The Significance of Social Movements in the Internet Age: An Extended Review of Anger and Hope

(This article is a column series for "Anger and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age " at the invitation of "Southern Home Publishing House". E-book "Anger and Hope [Separate Volume]" )

Why is there a big platform?

The term "no big platform" should have gradually entered the field of view of Taiwanese after the outbreak of the anti-extradition protests in Hong Kong in 2019. Wutaitai refers to "no need for a unified external spokesperson, no centralized voice, and no need for a specific unit/individual to issue orders to control the movement." It is a more direct form of participation that attempts to remove barriers. However, as a model of social movement, "No Datai" may be relatively new and unfamiliar to most participants in Taiwan's issues.

Observing the student movement in Taiwan, the author believes that there are distinct elite political characteristics. The elite here does not only refer to the narrow sense of intellectual and cultural capital, the elite of the identity background, but includes the outstanding aspects of participation experience, credibility, personal characteristics and expression ability. Especially in organized large-scale student movements, it can be found that Taiwanese protesters are good at inheriting, absorbing the experience of their predecessors, improving their subsequent actions, and understanding how to do it efficiently and effectively, and avoid wasting resources. As a result, the protesters have gradually developed an intuition to judge what is the best and fastest, and thus can select recognized leaders from the movement, that is, the "big platform" we think is the most reliable.

The "big platform" is not just a claim, nor is it just what it wants, but it is chosen by the participants. After the participants have chosen a trustworthy object, they often habitually give out "duty" and "power/right" together, and other possibilities are less often regarded as leaders or to be led. choose. Therefore, in various meetings, a "decision-making circle" is formed naturally. It is not always because a few decision-making elites want to do so. Many people will automatically find that their ability to express themselves is not ideal or their knowledge and capital are not comparable to other participants. Restrict or even give up the right to speak and participate in decision-making , and become a pure contribution to the masses. This is also partly due to people's fear of making mistakes, dragging down the group, being criticized, and wanting to be an informed participant, thus framing their imagination of their possible roles in public engagement.

The feature of "You Datai" is that the struggle can be promoted from a purely "action" to an "event" that is easier to write, name, and discuss. The media knows where to get the "correct" statement, those in power who are being protested know who to turn to in negotiations, the masses know who to turn to when they encounter problems, and scholars know which arguments to collect first when conducting research... At least in practice It does reduce the cost of many communication and information dissemination, and perhaps also improves visibility and is beneficial to external public relations. However, this benefit also makes those "inefficient" processes, endorsed groups, and misread narratives invisible.

Appearance without a platform

Having said that, when the term "no big Taiwan" came into the eyes of Taiwanese with Hong Kong's anti-extradition campaign, in fact, the concept of "decentralization" and even anarchy it represents has its own tradition in the history of global social movements, but most of them are short-lived. . " Anger and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age" provides a broad and general introduction to the new types of social movements that began in Iceland, Tunisia, Spain and other places in 2009. , how online community platforms provide the possibility of deepening civic deliberation in societies with different cultural backgrounds.

The process of constructing meaning in the minds of the people is a more decisive and stable source of power than using the power of the state to force the people to obey the social system or the will of those in power. Society is organized by institutions, norms, and values, and the way people think determines the fate of these things. (p.26)

Accordingly, the author Manwei. Coster believes that " the fundamental battlefield of power struggles lies in the process of constructing meaning in people's minds ". Under such a premise, the institutionalization of belief and the policy of justice will abdicate from the “main goal of social movement” that we have recognized in the past. Coster also provides a clear functional definition of contemporary decentralized social movements: a field of deliberation opened up from the public space occupied by elites in the existing system . (p.30)

So specifically, under what circumstances can such a meaning be practiced? We've tried to paint a picture of it with the few cases that Coster cites in his book. Usually, common principles and basic norms, such as courtesy, respect, no yelling, no long speeches, etc., will be established in the occupied space to ensure that everyone can fully utilize equal freedom of speech in this space. Such a norm is based on a flexible supervision network voluntary by participants, which (p.48) requires strong consensus and sufficient introspection for everyone to achieve. With this consensus maintained, a distinction is more likely to be made between who is a bona fide participant, and who is a troublemaker or someone sent by the police to disrupt. However, it is also necessary to make good intentions as much as possible, so as not to mistake the beginners who are simply confused about the situation.

In the Spanish "Anger Movement" and the "Occupy Wall Street Movement" in the United States, most of the occupation camps have a "general assembly" mechanism, which is a "public meeting that focuses on horizontal connections, without leadership, and based on consensus." All interested participants can directly participate in the routine proceedings of the General Assembly, but the resolutions of the General Assembly have only symbolic power and do not enforce the behavior of participants. In order to minimize information gaps and to even out the voice, people often spend hours listening to all opinions and use certain "gestures" to directly express approval, disapproval, or a desire for the speaker to end the conversation so that everyone can participate decision making. The moderator team (the facilitator) is functional, voluntary, and rotates to avoid overloading and the pace of discussion is always led by the same people.

Outside the general meeting, the implementation of the consensus is discussed and carried out by several special committees, and business coordination is carried out; participants can also propose to set up new committees for any issues of their own concern, or form a less formal "like-minded" committee. group". (p.169-170, 223-225) In situations where consensus needs to be reached as soon as possible, a "spoke meeting" may be used, that is, each committee or group sends a rotating spokesperson to form a circle in the center. Circle, the other members sit directly behind the speaker, who can be recalled at any time if the speaker does not accurately convey the consensus of the team. (p.228-229)

From the presence or absence of appeals and the principle of speaking to the outside world, as small as the division of camp areas, breastfeeding areas or smoking areas, decisions can be made through direct participation of all staff. , as well as the information gap that may arise, and the phenomenon that even a few of the few lose their voices because they cannot be endorsed. Judging from the experience of these movements, what they are trying is nothing more than the concepts of "direct democracy" and "representative democracy". In the political department within the system, most procedures are already established on the basis of these principles, so why do we need to create a special space to do these things without intervening in the substantive power of national policy?

Democracy can actually be like this

Spain's "Anger Movement" has a well-known slogan: Real democracy is needed now. Participants believed that the current democratic system has been kidnapped by the power network, and there are no gorgeous procedures. In fact, the elites have already found a way to play the game under the rules, and the rules often become accomplices. When the rules of procedure are no longer for "promoting the quality of the discussion", but for "it is good to be able to produce conclusions", or even to benefit from it, for those who are angry, such "fake democracy" needs to be abandoned. .

As a result, the participants deliberately did not set any political parties as their counterparts, and seldom put forward concrete and feasible proposals. They have decided to completely abandon the current system, because they know that even if a certain demand is promised, a slightly better When a political party comes to power, although it may look better for a while, the essence of things under the whole structure cannot be shaken.

So they shifted the battlefield back to "the process of constructing meaning in people's minds" , through direct practice in the space in the Occupy Movement, connecting people with people, pulling individuals out of the daily life that is deeply entangled in the power structure, and trying together in another life Seek out "what real democracy looks like" and "demonstrate" it to all in the process—democracy can actually be like this.

Before reading the above discussion, if we only heard about their form of movement, we might ask a few questions: "Is this efficient for the achievement of demands? Wouldn't the quality of discussion be reduced by talking too much?" But after the aforementioned From the discussion, we can know that: first of all, "efficiency" is no longer the biggest consideration for these participants, and the meticulousness and fullness of the process are what they are more after. These struggles without a big platform are often without appeals, and without appeals, efficiency is irrelevant; or when it comes to changes in meaning and personal thinking, the meaning of efficiency will be different.

The conclusion of the decision itself is not the whole of the matter. It may seem that a group of idiots made an unbearably stupid conclusion at one time, and we even have to obey this consensus, because it is decided by everyone through democratic rules. This is really maddening. If you can be sure that it is really a big problem and not your subjective emotional judgment, then we should think further: So why did this stupid thing happen - is everyone's understanding of what is being discussed incomplete? Is there a serious gap in information? Were there some people who should be speaking were forced or voluntarily lost the opportunity to speak during the discussion? Is it that people don't understand the seriousness of what I perceive, or is it really not as bad as I thought? and many more.

We should not stop at the judgment step of "This is really stupid, I want to stay away from them", but through the above process, we should reflect on the problems that may arise in the decision-making process (or problems in our own judgment), and have the opportunity to respond to Make this adjustment. And this sometimes reveals: the crowd is often not what you and I imagined, the crowd is unpredictable . If you think the product of democracy is predictable, that only means that the democracy is actually not very democratic. With any luck, I believe in the end we'll all learn something from every decision we think is stupid, and discover that it might not actually be that stupid.

Social movements are individual

The previous article briefly discussed the difference between the existence of a big platform and the absence of a big platform, the democratic significance of a big platform, and the possible practical appearance of a social movement without a big platform. Next, I want to talk about social movements by pulling back from the "form" to the "inside". In addition to Kirst's view of social movements as an "open field of deliberations that try to escape the structure," I think it is also a "field for participants to regain consciousness and transform themselves."

Kirst mentioned in the book that, for many participants, one of the great significance of large-scale decentralized social movements is to pull people out of their daily life and into a special sense of time and space. Here, no one will say that the issue you care about is a "big deal", that participants are no longer caught up in life and have to give up on those "awarenesses"; your discomfort or weirdness is no longer classified as neurotic , you can talk about your feelings, they are no longer seen as ineffective, hindering production, damaging stability, being different, and therefore needing to be avoided. You don’t have to rush to and from get off work, you don’t have to worry about getting blamed for doing things, you don’t have to cover up your dissent just to avoid offending others, and you won’t be charged with the so-called “wasting everyone’s time” during a “meeting.”

In an ideal social movement, everyone's feelings are feelings, everyone's experiences are experiences, and everyone's opinions are opinions. It may sound like nonsense, but unfortunately, these are really difficult to achieve in daily life. Therefore, I think the process and purpose of the social movement is to let everyone try to regain awareness of "power relations" and "oppression" from the structure they are accustomed to, and to talk and intervene, and then restore the repressed subject Sex and Mobility .

But in many cases, the most difficult thing is to make people willing to step out of their daily life and to give up the obligations and expectations that are imposed on individuals and then internalized in the capitalist production society. In many protest events, we can find that there is always a "tipping point", which is often the naked manifestation of state violence in a certain event, the speech or decision of a government agency that caused public anger, someone's hunger strike or Heroic resistance, sensational announcements by socially influential people, etc... In short, most of them will resonate with people in a certain picture with high emotional tension, and make people enter a kind of "common experience" in feeling.

But after that, people who are called into the field of social movement must review themselves, reflect on the connection between their own experience and common experience, and clarify what and how the emotions that brought them here are specifically generated, so as to form not only Each person's own discourse that ends with a common slogan.

Participants in social movements need to think about what they want to achieve here - not what they want, or "who/what to save", but "what are they here for". Such a perceptual process is "individual" and "pluralistic", because it is not "individuals enter social movements for the sake of complete social movements", but "social movements are composed of individuals".

Social movements are collective

I have argued in the discussion above that thinking belongs to the individual. Next I will argue that reason belongs to the collective. The collective referred to here is made up of aware, heterogeneous individuals, not some kind of "people like me." First of all, what I want to express is that no matter how knowledgeable and thoughtful a person is, he can only construct a discourse based on his own life course and background experience, and all participants should be aware of this and understand: no one is more powerful people who can truly represent everyone. We should not force a representative, or look for some kind of "orthodoxy" in the movement to exclude the unorthodox.

I believe that when we enter this field to dismantle the hegemonic narrative of those in power, we should also avoid creating another hegemonic narrative to counter the original oppression. Of course, we are free to criticize discourses or ideologies that we disagree with, but we must avoid exaggerating the possibility that "he is a spy and is here to sabotage" in the early stages of thinking; don't forget to criticize while still viewing the other party as For partners - partners who provide our different experiences and complement different routes, even if you may think it "would be detrimental to the sport".

Furthermore, if we agree that social movements are mostly against class distinctions, we should also agree that collective will should be generated by the participants, not by another newly created class (decision-making circles, intellectual elites, social movement veterans, etc.). ) downwards to communicate diffuse generation, because such a will can only be a "generally accepted personal will". Therefore, whether it is in social movements or in the promotion of issues in life, please be careful to handle the use of slogans, issue marketing and publicity tools.

We must understand that the lack of value in authentic reflection can lead the masses to populism. A group of ignorant individuals will only form an ignorant social movement and become an army led by individual opinion leaders. Democracy in an ideal state is not "listening to what a group of people says aloud" but "listening to what everyone has to say after they have thought about it". In an organic situation, the demands (if any), core values and methods of social movements should be constantly changing and there are different opinions. For me, this kind of "organicity" is what the social movement can bring to society. the most important thing.

Social movements are the transformation of balance

Here, I would like to quote another book's arguments for interweaving discussions. In "The New Left Movement and Civil Society: The Road of Thought in Japan in the 1960s ", Joe Ando will propose the concepts of "self-liberation" and "self-reflection" to discuss the personal transformation of social movement participants. "Self-liberation" is the courage to criticize, resist, and escape from those external power structures that rule the body. "Self-reflection" is to recognize one's own internal power relations, and then make self-criticism and change the way of life. To put it simply, these are two methods of "reform" with different objects. The former tries to reform the outside, while the latter starts from the inside.

Both of these reforms are influential in the lives of activists, and are also the way in which people primarily engage in issues when there are no major events. If you try to make a comparison, you can find that among the long-term issues, the “appearance” and “participant’s personal status” are better, and most of the issues that are not easy to lose participants have achieved a certain degree of balance between the two reform methods. This balance must be formed by all participants, cultivated through close discussion and real human connections, and is not something that can be easily manipulated.

Once the “self-liberation”—that is, external reforms—is too aggressive, it may lead to too far from social cognition, lose potential social support, and at the same time easily lead to partners unable to understand each other, and intensify the “line war”. Such situations are often referred to as "too aggressive," although most participants on the issue should scoff at that statement. Aggression is not a problem, if necessary. But if that kind of radicalism will hurt sincere partners and make the participants in the issue increasingly lonely and divided, then no matter whether you call this situation radical or whatever, there is a need to conduct a review, because the essence of social movements has always been "people". " .

And if "self-reflection" is developed to extremes, participants will often fall into endless self-criticism, self-loathing, become ascetic and fall into a state of despair. Most often, participants attribute the suffering of others to their unalterable "original sin" (e.g. elite class, financial status, gender identity, etc.) and become their own enemy, even when standing with the oppressed He also fell into doubt about his own "qualification". In addition, eligibility-style self-reflection may also create "moral dogma" in interpersonal relationships, allowing people to set too strict requirements on different people based on their own experience, but instead raises the threshold for participation in issues and shuts out friendly people. .

To be honest, the balance between "self-liberation" and "self-reflection" is very difficult to achieve, but if it can be maintained as much as possible, it can play a significant role in the continuation of issues and the pursuit of non-fractured social movements. We may try to pay attention to these two concepts when making moral judgments and deciding actions, and keep an eye on the community at all times. If we perceive an imbalance, we will not hesitate to express our "feelings" through discussion and practice. to achieve this balance together.