Prefigurative self-governance and self-organization: the influence of antiauthoritarian (pro) feminist, radical queer and antiracist networks in Quebec

Référence : Breton, É., Jeppesen, S., Kruzynski, A., & Sarrasin, R. (2012). Prefigurative self-governance and self-organization: the influence of antiauthoritarian (pro) feminist, radical queer and antiracist networks in Quebec. Organize, 156-173.

Thèses et questions de recherche

Questions de recherche :

Objectif de la recherche :

Thèse centrale :

« In this paper, we would like to argue that there are three important micro-cohorts - different social movement threads - of antiauthoritarian activists engaged in self-organization at the grass-roots level in Quebec today : (1) Radical feminists, (2) radical queers, and (3) feminists and pro-feminists organizing in anti-racist and anti-colonial groups and networks. Furthermore, these micro-cohorts have played a role in developing radical analysis, strategy, and organizational modes in a variety of spaces inside, overlapping with, and external to the broader antiauthoritatian movement they/we are part of » (p. 1)

Sous-thèses :

Méthodologie : « Using a prefigurative participatory action research (PAR) methodology, we have interviewed 120 activists since 2005, in nine different groups and networks, each of which has participated or is participating in the production of a monograph, from writing to validation to lay-out and public launch »(p. 1 en note de bas de page)

Arguments et concepts

« Since most antiauthoritarian activists would argue that the State is an authoritarian body, which aims to maintain and reproduce relations of domination, they therefore seek to abolish it. They participate and organize convergences or fluid coalitions to engage in street protest that aims to interfere with the normal functioning of hegemonic institutions and norms.. This is perhaps the better-known aspect of antiauthoritarian organizing and the most documented part of the movement but for most activists, however, it is only a small part of what we do. The tactic of confrontation is accompanied by the long-term strategy of the prefigurative construction of a better world in the here and now.Participants tended to agree that it is through the everyday activities of ordinary people that social change happens, in two different ways: when people have a direct say in decisions that affect their lives (self-governance) and when they/we are the main participants in the application of these decisions (self-organization). In accordance with these beliefs is the widely-held sentiment that a better society is produced by the activities that people carry out in the here and now, a notion sometimes called prefigurative politics. » (p.2)

« Prefigurative politics are taken further through counter-institutional initiatives that break with the logic of systems of domination, in an attempt to render existing hegemonic institutions and norms redundant. The more cracks there are, the logic goes, the greater the chances of transforming the system at its root. These initiatives—be they self-managed organic farms, independent media, alternative bookstores or libraries, free schools, day cares, show spaces, safer spaces, or bike repair shops— are resources upon which the movement can depend, and seedlings of another society in the making. For many activists who invest time and energy in these little utopias, the hope for fundamental social change lies in their ability to show by example that self-governance and self-organization is not just desirable but also enjoyable and achievable in the present moment. » (p. 2)

« This prefigurative process is about creating spaces for the practice of self-governance and self-organization—spaces of action, encounter, conflict, learning, politicization, deconstruction and reconstruction of social relations. These processes have cross-pollinated with mainstream community and social movement organizations; there is a growing renewed interest in antiauthoritarian ideas and practices, and some organizations are even loosening up their formal top-down organizational structures to make space for DIY activists, as well as opening their doors to discussion and debate about conflict-over-power analyses and strategies. These are some of the baby steps towards increased collective self-governance and self-determination in society as a whole. The more people who are exposed to these ideas and practices, who get to experiment with them and feel empowered in their experience, the greater the chances that a mass movement will emerge—and is perhaps already emerging—from the grassroots. » (p.7)

Conclusion critique:

Souvent, les anars parlent des coops autogérées comme une forme de préfiguration. Par contre, on trouve très peu de définition claire de la préfiguration, et de quels types d'initiatives peuvent être considérés comme tel. J'ai donc surtout retenu les passages de l'article qui abordent ce concept.

Oui, l'article est vraiment centré sur des projets de lutte politique. On sait qu'iels ont interrogé des gens de Ainsi-Squattent-Elles et pis d'autres projets moins de lutte, je comprends pas trop pourquoi elles ont pas séparé "luttes politiques" pis "espaces", au moins. Après elles concluent: "the anarchist commons is not just resistant to enclosure by capitalism, but also to domination or enclosure by white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism, ableism, and heteronormativity." (p. 897). Ca devient moins convaincant, parce que non, le capitalisme a pas besoin du travail que fait la CLAC, ca va pas être récupéré, bien au contraire.

La définition de commun est assez clairement instrumentalisée: "Collectives and affinity groups tend to start because there are individuals interested in a particular topic, issue, identity, or practice. The anarchist commons, therefore [...]" (p. 891). Genre on saute du collectif anarchiste au commun comme si c'était la même chose, ce qui est pas nécessairement mauvais, mais qui incite à définir plus clairement le rapport au commun.

De la même façon, la définition la plus claire du capitalisme reste: "While Hardin’s type of commons does not ‘put constraints on, and push back, practices based on commodity production and capital accumulation’ (De Angelis and Harvie, 2014: 291), explicitly anti-capitalist commons that promote independence in social reproduction and horizontal decision-making often do (ibid.)" (p. 882). La perspective n'est pas tant le renversement du capitalisme et du patriarcat, mais d'en être indépendant. C'est problématique parce que beaucoup d'autre littérature sur les communs utilise le fait de ne pas définir le capitalisme pour dire "on va l'sublimer" (voir Papadimitropoulos). Donc on évalue pas la performance des actes révolutionnaires par leur libération effective de prolétaires, de femmes et de personnes racisées, mais plutôt par leur indépendance, ce qui me semble faible.

Il y a toute la question de ce qui fait ce qui est anarchiste qui est floue. Par exemple: "anti-authoritarians articulated a commitment to a shared set of principles, of which we identified ten: social justice, mutual aid, solidarity, freedom, equality, spontaneity, autonomy, democracy, respect for diversity, and creativity" (p. 890). Je trouve que de figer l'anarchisme ou l'anti-autoritarisme dans une pétition de principe ca tient pas compte de la nature émergente des valeurs (bien que ces valeurs sont pas mauvaises). Je pense que donne une représentation statique de la culture anarchiste, ce qui est vraiment présent dans les communs.

Finalement, je comprends pas pourquoi elles prétendent à une forme "résultats", "discussion", "conclusion" alors qu'elles citent les personnes interrogées après les résultats. Tu peux appeler ça "résultat 2" si tu tiens à déconstruire la forme.