communicative tools of the global system such as the internet. What they are expressly against is the neo liberal form of globalization. Hence a more accurate term is ?grassroots glob alization? (Appadurai, 2000), although other popular names have included ?globalization from below? (Brecher, Costello and Smith, (NEW PARAGRAPH) , ?movement of movements? (Mertes, (NEW PARAGRAPH) and the global justice movement (see www.globaljusticemovement.net). (NEW PARAGRAPH) By taking part in grassroots globalization networks, activists from participant move ments and organizations embody their par ticular places of political, cultural, economic and ecological experience with common con cerns, which lead to expanded spatiotemporal horizons of action (Reid and Taylor, 2000). Such coalitions of different interests are neces sarily contingent and context dependent, forms of solidarity being diverse, multiple, productive and contested (Braun and Disch, 2002; Featherstone, 2003; Mertes, 2004). They are dynamic, negotiated ?convergence spaces? of multiplicity and difference, con structed out of a complexity of interrelations and interactions across all spatial scales (Routledge, 1998). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Grassroots globalization networks have been manifested in ?global days of action?, which have consisted of demonstrations and direct actions against targets that symbolize neo liberal power, such as the G8 (e.g. pro tests in Genoa, Italy, in 2001 and Gleneagles, Scotland, in 2005), the worLd trade organ ization (protests in Seattle, USA, in 1999, Cancun, Mexico, in 2003 and Hong Kong in (NEW PARAGRAPH) and the World Bank and the IMF (e.g. protests in Prague, Czech Republic, in 2000 and Washington, USA, in 2002 and 2005). Such protests have been characterized by a convergence of interests and concerns in the particular place of protest, and solidarity protests that have occurred in cities across the globe at the same time. The symbolic force generated by protests in such places has contributed to further mobilizations and the creation of common ground amongst activists. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Another important manifestation has been the establishment in 2001 of the world social forum (wsfm) an annual convergence of (NEW PARAGRAPH) NGOs, trades unions, social movements and other resistance networks in Porto Alegre, Brazil (2001 3), and subsequently in Mumbai, India (2004). The WSF attempts to engender a process of dialogue and reflection, and the transnational exchange of experiences, ideas, strategies and information concerning grassroots globalization. The WSF (which attracted tens of thousands of participants in (NEW PARAGRAPH) has decentralized into regional and the matic forums that are being held in various parts of the world, such as the European Social Forum in Florence, Italy (2002), the Asian Social Forum in Hyderabad, India (2003), and the Thematic Forum on Drugs, Human Rights and Democracy in Cartagena, Colombia (2003) (Sen, Anand, Escobar and Waterman, 2004). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Mary Kaldor (2003) posits that such devel opments represent the emergence of a ?global civiL society? that includes at least six differ ent types of political actor that are ?anti globalization? in outlook: more traditional social movements such as trades unions; more contemporary social movements such as women?s and environmental movements; NGOs such as Amnesty International; trans national civic networks such as the Inter national Rivers Network; ?new? nationalist and fundamentalist movements such as Al Qaeda; and the anti capitalist movement. Meanwhile, Amory Starr (2000) identifies at least three different strategic foci within the ?anti globalization movement?: (i) Contestation and Reform, which involves social movements and organizations that seek to impose regula tory limitations on corporations and or gov ernments, or force them to self regulate, mobilizing existing formal democratic chan nels of protest (e.g. Human Rights Watch and the Fair Trade network); (ii)
Similar Books
