online at http://www.afed.org.uk/online/j18/index.html last accessed 10/11/2008.