Transnational Activist Networks: Mobilization between Emotion and Bureaucracy

Abstract

Over the past 30 years, transnational space has emerged as a key locus of social transformation. Activist networks and movement coalitions span the globe in an attempt to build an alternative politics. Many transnational activist networks (TANs), however, are meeting sites of two very different entities—movements and organizations—and must thus contend with a crucial divide in the political arena. While social movements usually act extra-institutionally and are often bound together by strong emotions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), by virtue of their legally encoded form, often proceed within prescribed channels and must remain accountable to outside stakeholders. What happens when social movements encounter organizations? Can the tensions between social movements and NGOs be harnessed to create a lasting convergence aimed at building a more equitable democratic politics? My aim in this article is to contribute to a further texturing of our ideas of transnational space by raising some questions and concerns regarding the ‘actually existing democracies’ being enacted there. I focus on the tension between the more emotive aspects of mobilization and the inevitable day-to-day bureaucratic procedures meant to ensure transparent and equitable democratic practice. These two forces, though complementary parts of any well-functioning TAN, are also forces of attrition. How close they are, and how they can both focus activists' energy and grind that energy to a halt, is shown by the example of the Amazon Alliance, a network of indigenous activists and conservation, human rights and environmental justice organizations, working to protect indigenous territories and the Amazonian ecosystem.

Keywords:

• Transnational activist networks
• NGOs
• emotion
• bureaucracy

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper is based was supported by grant #0402461 from the National Science Foundation. My thanks go to the staff of the Amazon Alliance and the many individuals who kindly agreed to be interviewed for this study. I am also grateful to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and encouraging comments on an earlier draft.

Notes

1. I use the term transnational activist networks throughout the article, aware that TANs originally referenced ‘transnational advocacy networks’ (Keck & Sikkink, 1998). My reasoning is that advocacy emphasizes the outcome (that being advocated for) more than the process, but it is the latter which is of greater interest in this article. The emphasis on activist places the people—and their feelings and bureaucratic work—at the center of analysis.

2. Early social movement theory was perceived to have overstated the importance of emotion (Blumer, 1971). In response, the rational actor was emphasized (McCarthy & Zald, 1977). In the process, however, emotions were lost from view until the late 1990s, when a concerted effort was made to reintegrate their study into social movement theory (Jasper, 1998; Goodwin et al., 2001).

3. And as activist emotions and decision-making preferences congeal, so do they shape the cultures of their various organizations (Domagalski, 1999; Schein, 2004).

4. Conservation NGO involvement also declined since they did not consider the Alliance an effective way of getting things done. It was much easier to continue business-as-usual and, with increased sensitivity, try to continue to develop conservation plans on the ground (Amazon Alliance staff member, interview with author, 22 September 2005).

5. The issue of feeling the pressure of such a task was brought up again with force in 2007 during which COICA leaders expressed relief and hope at the sight of their peers gathered in solidarity. Doubt and hope were close neighbors, as positive feelings were expressed in statements like ‘I feel good at this meeting, if everyone commits themselves and their organizations to do some positive actions together’ (minutes, AA Steering Council meeting, 20 October 2007).