Fighting Neo-liberalism with Neo-liberal Discourse: ATTAC Norway, Foucault and Collective Action Framing1

 1. The author is grateful to Kjell E. Kjellman for encouragement and constructive criticism. The author also wishes to thank Iver B. Neumann, Marcel von der Linden, Ørnulf Seippel and two anonymous referees for helpful comments.

Abstract

Snow & Benford (1988, 1992; Snow et al., 1986) have been important in developing framing theory in the studies of social movements. This tradition has offered new insights into the study of social movements, in particular with the emphasis on the rhetorical use of language through the conceptualization of collective action frames. Still, it has been less coherent when conceptualizing the structural aspects of language and these aspects have also inspired less empirical work. Responding to such a shortcoming, the present paper includes discourse analysis as seen in the writing of Foucault, Laclau & Mouffe and Fairclough. In a framework combining elements of framing theory and discourse analysis, the paper seeks to understand the ATTAC’s success in Norway in 2001. Important parts of such an understanding may include the organization's collective action framing. The sophisticated framing was embedded in the popular and new discourses of globalization, plurality and flexibility. When ATTAC framed its rhetoric in these discourses, mobilization may have become easier because it had not yet been institutionalised in competing political organizations.

Keywords:

• Framing theory
• discourse analysis
• ATTAC
• globalization
• neo-liberalism

Notes

 1. The author is grateful to Kjell E. Kjellman for encouragement and constructive criticism. The author also wishes to thank Iver B. Neumann, Marcel von der Linden, Ørnulf Seippel and two anonymous referees for helpful comments.

 2. The ‘anti-globalization movement’ is put in inverted commas for two reasons. First, because it is still a question whether these tendencies fit the understanding of a social movement, and second, because the label is constructed by its opponents. A more precise label would be ‘anti-economical-globalization’, but this can also be questioned because there are elements of opposition towards cultural globalization in the movement. Other conceptualizations could be the ‘mobilization against free trade’ or ‘anti-neo-liberalism’, but these do not capture the importance of globalization as a concept in the rhetoric.

 3. For Sweden see Heimerson (2001), Samuelson (2001) and Åkerstr⊘m & Hellstr⊘m (2001). These studies emphasize the media reception. For Denmark see B.M. Christensen (2002) and E. Christensen (2002). For Norway see J⊘rgensen (2001) and Berntsen (2002).

 4. For an elaborated version of this argument see Sandberg (2003).

 5. New social movement theory has adopted many of the insights from social constructivism, such as stressing the socially constructed nature of grievances and problematizing the construction of collective identities. Still, this is a more plural approach including realist approaches such as network structures. They are united by emphasizing the study of particular movements and share only a few characteristics. First, they underscore symbolic action in civil society as a major arena for collective action. Second, they stress the importance of autonomy and self determination. Third, they often emphasize postmaterialist values. And finally, they tend to stress the network structure of collective action (Buechler, 1995, p. 442).

 6. See for example Steinberg (1999, p. 743). Snow & Benford along with McAdam et al.'s interpretation of the framing concept is controversial, and there are some writers in this tradition who understand framing more as a combination of systemic and performative explanations (e.g. Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Gamson, 1995; Johnston & Klandermans, 1995, p. 8; Johnston, 2002).

 7. But see Gamson (1992b) and Gamson & Meyer (1996). Snow & Benford's (1992) solution to the problem is the conceptualization of master frames. These are collective action frames shared by several movements, and which in this way represent a limitation for later organization in a cycle of protest. Still, these master frames are also constructed by active actors, and they do not restrict the first organizations in a cycle.

 8. In addition, discourse is controlled by the unifying element of the author and the discipline, and the ritual or the set of signs, that accompany discourse (Foucault, 1972b).

 9. Foucault's work moved from an ‘archaeological’ approach heavily influenced by French structuralism in analyzing epistemes that shapes all knowledge production in a historic period, to a ‘genealogical’ analysis inspired by Nietzsche that reveals the struggle between different discourses in a field. It is the latter, the post-structural approach, which has been most influential in discourse analysis. The archaeological Foucault is best exemplified in The Order of Things (1970), while the genealogical Foucault is best exemplified in The History of Sexuality, vol. 1 (1978).

10. For a fuller version of this compromise (or combination) see my Cand. Polit dissertation, The success of ATTAC in Norway – An approach synthesizing discourse analysis and framing theory (Sandberg, 2003). The dissertation is net-published on www.duo.uio.no

11. The main document in the analysis is the International Platform (IP) adopted at the first international meeting of ATTAC in Paris, in December 1998. The IP is the basis for the Politisk plattform for ATTAC Norge (PP), approved at the initial meeting of ATTAC Norway in May 2001. In general the IP and the PP differ in that the Norwegian version has two additions. These two additions are included as documents analysed in this study. The three other documents are Another World is Possible (AWP), Porto Alegre call for Mobilisation (PACM), and Paving the way to a New World (PWW).

12. Sten Inge J⊘rgensen's ‘ATTAC og Globaliseringen’ (2001) and Bim Clinell's ‘ATTAC – Grasrotas oppr⊘r mot markedet’ (2001).

13. In Sweden: Heimerson (2001); Samuelsson (2001); Åkerstr⊘m & Hellstr⊘m (2001); in Denmark: B.M. Christensen (2002).

14. Neumann (2001, p. 53). Hence, if texts are found that oppose the analysis in this thesis, they will not challenge the conclusions unless they have been communicated and have had a broad reception in the social field.

15. See also Clinell (2001, pp. 44, 61, 91 and 98); Goffeng & Laudal in Dagens Næringsliv 23 August.

16. See also IP; J⊘rgensen (2001, pp. 10, 135–36); Clinell (2001, pp. 81–89); PWW:4-5; AWP:2; Goffeng & Laudal in Dagens Næ ; ringsliv , 23 August.

17. E.g. IP and J⊘rgensen (2001, p. 113).

18. E.g. IP; Clinell (2001, pp. 36–37); PWW:3.

19. E.g. PWW:1; PACM:1.

20. IP 41–43; J⊘rgensen (2001, pp. 120–126; Clinell (2001, p. 22); PWW:6; PACM:1; Drange in Dagbladet , 5 July; Berge in Dagsavisen, 19 May

21. IP:54–62; J⊘rgensen ( 2001 , p. 142).

22. Dagbladet , 13 October.; Aftenposten , 1 March.; Adresseavisen , 18 January; Verdens Gang , 25 February; Stavanger Aftenblad , 27 February.

23. It is more common to refer to these organizations as non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

24. J⊘rgensen (2001, pp. 13, 33–34, 60, 63 and 64).

25. A view expressed explicitly by ATTAC participants, see Berntsen's study (2002, p. 97).

26. E.g. Clinell (2001, pp. 16,19); J⊘rgensen (2001, pp. 143–144; Dagbladet, 13 October; and Berge in Dagsavisen, 19 May.

27. E.g. Internasjonale Sosialister (IS), R⊘d Valgallianse (RV) og Sosialistisk Ungdom (SU).

28. E.g. SLUG, Changemaker, PRESS and SAIH.

29. www.webatekst.aftenposten.no

30. Goffeng & Laudal in Dagens Næringsliv, 23 August.

31. Also emphasized by Berntsen (2002, pp. 68–70) as an important frame among the participants during the emergence of the organization.

32. J⊘rgensen (2001, p. 167).

33. Clinell (2001, p. 24).

34. PACM:1.

35. Cassen in Aftenposten , 24 February.

36. J⊘rgensen (2001, p. 1).

37. The term is taken from Bell (1973) and refers to a new society organized around knowledge production and information, as opposed to an industrial society organized around production of commodities.

38. See, e.g., Edelman et al. (2001), de los Reyes (2000).

39. The idea can in politics be traced back to classic liberalism and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1996).

40. J⊘rgensen (2001, p. 114).

41. Clinell (2001, pp. 32–33).

42. E.g. J⊘rgensen (2001, p. 158)