Social Movements on the Net
Osvaldo León, Sally Burch, Eduardo Tamayo
ALAI, september 2001
http://alainet.org/publica/msred/

PART I
New Information and Communications Technologies: Light and Shadows

Chapter 2.
The Networked Society

New Modes of Organization

With his trilogy entitled The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Manuel Castells has presented us with one of the most original, ambitious (and, of course, polemic) attempts to conceptualize contemporary society. His central postulate is that the new social morphology is expressed in the modality of networks. It is no accident that his first volume is subtitled, precisely, “The Rise of the Network Society.”

According to this Catalonian author, the material support of this new configuration comes from the new information technologies that provide the foundation for the new technological paradigm, featuring the “networking logic” and “flexibility.” “This topological configuration, the network, can now be materially implemented, in all kinds of processes and organizations, by newly-available information technologies. Without them, the networking logic would be too cumbersome to implement. Yet this networking logic is needed to structure the unstructured while preserving flexibility, since the unstructured is the driving force of innovation in human activity,” he maintains. (1996: Vol. I, 61-62.)

Although related to networking, says Castells, flexibility has its own particular characteristics, since it is grounded in the fact that, “not only processes are reversible, but organizations and institutions can be modified, and even fundamentally altered, by rearranging their components… Turning the rules upside down without destroying the organization has become a possibility, because the material basis of the organization can be reprogrammed and re-tooled. However, we must stop short of a value judgement attached to this technological feature. This is because flexibility could be a liberating force, but also a repressive tendency, if the rewriters of rules are always the powers that be.” (1996: Vol. I, 62)

Assuming that the networking form of social organization has existed in other times and spaces, Castells maintains that the new development is its expansion throughout the entire social structure, to the point that, today, “the power of flows takes precedence over the flows of power. Presence or absence in the network and the dynamics of each network vis-à-vis others are critical sources of domination and change in our society: a society that, therefore, we may properly call the network society, characterized by the preeminence of social morphology over social action.” (1996: Vol. I, 469)

He uses the network¹ concept according to this definition: “A network is a set of interconnected nodes. A node is the point at which a curve intersects itself. What a node is, concretely speaking, depends on the kind of concrete networks of which we speak… The topology defined by networks determines that the distance (or intensity and frequency of interaction) between two points (or social positions) is shorter (or more frequent, or more intense) if both points are nodes in a network than if they do not belong to the same network… within a given network, flows have no distance, or the same distance, between nodes.

“… The inclusion/exclusion in networks, and the architecture of relationships between networks, enacted by light-speed operating information technologies, configurate dominant processes and functions in our societies.” (1996: Vol. I, 470)

Beyond whether or not one accepts the paradigmatic scope that Castells assigns to networks², it is evident that, with the expansion of new information and communication technologies, networking logic has also taken root as an element providing the structure of social relations; since as well as opening up other possibilities in terms of communication, networking has become a factor displacing the preponderance of human labor in production processes. This also establishes other forms of organizational logic in the production arena, which have spread through society at large. After all, as is well known sociologically, societies organize according to the patterns of how they do so for production.

Thus, under these new parameters, new ways of production and business organization are forming, where pyramidal operation has given way to networking, with its decentralized and horizontal nature, although this has not entailed any weakening of the concentration of power. On the contrary, it has ushered in a greater concentration of power, through mergers of mega-corporations, ever-fewer in number and increasingly powerful, while at the same time imposing flexibility on management both in business and elsewhere.

Now, the major companies are vying with each other to produce the highest possible quality in the shortest possible time, using global information networks to achieve this, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, like a continual global chain of value. The “workplace” is no longer an obstacle, because it may be transferred to different time zones in order to respond to demand. Therefore, some companies from the North have transferred their activities to countries of the South with low salaries, establishing maquila plants or taking advantage of “tele-work.”

In the world of work, the information paradigm is having repercussions on the workplace, the type of work and the workday, as well as on relations with companies and production centers. Now, according to an ILO report (2000: 1), "working time and leisure time become blurred; the division between the workplace and the home becomes less distinct; learning and working become related pursuits; boundaries within and between enterprises are less fixed; and the distinction between dependent empoyment and self-employment grows more fluid."

Doubtless, this course of events could never have happened without the new information and communication devices; it would have been technically impossible. However, the issue cannot be boiled down to only this relationship, but also has to do with geo-political re-ordering, the world over, during the late 80s and early 90s, as a result of the fall of real socialism in Eastern Europe and the implosion of the Soviet Union. That was precisely what enabled the world economy to fully fall under the control of transnational corporations, accelerating globalization.

This has brought us, as Castells mentions, to a world in which “there are rich and there are more and more poor, because networking structurally favors a minority,” by setting up “a meta-real power, made of automatic electronic circuits in global financial markets that respond to unpredictable ripples of information. We have created an automaton, the international financial market.” (Reinoso: 2001)

However, although the interlinking of ICTs with the “new economy” has established a particular networking logic, there is also a third grouping that, from different vantage points, has found networking to be a key underpinning for its actions: the so-called new social movements, whose outstanding feature, as Melucci (1996) has pointed out, has nothing to do with any differences from the “old social movements,” but with the fact that they are referenced – from a critical standpoint – to global problems, resulting in organizational considerations.³

These are sociocultural movements, such as those of feminists, environmentalists, human rights advocates, original peoples, sexual orientation, etc. who have, since the 60s and 70s, been questioning the very premises of modernity and Western civilization, opposing their holistic view of the world to the triad of science – reason – and progress.

Accordingly, these movements criticize neoliberal globalization and – for that very reason – are promoting trends in the other direction, although they cannot ignore the structural transformations that have accompanied this phenomenon. These trends include the affirmation of identities (based on sex, age, ethnic group, nationalities, religion, etc.), the reconfiguration of nation-states and the expansion of the concept of citizenship by incorporating new rights that concern both individuals and collective bodies – that is, the so-called “third-generation” rights, relating to the environment, gender, communication, local and supranational space and ethnic identity.

On the organizational plane, these movements are also a response highlighting solidarity to address the shredding of social fabric by the above economic reordering that “scatters and fragments social classes and groups, with the consequent destruction of their age-old referents of identity and action, making it highly complicated to create new referents, since fragmentation and scattering tend to appear natural and to be presented as positive values.” (Chaui: 1998, 34) This naturalization and positive valuing, encouraged by neoliberal discourse egging on competitive individualism and success at any price, bear the banner of “each for his own – look out for number one!”

In this context, the labor movement has lost ground and vanished as an important force in social cohesion and leadership for the oppressed classes, which was its role during much of the 20^th century. The social panorama has become more complex, fragmented and diverse: while traditional social movements backslide, other collective stakeholders emerge, driven by the deterioration of life forms on this planet (ecologists), by unequal gender relations (women), by social exclusion and racial discrimination (indigenous, black and migrant people), by international injustice (human rights, solidarity), by militarization and the spread of violence (peace movements), by the quality of products and social conditions under which they are produced (consumers), by market liberation and the imposition of a transnationalized model of agriculture (poor farmers).

These movements not only propose new discourses and values – by expanding historical demands for socioeconomic equality with the addition of sociocultural diversity – but also new ways of organizing and acting. They call for autonomy and identity, decentralization and participation, horizontal relations and respect for differences, as opposed to manipulation, control, dependence, hierarchies, regulation and bureaucratization. In the framework of this repositioning, the logic of networking is beginning to soak in.

Social Networks

The social dynamics of networking in Latin America began in the 1970s, with human rights movements, grassroots education and communication, liberation theology, rural development, shelter improvement and others. This trend picked up momentum during the next decade with increasingly universal movements, especially those of women and environmentalists. And in the 90s, networking made itself at home on every level, when the scenario of globalization became unquestionable.

In this process, the Earth Summit (1992), held by the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was organized in such a way that it opened a gap through which civil-society organizations were able to leap into the world arena, which had theretofore been practically reserved for governments. This new sphere of action posed the challenge of finding formulas for consensus in order to influence official agendas and decision-making with civil-society’s own proposals – a factor contributing to encouraging and reinforcing convergence among the various parties involved, giving rise to numerous regional and worldwide networks, especially of NGOs.

The presence of these new stakeholders is related to the redefinition of the role of the State throughout this region. In fact, neoliberal policy has led the State to leave almost every human activity to the market. This has thrown political parties into a profound crisis, largely due to corruption: the social sphere is fragmented, but not altogether gone. The vacuum created is being occupied by a broad range of civil-society organizations, who network and prepare the economic, political and democratic projects and proposals that challenge dominant thought.

In fact, the term networking among societal collectives refers to the most diverse assortment of networks, ranging from those who simply use the name (perhaps to be in vogue) to those who assume networking as the new organizational paradigm (without necessarily rebaptizing themselves with the actual term), and including others who find themselves networking due to the methodological requirements of their work. If one were to attempt to establish a common denominator, what stands out in this broad range of different interpretations is the rejection of hegemonic positions and a recognition of the constraints of each organization’s or entity’s specific field of action and, therefore, the need to associate with other like-minded partners, under shared values, to enhance impact and scope.

According to Larrañaga (1996: 151-152), “A network is something as simple as a grouping of persons who stay in touch with each other and circulate ideas, data, information, tools, advice, recommendations, suggestions, critiques, and praise among each other – plus, no less importantly, cordial warmth, affection, encouragement and solidarity. Although this may sound foolish to some, one of the most important functions played by a network is simply to remind its members that they are not alone in the world; that there are other people in the world like them.”

Mance, from Brazil, feels that it is necessary to understand networks as phenomena that are complex and not merely mechanical or dialectical, in order to grasp “their potential revolutionary nature,” since solidary collaboration networks can make it possible to democratically build a viable post-capitalist alternative to the globalization that is underway. From this perspective, he states that “The elementary idea of a network is quite simple. It is an inter-relationship among diverse units that, through certain linkages, exchange elements with each other, strengthening each other, and which can multiply to form new units which, in turn, strengthen the whole insofar as they are strengthened by the whole, enabling them to further expand into new units or maintain a sustainable equilibrium. Each node of the network represents a unit and each thread is a channel through which these units are linked by diverse flows.” (2000: 24)

In general, Fernando Mires explains, networks are woven by societal stakeholders who belong to them. This means that “network building involves no preconceived plan, or preceding mindset, but rather the players build their network as they relate to each other.” (1999: 5)

Mires establishes the following classification of social networks:

a) Identification networks: in which organizations, during their exploration and expansion, “discover” that there are organizations elsewhere on this planet that have the same values and aims, thus establishing relationships under the banner of this common identity or similarity.

b) Correspondence networks: organizations also “discover” that there are other stakeholders, with whom mutual identification is not possible, but with whom there is agreement about specific, concrete objectives.

Moreover, existing organizations have turned to networking to find ways to reformulate internally in order to cope with their new realities. A very illustrative case is the Union of Press Workers of Buenos Aires, Argentina (UTPBA). As their longstanding federative structures ran dry, they undertook a process of “network building”, highlighting the following premises:

“Network building entails developing an idea to organize, and organizing to develop an idea.

“Network building is the search for a quick-moving, dynamic, non-bureaucratic organization that will respect all ideas and work toward synthesis rather than stressing differences.

“Network building is done on the basis of common principles and organizes common responses for the problems that we share.

“Network building cannot be understood only in terms of corporate problems, but reaches out to other networks, other social, cultural, professional, and human rights organizations, and views Communication as a right to which all of society is entitled.” (1999: 3)

The open-system nature of networking has also led to a reformulation of the traditional meaning of relationships and alliances, as expressions of agreements between and among closed entities. This has given a new lease of life to the formulation of “networks of networks” which, as Santana puts it (1992: 7), “has the advantage of not being a federation of groupings, with a leadership representing everyone or concentrating the leaders-drivers of each group to the point of dampening the dynamics of each, for the sake of their ‘higher interest’. The network facilitates and reinforces the action of each sector, multiplying its effects on society and the opinions circulating. It becomes a visible force, as parts and as a whole, but not so solid that it would generate clashes or receive impacts.” He adds, “This arrangement makes it possible to share human or material resources; it accepts individual participation in more than one grouping at once, as a part – not of a compact whole – but of a dynamic process with clear overall and partial, but plural goals.”

Social networks, in sum, basically express a rehabilitation of political action, from society. Strictly speaking, rather than a clearly defined concept, networking is a metaphor – like most concepts now being used in social science – whose attributes and main characteristics are summarized in the following chart. In any event, it expresses complexity that ranges far beyond the resources that could pin networking down to something concrete, such as Internet. That is, social networks do not depend on, nor are they an outgrowth of the new information technologies, whose architecture is based on the notion of a network, but undoubtedly such networks are considerably enhanced by new technologies, because of the possibilities they offer.

Social Networks
Attributes	Characteristics
Flexibility	Interwoven by stakeholders who make them up. Ongoing construction – deconstruction.
Horizontality	Decentralized, without hierarchies
Interconnection	Multi-directional information flows
Coordination	Make collective action possible
Multiplication	Empower isolated, scattered forces
Interchange	Grounded in shared values

Cyber-Communities

Internet and its decentralized, flexible structure, which makes it possible to establish social interactions that transcend distances and borders, in real time, has opened up tremendous potential to quicken the most varied, unimaginable initiatives, with all kinds of contents. In particular, it encourages setting up forums or communities of interest that, being established on-line, have become known as “virtual, digital or cyber-communities.”

Since these labels are in response, above all, to criteria of impact, handled by marketing, which is not the most suitable way to conceptually clarify terms, we will digress to clear up a widespread confusion: between the dematerialization resulting from the “digital revolution” and the virtual, a new dimension that the former has ushered in. That is, “virtual” does not mean an immaterial reality, but a potential state that can materialize under certain conditions. This is the case of a financial transaction – very common in e-commerce – established considering the possible profits, but only actually made at the time that the respective securities are sold. Accordingly, to return to where we left off, Internet is not a virtual place, but a very real – though immaterial – environment.

So, aside from what we call these “communities” that arise as Internet is used, the fact is that this is a new phenomenon, expressed through the most varied modes. However, according to Colle, they can be grouped into two types: a) “the pseudo-community (whether permanent or transitory): comprising all people who use a single ‘channel’ with some frequency … At their minimum level of interaction, it may be compared with the ‘community’ of the subscribers to a magazine, who evidently have very little to do with the concept of ‘community’ in social terms,” and b) “the formal digital community. In this case, we find many of the components that characterize a genuine social community: common objectives, values, language and experiences, as well as a certain domain, even if this is a network rather than a given delimited physical space.” (2000: 1-2)

In any event, beyond the ways and means used, what is clear is that human relations prevail, since people have not stopped being social animals. Thus, regarding this de-territorialized reality – where geography circumscribed to the physical world has given way to a “social geography,” for which the referent is “cyberspace” – a very intense debate is going forward with the serious questions it raises, particularly in regard to social and cultural implications.⁴

From a proactive standpoint, a current is developing that makes the issue of “virtual communities” relatively less important in discussing the relationship between society and new communication and information technologies. It considers that they are no more than the infrastructure of what may become the “information society” and, therefore, what matters is to work on the transition.

“An infrastructure does not, in and of itself, create a society. It is the sine qua non prerequisite, but not sufficient. Increasingly we hear, in Internet Society, the association grouping together designers of the network, that the problem no longer lies with the Internet part, but with the Society. The weight begins to shift from the computing technology to the social, economic and cultural technology,” says Artur Serra (1999), Coordinator of the Internet Applications Center of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. He adds, “The challenge, over the coming decades, will be to figure out what to put into that infrastructure – what society we design and build on this new platform.” And, as if to hint at an answer, he highlights citizen networks, since he admits he is involved in the Epitelio project (citizen networks against social exclusion) supported by the European Union.

Citizen Networks
There is no single model for citizen networks, according to Manuel Sanromá (1999), who takes a “trip through the time and space of the various experiences” to establish the following common traits:
“Recognition of some basic rights to information and communication for all citizens. A citizen network guarantees these rights, which range from access to local information to full Internet access, including the possibility of having a free email address (which, being linked to the citizen network, gives the address a local referent).
“Establishment of forums to discuss issues of interest to the community it serves; these forums are sometimes organized and/or moderated by volunteers.
“Encouragement for participation by citizens in organizing and managing the Network; citizen networks are often largely based on volunteer work and collaboration.
“Promoting ease of use: technology is not the end, but a means.
“Relations with local administration: citizen networks are not simple virtual entities but, precisely because of their geographical roots in democratic societies, recognize traditional social management entities as the foremost interlocutors and stakeholders in local life.”
He adds that five common commitments can be identified in any citizen network:
“Commitment to access: the citizen network is understood as a public service and therefore a right for all citizens.
“Commitment to service: the services provided by a citizen network must be of a comparable quality to other services provided by private entities.
“Commitment to democracy: a citizen network must not be linked to a political leaning or a concrete vision of society, but rather must foster free participation by all citizens.
“Commitment to globality: citizen networks’ emphasis on services and local contents does not blind them to their inclusion in national and international realities. A constant in initiatives linked to citizen networks is immediate coordination from their very outset with other similar initiatives in their region, their country and internationally. Therefore, the spirit of “copyfree” (freedom and even promotion of copying experiences) is also a constant, rather than a copyright that they never attempt to hold.
“Commitment to the future: although on occasions citizen networks are born as experiments, their objective is a sustainable model, adaptation to new technologies that may arise and can be implemented, and the spirit of evolving, always maintaining the basic aim with which they were created.”

Global Alliances On-line

Because of the particular course of Internet’s development, with academic and citizens’ initiatives present from the outset, which left their mark by setting it up as a decentralized, horizontal, open system, this is the first time⁵ that subordinate societal sectors have been able to access a cutting-edge technology in full development and, therefore, even influence its direction.

For example, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), was set up in 1990 for the purpose of forming a worldwide network of electronic nodes primarily concerned with placing this technology at the service of civil-society organizations and entities, offering innovative answers to the countries of the South with connectivity difficulties. Moreover, in the first half of the 1990s, APC stood out internationally because of its initiatives to facilitate and promote Internet use, in the context of the UN’s world conferences: Eco92, Human Rights 93, Population 94, Social Summit 95, Beijing 95.

Like the APC, an assortment of local and regional, collective and even individual activist initiatives appeared on the scene, many well known, others not, which in practical terms led a number of organizations and social thrusts to get into the world of Internet. In general, they did this for very practical considerations: to see how to get what they could out of these new technological devices that were offering unprecedented possibilities.

With the technical support of such initiatives, social projects multiplied to generate interconnections among organizations and entities with related interests, particularly through information sharing and electronic discussion forums. Among other modes, we should mention bulletin boards – mainly to share information on specific topics, among stakeholders who do not necessarily have any other level of inter-relations with each other; more structured work groups, regarding a common topic or program; or the dynamics of organizations and networks that were already set up, but now incorporate on-line exchange and work activities. In any event, sector or single-theme linkages currently prevail.

Movements at the forefront in taking advantage of these possibilities have been those that already operate as networks. These include, most notably, the women’s movement, environmental and, to a lesser extent, human rights groups. Further, since these are movements involving worldwide issues, they have been the most sensitive to assume that the new globalized scenarios would also entail new demands, such as the need for greater agility, fluency, breadth and speed in reactions and proposals, where the communications opportunities offered by Internet come into play.

In the case of ecological movements – which in Latin America have been characterized by their capacity to work with various societal causes and sectors (human rights groups, local communities, women’s, indigenous and rural movements), under the general banner of environmental justice – their force lies not so much in their number, but in their capacity to interconnect, to establish thematic networks and scientifically, ethically and holistically substantiate their proposals.

Ecologists also stand out because of the innovative communications strategies that they have developed and which have enabled them to garner support in public opinion, to disseminate their messages to broad societal strata and to bring pressure to bear on authorities, governments, international agencies and transnational companies.

Many ecological movements are primarily public opinion movements, seeking to raise the public consciousness by creating images and happenings for the media, especially for television. This has been the style of direct non-violent action tactics and the spectacular actions taken by such organizations as Greenpeace, with six million members and branches in 30 countries, who make an impression, get debate going and become the main means of pressure. Whether or not their practices are appropriate, Greenpeace is doubtless the organization that has best understood and taken advantage of the way the media and new communication technologies work.

As for the women’s movement, since its resurgence over the second half of the 20^th century, it has mainly been built through networking. Diverse and decentralized, it is held together by a common cause: calling patriarchal society to task, and questioning current forms of political power. Accordingly, the women’s movement, especially the feminist branch, has multiplied on the basis of autonomous, non-hierarchical, horizontally-interrelated organizational arrangements. This has largely accounted for their dynamic performance, unlike those movements built on the basis of structures, which tend to be more rigid in their connections and operation.

In Latin America, where the women’s movement emerged in the 1970s and 80s, it really took off in the 90s, when a large number of national and continental networks came into being. These worked together, especially around themes (violence, reproductive rights, education) and more recently within sectors (rural workers, indigenous women, Afro-descendants). Some have organized formally, whereas others have come together circumstantially. Until the early 90s, many of these networks were not so active, some sporadic, others more formal than real, lacking the mechanisms to ensure information flow. This situation changed quickly for those that incorporated regular use of ICTs in the 90s. The World Conference on Women organized by the UN (Beijing, September 1995) became a major catalyst for them.

Women in Cyberspace
The women’s movement’s capacity to make contacts and build bridges beyond national boundaries has been reinforced by several international junctures. One of the main thrusts has been the preparatory process (1993-95) for the Fourth UN World Conference on Women, which coincided with a time when the Internet was expanding, and provided fertile soil for stimulating interest of women’s organizations to get connected to it. In Latin America, this context awakened interest for a broad range of organizations involved in defending women’s rights, in order to seek ways of inter-communicating that would make it possible to have a more influential presence, to coordinate and build consensus on proposals for (or, in some cases, against) that event.
The impetus, in this case, came from a worldwide initiative developed under the Association for Progressive Communications (APC): the “Women’s Networking Support Program” aimed to promote better understanding of ICTs and timely use of Internet among women’s organizations. This program gave priority, in the process of preparing for the Conference, to facilitating information flows, training, networking and raising awareness among organizations in this movement, on the basis of a political platform on gender, new technologies and empowerment.
The initiative was built up from multiplying points: information-providers and alternative media, organizations with their own dissemination networks, focal points of the process leading up to Beijing and secretariats of thematic networks. In this way, interest in using electronic networks spread quickly and numerous women’s organizations connected to Internet for the first time under this initiative, motivated by the chance to receive timely information and share with each other.
From its outset, the Program particularly prioritized working with countries of the South, without neglecting other latitudes, and identified Latin America as a potential driving point, which could have a demonstration effect for the rest of the world. This was because of a dynamic women’s movement in the region as well as relatively good access to Internet services.
For dissemination from Beijing, an information pool was coordinated, with a distribution mechanism that enabled information to flow directly to the organizations in their countries and from them to the remotest provinces through more broadly accessible communication devices, such as fax. In several cases, the information was also rebroadcast locally via the media. Thus, for the first time, a geographically distant event became a daily news item for organizations that were concerned but absent. This meant access to alternative contents, related to local concerns and the movement’s approaches, by contrast to the dominant (more sensationalistic) coverage of the major press agencies. It also made it possible, for the first time at an event of this nature, for plentiful information to flow in Spanish and Portuguese over the Internet.
This experience encouraged many women’s organizations in the region to integrate Internet use into their daily work, with which networking multiplied and many organizations became more dynamic. Today, the region has almost all continental-level women’s networks and coordinating bodies connected to Internet, most national organizations, and a lower proportion of local ones. Countless electronic lists have been created for specific topics, or as a mechanism to liaise specific efforts, often with daily flows. This has been weaving a permanent social fabric of information exchange, inter-relationships and solidarity, which has generated tighter working bonds, although with their ups and downs. These linkages often extend to other parts of the world.
Precisely one of the women’s movement’s recent large-scope actions has been the World Women's March, in October 2000, involving 6000 grassroots organizations from 150 countries, integrated under two central themes: the struggle against violence and against poverty. A march of such magnitude would never have been possible without this interweaving of communication and information networks that women have built up over the past decade.
Another worldwide communication initiative, during that same year, was created around the special session to review Beijing resolutions five years later, organized by the United Nations in New York, in June. Under the name of Women Action 2000, this network involved over 40 media and communications organizations working with a gender perspective, both in Latin America and in the Caribbean, as well as on other continents. Prepared almost wholly through email, this initiative achieved widespread information coverage in multiple languages, prior to and during the special session, combining Web pages, electronic lists, a newspaper, Internet radio and Web-TV, among other media.⁶

Similar to the way the Beijing Conference encouraged Internet use among women’s organizations, urged to exchange and unify positions, the other thematic conferences promoted by the world organization had similar repercussions on the stakeholders involved in each of them. Moreover, from these spaces, bridges began to be built among various social sectors, giving rise to coordinated actions, especially regarding multilateral agencies’ policies and events.

In this agitation, 1998 witnessed an unprecedented development when Internet was used to coordinate a citizen opinion movement that managed to stop government negotiations regarding the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) that was being handled as a top secret. This was Internet’s debut in regard to citizen dynamics on the global scene, as a resource making it possible to share information, synchronize energy, harmonize agendas, coordinate actions, and so forth.

On the basis of that experience, the acknowledgement that “the struggle against the MAI has demonstrated the importance of electronic networks in social struggles,” the ATTAC movement (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens) was created in France as a network organization that “is broadly benefited by the electronic media’s contribution to its work and internal life,” and later spread to other countries “under a non-hierarchical model, and with an approach of coordination and mutual assistance. This method was born both of the spirit of the times and the existence of electronic networks in ATTAC from its creation.” (Cassen, 2000: 19)

Networking and information flows have thus become a key ingredient in various processes: organization of the massive protests in Seattle, Geneva, Prague, Washington, Genoa, etc. against neoliberal globalization, commanded by the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Group of 8, transnationals, the Davos World Economic Forum; high-impact worldwide processes such as the foreign-debt annulment campaign (Jubilee 2000), ratification of the anti-personnel mine Convention; the World Women’s March; the Cry of the Excluded; the World Social Forum, etc. and to ensure civil society presence at the world summits and conferences organized by the United Nations.

This has been how the doors have been opened to building international social convergence that had been unthinkable a short while ago, reaching far beyond the simple fact of agreeing on when to protest or not. To describe this reality, the media have coined the term, “globalphobes.” Whether because of negligence or flagrant ill-will (which ultimately work out to be the same thing), the fact is that this image attempts to caricaturize – if not actually ridicule – a much more complex social expression.

In fact, what has been building up for several years within social movements involves dynamic drives coinciding in the need to combine protests with proposals, assuming that the neoliberal globalization that is being imposed from the top down and from outside, led by the transnationals, must be met by a movement of the world’s peoples, with a solidary mindset embracing local, national and global levels. This explains the echo that the watchword launched by the worldwide rural organization Vía Campesina has received: Globalize the Struggle. Globalize Hope.

So, we are seeing real social movements that, along the way, have creatively incorporated Internet usage. However, the Internet is by no means a monopoly of the movements that are critical of neoliberal globalization; rather it is a space that movements of all kinds are vying to occupy. Internet has also made it possible for extreme rightist, racist, xenophobic attitudes to revive in the United States and Europe, stretching their tentacles to Latin America. By mid-July 1999, United Nations experts had identified 2100 “racist Websites” where white supremacy promoters showcase their articles, photographs and cartoons. Through the on-line computer networks, they offer music (“hate rock”), books and Nazi memorabilia, and open specific windows to persuade children and recruit women.

Notes: