ARCHIVES INDEX:
Comments
or questions about the site?:
advocate webmaster
Report From the European
Social ForumBy Dominic Wetzel
What is a multiplicity? Deleuze’s question comes to mind when faced with the task of trying to explain or give form to an event as gargantuan and complex as the European Social Forum. This event and experiment in self-governance aims to provide a space outside dominant political structures for activists and community groups to share ideas, strategies, tactics for constructing “another Europe,” as well as to debate further steps in the globalization movement. One of the main changes in perspective was signaled by the decision to term the movement “alter-globalization” and not “anti-globalization”—a response to the longstanding critique of the simplistic and ultimately inaccurate nature of the old term.
The forum attracted over 40,000 participants, including student groups, NGOs, anarchists, environmentalists, communists, feminists and queer activists. Participants were faced with a choice of 650 separate fora and plenaries, all squeezed into just nine timeslots over a four day weekend (Nov 12-15), trying to get a coherent sense of what was going on was a challenge for most people—but an exciting challenge.
Moving away from a centralized model, the forum took place in hubs at all four corners of the Paris/St. Denis area. This meant positioning the Forum in largely immigrant and working class neighborhoods, which turned out to be both a strength and a weakness.
Avoiding the wealthy and touristy sections of the city, it allowed participants to explore parts of the city most tourists would never see, as well as ensuring that the economic benefit of the event—especially food and shopping—would be directed to the peripheral, immigrant and working class sections of town, rather than to the wealthier, tourist-oriented center. Indeed, our participation in these communities was well received—as a glossy welcome pamphlet from the communist mayor of St. Denis demonstrated.
It took several hours to narrow the list of plenaries and fora I wanted to attend down to about 30 or so, which was still three times as many as I could possibly go to, barring the capacity for bi-location (the capacity certain saints demonstrated for being in more than one place at a time). On top of that, at the end of one forum, one often had to dash across town to make the next one—necessitating a frantic and frenetic navigation of the Paris transportation system, as well as endless wandering around the streets looking for forum locations.
It would be easy to get discouraged in such an overwhelming situation. However, most participants seemed thrilled just to be able to participate in something so ambitiously democratic and altruistic—something so clearly a feat of experimental organizing. Most of us understood the complexities of putting on the ESF and shrugged off our subway hassles.
With so many panels and discussions going on at the same time, what one brings away from such an experience is inevitably partial, selective and subjective. The largest plenary I attended was a debate on whether to support the ratification of the proposed European Union constitution. There were some four hundred people in attendance, and the organization necessary to accommodate the multiplicity of languages was remarkable. With six panelists and four different languages being spoken, headphones were provided to each participant allowing them to hear each panelist in their preferred language. Translation booths with seven translators broadcast translations throughout the panel.
Most speakers opposed ratification, arguing that given the present dominance of neoliberalism in the world, it would institutionalize many aspects of that system permanently into European political institutions.
Afterwards, the moderator pointed out that there was really no opposition on the panel, and stepped temporarily out of his “neutral” moderator role to give his own perspective and thereby enliven debate. He took a more moderate tone, referred to his age and experience, and argued that while he sympathized with the perspectives of those on the panel, he felt it necessarily to ratify the constitution to allow for a unified European power bloc that could counter the United States. Questions were then taken from the floor. While some commentators criticized the moderator for intervening, what struck me as remarkable was the material demonstration that political discussion can occur in a self-regulated fashion, without the looming threat of police or military force.
Another large plenary discussed the intersections of the gay/lesbian/queer/transgender movements with the alter-globalization movement—with much discussion focusing on the commentary of one Tunisian activist on the difficult relationship between religious fundamentalism and sexuality in the world today. Also discussed was the ambiguous nature of the relationship between globalization and the progress in the tolerance and acceptance of sexual difference. A transsexual participant interrupted the meeting at one point, accusing the organizers of the plenary of discriminating against trans by not including one on the panel, and then stormed out of the meeting.
Later, the talk of the town turned to the Negri/Callinicos debate “Multitude versus the Working Class,” which pitted the leading theorist of Italian autonomism against the chief theorist of the Socialist Workers Party in England. There was only room allowed for 200 people, but a thousand more people outside demanded to be let in. After 20 minutes of confusion organizers opened the doors and set up a PA system to accommodate the interested participants.
On Saturday a demonstration of some 30,000 made its way from Republique to Nation proclaiming that “another world is possible.” I marched in the pink bloc— composed mostly of women’s groups and gay/lesbian/queer/trans—chanting such slogans as “L’heteropatriarcat c’est completement depasse.” I saw an activist with lots of stickers with slogans in French and asked for some. I was soon pasted up with stickers reading, “Sur mes papiers: ni ‘M’, ni ‘F’” and “Une autre monde est possible” as well as the more mysterious “Avec des godes et des paillettes”, which someone translated for me—only after marching around all day with it—as “with dildos and glitter.” Later that night a dance space was created for about a thousand youth—DJs mixed techno music and cheap wine, beer and vegetarian food was provided.
One of the remarkable things about these social forums is the facilitation of contacts and friendships—the activist in the street who gave me the stickers has subsequently visited me in New York, where I shared my resources and activist networks with him. I may go to Amsterdam this summer, where he is helping to plan the major “Queeruption” event—he will likewise do the same – it’s a remarkable potential for transnational communication.Dominic Wetzel is a PhD student in sociology and works with the Adjunct Project.