Flesher _autonomías y 15m_eng
-
Upload
gagoalberlin -
Category
Documents
-
view
11 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Flesher _autonomías y 15m_eng
-
This article was downloaded by: [University of Brighton]On: 04 June 2015, At: 16:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Social Movement Studies: Journal ofSocial, Cultural and Political ProtestPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csms20
Debunking Spontaneity: Spain's 15-M/Indignados as Autonomous MovementCristina Flesher Fominayaaba University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKb National University Ireland Maynooth, Maynooth, IrelandPublished online: 19 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Cristina Flesher Fominaya (2015) Debunking Spontaneity: Spain's 15-M/Indignados as Autonomous Movement, Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural andPolitical Protest, 14:2, 142-163, DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2014.945075
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2014.945075
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
-
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
Debunking Spontaneity: Spains 15-M/Indignados as Autonomous Movement
CRISTINA FLESHER FOMINAYA**University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; National University Ireland Maynooth, Maynooth, Ireland
ABSTRACT The Spanish 15-M/Indignados have drawn global attention for the strength andlongevity of their anti-austerity mobilizations. Two features have been highlighted as particularlynoteworthy: (1) Their refusal to allow institutional left actors to participate in or represent themovement, framed as a movement of ordinary citizens and (2) their insistence on the use ofdeliberative democratic practices in large public assemblies as a central organizing principle.As with many emergent cycles of protest, many scholars, observers and participants attribute themobilizations with spontaneity and newness. I argue that the ability of the 15-M/ Indignados tosustain mobilization based on deliberative democratic practices is not spontaneous, but the result ofthe evolution of an autonomous collective identity predicated on deliberative movement culture inSpain since the early 1980s. My discussion contributes to the literature on social movementcontinuity and highlights the need for historically grounded analyses that pay close attention to themaintenance and evolution of collective identities and movement cultures in periods of latency orabeyance in order to better understand the rapid mobilization of networks in new episodes ofcontention.
KEY WORDS: Anti-austerity protests, global justice movement, Indignados/15-M, Spain,deliberative democracy, collective identity, autonomous movements, spontaneity, movementcontinuity, movement culture, genealogy
The 15-M/Indignados movement of Spain gained world-wide attention when it burst into
mass mobilization in 2011, filling Madrids Puerta del Sol with thousands of people
declaring We are not merchandise in the hands of bankers and politicians!, demanding
Real Democracy Now!, and protesting austerity measures and bank bailouts in the
aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Episodes of intense visible protest are often characterized by observers, journalists,
scholars and even participants as spontaneous, unprecedented and unexpected. This is
more likely when the protesters are not readily identifiable as belonging to established
political or social organizations, as is the case with autonomous social movements. While
the three characteristics are often grouped together they are in fact very different.
Spontaneity arguments were plentiful in characterizing the colour revolutions in Eastern
Europe and post-Soviet republics in the 1990s and 2000s which were deemed to have
sprung up overnight (see O Beachain & Polese, 2010). The political flash mob of 13-M
q 2014 Taylor & Francis
Correspondence Address: Cristina Flesher Fominaya, Department of Sociology, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen AB24 3QY, UK. Fax: 44 (0) 1224 272 552; Tel: 44 (0) 1224 273 490; Email: [email protected]
Social Movement Studies, 2015
Vol. 14, No. 2, 142163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2014.945075
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
(13 March) following the 2004 Madrid train bombings provides another example:
Blakeley (2006, p. 342) wrote, evidence suggests that they were entirely spontaneous and
were organised through mobile phones. 13-M was spontaneous in the sense that once
underway many people originally unconnected to the instigators joined in. Yet, the protest
itself was called for by a small group of seasoned activists who drew on extensive
networks developed in previous mobilizations to respond rapidly in a crisis (Flesher
Fominaya, 2011; Sampedro, 2005).
Arab Spring too was seen to have sprung out of nowhere, and much emphasis placed on
the novel use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), as if all that was
needed for revolution was access to Facebook or Twitter. While new media played a
critical role, clearly social and activist networks pre-existed the uprisings (Flesher
Fominaya, 2014b). These types of argument make it seem that these protests spring from
the ether, without the intervention of social movement actors and in the absence of
organizing structures.
Pollettas (1998) work on student sit-ins in the USA in the 1960s demonstrates how
prevalent spontaneity narratives were in characterizing these actions despite their
planning, coordination and ties to previous sit-ins and pre-existing networks. Although
spontaneity theses can serve important strategic benefits for movements (Polletta, 1998),
they also unwittingly (or not) deny agency to social movement networks and actors
(Flesher Fominaya, 2011). Apart from being problematic from a scholarly point of view
(in that they are rarely sustainable empirically), they also play into the hands of extremist
groups such as Greeces Golden Dawn, who present their actions as the spontaneous
actions of outraged citizens, masking their links to Greek formal state apparatuses like the
police (Dalakoglou, 2012). Spontanteity theses also enable arguments of movements being
orchestrated by outside organizations easier to promote (Polletta, 1998).
If spontaneity theses are so problematic, why are they so common? In the case of
mobilizations organized by autonomous actors, they are partly understandable because
autonomous movements (discussed below) often have no visible or recognizable
organizational framework. One of the particular features of autonomous movements is
what I have termed the paradox of anti-identitarian collective identity (Flesher Fominaya,
in press) whereby autonomous movements auto-invisibilize their activism as a result of
their refusal to label or identify their groups by recognizable names (see also Flesher
Fominaya, 2007a). Paradoxically, the better the logic of autonomous movement practice
works, the more difficult it becomes to see the unidentitified assemblies behind
autonomous collective action. Yet despite this invisibility, the autonomous collective
identities and networks persist in submerged networks, even in latent phases of
mobilization.
Spontaneity theses are also strategically deployed by social movement actors and help
present grievances and claims as the popular will of the people. They also serve to
effectively integrate new members. As Polletta (1998, p. 138) argues, spontaneity was
central to student activist narratives of their participation in sit-ins as a means of denoting
independence from adult leadership, urgency, local initiative, and action by moral
imperative rather than bureaucratic planning. Polletta argues that these sit-in stories were
crucial mechanisms of motivating action precisely due to their failure to specify the
mechanics of mobilization, and that their ambiguity about agents and agency is precisely
what successfully engaged audiences. Spontaneity arguments were not only central to the
narratives produced for outsiders but also to the narratives activists told themselves and
Debunking spontaneity 143
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
each other in less public settings. In other words, although such narratives serve strategic
purposes, they are not always consciously strategic. I will return to the benefits of
spontaneity narratives for 15-M in the conclusion.
The other characteristic frequently attributed to intense mobilizations is novelty. In the
case of the Spanish Indignados or 15-M movement,1 many claims for its unprecedented
nature have been made. One such claim for novelty is the refusal of banners from political
parties or unions or organizations of any type at protest events in other words, the
insistence on autonomy (see, for example Baiocchi & Ganuza, 2012). Far from being
novel, this has been a hallmark and mainstay of Spanish autonomous movements since at
least the 1980s (Flesher Fominaya, 2005, 2007a, 2014b). Nez (2012) likewise argues that
three characteristics distinguish 15-M from previous mobilizations are: participation as
individuals, the absence of programs and leaders, and the central role of deliberation. None
of these characteristics is in fact new (with relation to Spain alone, see Botella Ordinas,
2011; Flesher Fominaya, 2007a, 2010, 2014b; Juris, 2008; Lorenzo & Martinez Lopez,
2001). The reasons for an emphasis on novelty are also easily explained. One reason is
what I term strategic amnesia, whereby activists (even those who were involved in
previous mobilizations) emphasize the noteworthiness of the protests and distinguish them
from previous cycles of mobilization. This serves to distance themselves from past
protests, which may carry associations of stigma, failure or outmodedness, as well as to
refresh or reinvent their own activist biographies.
Another reason is that framing 15-M as a movement of ordinary citizens rather than
activists was (and is) an effective strategy of integration of new participants (Tejerina &
Perugorra, 2012), and in fact continues a trend present in the global justice movement
(GJM) for some autonomous activists to consciously reject the use of the activist label as a
means of distinguishing activists from the rest of the population and reaching out to the
local community (see below). Scholars likewise are prone to present arguments as new and
different, which is rewarded within academia.
Another explanation for the focus on novelty is the influx of new activists in each protest
cycle, many of whom are unaware of previous movement history and who believe that
what they are participating is new because it is new to them. This can extend to scholars
new to activism and/or the study of social movements. As I will argue, the 15-M
movement does demonstrate some novel features for the Spanish landscape. However,
many of the claims for novelty, particularly those that in fact describe established
features of autonomous social movements, overlook the history of social movements in
Spain and Europe, and can be better understood as a continuation and evolution of
autonomous political practice in Spain.
If intense sustained mobilizations are rarely spontaneous and rarely unprecedented, they
are often unpredictable. As Tocqueville (1955) famously stated in Ancien Regime,
No great historical event is better calculated than the French Revolution to teach
political writers and statesmen to be cautious in their speculations; for never was any
such event, stemming from factors so far back in the past, so inevitable yet so
completely unforeseen. (p. 1)
Which protest events will shift from a nucleus of protesters to encompass broader
segments of the public is indeed a mystery and one that no models seem able to predict
with any certainty (Goodwin, 2011). But unpredictable is not the same as spontaneous or
144 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
unprecedented. The search for the new can turn our gaze from the history and agency
of political actors and downplays the importance of movement culture in shaping
collective action.
15-M as Autonomous Movement
Autonomous social movement actors have played a key role in the genesis and definition
of the 15-M movement. Autonomous movements can be understood as movements
organized in horizontal networks, underlain by principles of self-organization, direct/
participatory democracy, autonomy, diversity and direct action. Historically, there have
been many forms of autonomous movement, specific to the particular local and national
contexts in which they develop. Autonomous actors distinguish themselves from the
practices of the institutional left, rejecting representative democracy and majority rule
and instead defending more participatory models, based on direct democracy and self-
governance, horizontal (non-hierarchical) structures, decision-making through consensus
(if possible and necessary), in the forum of an assembly (usually open), and rarely with
permanent delegations of responsibility. Autonomy refers not only to internal organizing
principles and structures but also crucially to independence from established political
parties and trade unions, and autonomous movements distinguish themselves from the
more vertical institutional left model of representative politics. This is manifested in the
refusal to allow acronyms or party or union banners and flags at protest events (and
sometimes heated altercations can break out around this issue). The logic of autonomy
(Flesher Fominaya, 2005) is not restricted to small or large spaces or to closed or open
spaces, although prior to 15-M it was not often practiced in Spain in assembly settings of
more than a couple hundred people. The distinction between autonomous and
institutional left logics of collective action is often shorthanded as a difference between
horizontals and verticals. The distinctions I draw are more historically grounded and
encompass more characteristics than decision-making practices or organizational
structure.
The autonomous/institutional left distinction is critical because it defines a central
cleavage structure in the European social movement landscape and illuminates who is
likely to share social movement spaces willingly within given networks (Flesher
Fominaya, 2007a). Therefore, I use the term autonomous movement to distinguish this
logic of political collective action from that of the institutional left,2 but it is not a term
movement groups or actors necessarily apply to themselves, although some do, such as
Autonomia in Italy or the Autonomen in Germany (see Katsiaficas, 2006). While this
cleavage is central, in reality actors from both sides of this divide do come together on
specific campaigns, and the phenomenon of multiple militancy means some actors move
between the two types of spaces although different rules of engagement apply in different
settings (see Flesher Fominaya, 2007a). This is true in 15-M as well as in the GJM
(Table 1).
The refusal of participation of institutional left actors (as representatives of
organizations, not as individuals) in 15-M movement assemblies is well documented
(Martnez & Garca, 2011; Romanos, 2013; see also DRY, 2011; JSF, 2011). Autonomous
movements in Spain have long rejected the participation of political parties and trade
unions in their autonomous spaces (and refused also to participate in many so-called
unitary spaces dominated by institutional left actors), but this trend has evolved over
Debunking spontaneity 145
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
time and become more marked as it has become a more widespread feature of Madrids
and Spains social movement culture. Indeed, tension between institutional left and
autonomous actors was a key feature of the GJM more broadly, especially but not only in
Europe (Flesher Fominaya, 2014b, see also Juris, 2008). The lack of formal organizational
and institutional infrastructures means that collective identity processes are crucial in
maintaining internal coherence in these movements and it is this collective identity,
sustained and developed in movement subcultures such as urban and rural social centres,
university student political groups and other movement-related scenes, that enables rapid
Table 1. Ideal-typical differences between the autonomous and institutional left political models
Institutional left Autonomous
Political model Representative ParticipatoryOrganizationalstructure
Vertical with clear division of labourand authority
Horizontal, rarely permanentdelegations of responsibility
Decision-making Votes, negotiations betweenrepresentatives
Consensus, assembly is sovereign
Subject Unitary or primary identity (worker/citizen)
Multiple cross-cutting identities, oftenreject primary identities as basis ofcollective action
Ideological base Unitary/explicit Heterogeneous/often left implicitLegitimatepolitical actor
Collective/party/union Individual acting collectively
Use of acronyms Important identifier, symbol ofpolitical stance and responsibility
Reject acronyms
Political arena Public/government Public (streets, public spaces) andprivate (personal relations, daily life)
Typical repertoireof contention
Manifestos, protest marches, strikesand legal reforms
Protest demonstrations, direct action,civil disobedience, alternative self-managed collective projects (e.g.social centres), counter culturallifestyle politics, cyberactivism
Means/ends Variable Inseparable, means are ends inthemselves if directed at socialtransformation
Socialtransformationcomes primarilythrough
Institutions Creating alternatives, culturalresistance
Organization is Permanent Contingent, open to continual criticalreflection and dissolution
Stance onanonymity
Reject Variable: Use of masks, anonymoushacking, sabotage without riskingarrest, key tactics of some activists;contested as a legitimate strategy byothers
Resources (Varied) Access to institutionalresources, funding, office space,formal access to mainstream media,legal support
Minimal, limited, contingent, ad hocand/or rare
146 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
mobilization in new contexts (rather than the mobilization of formally organized
membership structures).
Movement Continuity: A Genealogical Approach
The maintenance of collective identity and movement culture (including deliberative
practices, master frames, etc.) through movement networks in periods of relative latency
(or in periods of abeyance) is still a relatively understudied aspect of mobilization that is
crucial to explaining the continuity and evolution of movement culture (or conversely its
rupture) from one cycle of contention to the next. Despite important work by Taylor
(1989) and Poletta (1998, 2002) on movement continuity, the same tendency to emphasize
ruptures rather than continuity that Taylor noted in 1989 is still present in the literature
today. Taylor argued that in the case of American womens movement, a series of
abeyance structures provided continuity between different cycles of contention over time.
In this article, I trace social movement continuity in autonomous movements in Madrid,
demonstrating the survival of activist networks, a repertoire of goals and tactics and a
continued sense of collective identity that Taylor (1989) discusses in her seminal article,
highlighting some differences in continuity processes from those in institutionalized
movements in the conclusion.
Much has been made of the ability of Spanish 15-M activists to manage deliberative
consensus-based assemblies of up to 5000 participants. Research on movement learning
processes (Doerr, 2009; Polletta, 2002; Romanos, 2013) demonstrates that these abilities
cannot be convincingly explained by commitment to principles or by transnational
diffusion processes leading to the wholesale adoption of practices (Wood, 2010). In fact,
the effective management of large deliberative assemblies has been a key challenge of
social movements in Spain over the past two decades, and the adoption of deliberative
techniques has been slow and arduous, not least because of resistance from institutional
left actors and the strong influence of institutional left actors on social movement cultural
practices (Flesher Fominaya, 2005, 2007a, 2010). The development of movement
practices over time within autonomous social movement spaces and the deliberate
definition of 15-M assemblies as autonomous spaces in which institutional left groups or
organizations were not welcome, therefore, are key factors behind the spontaneous
ability of these assemblies to work effectively.
Polletta (2002, p. 191) suggests a similar evolution for the development of deliberate
practices through a range of movements in the USA. With respect to GJM activists highly
skilled in facilitation, she writes
their experience suggests that models for egalitarian forms and deliberative styles
are simply available to activists today in a way that they were not for 1960s activists.
In some segments of the movement field, participatory democracy has become close
to being institutionalized.
Polletta (2002, p.190) notes that the evolution of deliberative and participatory practices
have been accompanied by procedural paraphernalia including formal roles (e.g.
timekeeper, facilitator, vibes watcher) and sophisticated hand signals
In the same way, previous experiences in autonomous movements in Spain have
nourished todays movement cultures. 15-M deliberative practices need to be understood
Debunking spontaneity 147
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
in relation to their historical evolution in Madrid (and Spain more broadly) and to the
development of an autonomous collective identity over time. While the historical roots of
the development of participatory practices in contemporary Spain can be traced back at
least to the early 1980s, the more recent predecessor is inarguably the experience of
activists in and around the GJM. I draw primarily on ethnographic fieldwork from 2002 to
2005 in autonomous networks in Madrid active in the GJM; analysis of web-pages, texts
(manifestos, guides) and documentaries of the 15-M movement (as cited), and secondary
and archival sources. The fieldwork focused on the challenges and possibilities of non-
hierarchical deliberative practices in autonomous groups and encompassed a wide range of
activities, including participant observation in the weekly assemblies in a number of
autonomous social movement groups, direct actions, protest events and interviews.
Additional 15-M data come from ongoing fieldwork in Madrid on the 15-M movement
which commenced in September 2014 and includes interviews, participant observation of
protest events and assemblies, email subscription to email lists (No Somos Delito,
AGSOL) and consultation of assembly minutes.
The genealogical approach I take here stands in contrast to more structural social
movement approaches such as the political process model, which focuses primarily on
cycles of visiblemobilization, pays greater attention to formally organized socialmovement
organizations (SMOs) and perceives social movements primarily as political actors looking
at political institutions from the outside in, attempting to achieve gains and recognition from
the state (McAdam, 1982; Tarrow, 1998). Such approaches stress structural factors outside
social movement control, with social movement actors responding to political opportunities
and depending on internal resources to mobilize (Goodwin & Jasper, 1999). In the ideal
typical model of cycles of contention, movements appear in response to political
opportunities, consolidate resources that they mobilize on behalf of their constituents,
undergo transformations through the process of contention and then disappear after
mobilization. Tilly and Tarrow (2006, p. 132), for example, recognize multiple forms of
exit for social movement actors including institutionalization, interest groups and other
pursuits that keep the movement base alive during periods of abatement, but they still
conceive of movements as essentially suspended or non-existent between periods of active
mobilization:
by joining self-help groups, working for women service organizations, and paying
dues to public interest groups, women activists from the 1960s and 1970s kept up
their contacts with old comrades, remained available for mobilization at times of
stress or opportunity [ . . . ] And kept the flame of activism alive to fight another day.
Melucci (1994, p. 107) argued that such approaches suffer from
a myopia of the visible that concentrates exclusively on the measurable features of
collective action that is, their relationships with political systems and their effects
on policies while it neglects or undervalues all those aspects of the action of
movements that consist in the production of cultural codes [ . . . ]. In fact, when a
movement publicly confronts the political apparatus on specific issues, it does so in
the name of new cultural models created at a less noisy and less easily measurable
level of hidden action.
148 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
In contrast, a genealogical approach adopts the perspective of social movements from the
inside out, playing close attention to their latent activity during periods of abeyance or less
visible mobilization, and recognizing processes of movement continuity between peaks of
visible mobilization. While movements undeniably pass through cycles of highly visible
mobilization and sometimes disappear afterward, more often the periods between the
cycles of contention are not marked by disappearance but by ongoing social movement
activity in a variety of environments.
In addition, for anti-authoritarian autonomous movements, such as important sectors of
the GJM and the 15-M movement, recognition or gains for the movements by state
authorities are not the primary goals. Unlike specific NGOs, for example, that might seek a
particular outcome for their issue or constituency (for example, a ban or prohibition on a
particular social or corporate practice or a new law permitting or prohibiting certain
practices), autonomous movements tend to mobilize around more universal goals and
values (e.g. greater democratic participation of citizens, transformation of patriarchy or
capitalism) in addition to specific issues. Although (as I will discuss below) the 15-M
movement re-engages with state institutions and actors in important ways (and in this
represents an important shift from the GJM), in general, autonomous movements are not
state oriented but rather seek the dismantling of structures of economic and political power
(Flesher Fominaya, 2007a, 2010, 2014b; Holloway, 2002; Katsiaficas, 2006). These
movements do not seek the appropriation of state power but rather oppose centralized
power and instead foster the strengthening of autonomous spaces for collective decision-
making and social transformation.
The GJM and the Shift to the Local Level
The GJM developed in the latter half of the 1990s to contest the nexus between global
economic and global political elites in fostering capitalist globalization and the negative
effects of these processes on communities around the world and the environment. The
movement, also known as the movement of movements, was characterized by its
heterogeneity, its global reach and its diverse repertoires of contention, which included
large counter summit mobilizations to protest the meetings of world economic and
political leaders (such as the WTO IMF, WB, G8 or the G20) and to call attention to the
lack of transparency and accountability of these organisms, as well as the devastating
effects of the decisions they took (Della Porta, 2007; Flesher Fominaya, 2014b; Juris,
2008). By 2007, the large counter summits of the GJM had pretty much wound down,
prompted by a combination of the effects of repression and the search for a more effective
model of fighting against neoliberal capitalism, one that would not simply be a response to
the timings and agendas set by global economic institution meetings, but driven more by
activists and movements themselves. By 2003, a constant refrain in autonomous
movement circles in Madrid was the need to work on the local level and to reach out to
local communities. Although this was influenced in part by the larger movement debates
around the need for more local initiatives, in fact relatively few Madrid activists had direct
experience of transnational activism, and there is a long-standing and important tradition
of neighbourhood association organizing (Castells, 1983), as well as a small but
established network of social centres whose primary focus has always been the local. The
shift to the local, therefore, was arguably earlier and more marked in Madrid than in some
other cities. Autonomous activists who did have experience with the European Social
Debunking spontaneity 149
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
Forum (ESF) processes were quickly disillusioned with this form of organizing after the
2003 ESF in Paris, which many felt was hijacked by institutional left parties and their
associated organizations.3
It was therefore a logical progression for social movement groups in the Madrid
network to shift increasingly back towards the local, even while continuing to find
inspiration in the global movement and identifying with it. This shift took place notably
within the social centres and associated networks that later developed from them, such as
the ODS or Oficinas de Derechos Sociales (Offices of Social Rights), a collection of
autonomous but loosely affiliated groups born out of the squatted social centre scene in
Spain that is currently active on issues relating to labour, precariousness and migrant
rights. This shift to the local encompassed a desire to break out of the activist ghetto and
reach out to ordinary citizens a desire reflected in the explicit and active framing of 15-
M as an ordinary citizens movement. This is illustrated in the opening lines of the DRY
manifesto written by the first activists who occupied the Puerta del Sol: We are ordinary
people just like you. The global financial crisis and its immediate effect on ordinary
citizens meant that by 2011, activists found a receptive public for their engagement.
Tracing Movement Culture Continuity
In parallel with this local work was the development of an autonomous collective
identity predicated largely on a commitment to deliberative practices (and direct action).
The development of this collective identity was a highly contested and active process, one
that was born out of struggles between autonomous actors and the institutional left
(Flesher Fominaya, 2007a) and marked by key events in national and local social
movement history during the GJM.
Some scholars, such as Maecklebergh (2012), correctly point out that there is a line of
continuity between deliberative practices during the period of the GJM and the Indignados
mobilizations. However, writing about Barcelona, Maecklebergh argues that it were the
practices learned during transnational encounters of the GJM that have enabled Spanish
activists to moderate large assemblies.4 While this may be true (in part) for Barcelona,
where there seems to have been greater participation and mobility transnationally (Juris,
2008), the same cannot be said for Madrid where 15-M originated. There were some key
points of connection between Madrid activists and transnational GJM events, notably the
PGA European meetings (e.g. Leiden), the European Zapatista Encuentros (one of which
was in Spain), strong connections with the Italian Disobbedienti (between groups such as
Los Invisibles, la Universidad Nomada and other groups such as the MRG)5 and
participation in the ESFs and counter summits, particularly Genoa. But not only did few
activists in Madrid have direct encounters with transnational deliberative forums, such
encounters did not result in the enthusiastic adoption of different deliberative practices. On
the contrary, autonomous activists were highly resistant to change. Indeed, the resistance
to change of standard practices of the local institutional left during autonomous assemblies
despite a clear explicit ideological commitment to autonomous deliberative practices and
consensus was striking (Flesher Fominaya, 2005). The practices of turno de palabra (order
of intervention) and orden del da (pre-arranged agenda) (more on this below) were
rigorously adhered to in most spaces and little reflexion was given to altering
methodological practice to improve deliberation (Flesher Fominaya, 2005, 2010). The
processes of transnational movement culture diffusion are much less immediate or
150 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
spontaneous than many accounts would suggest. Research shows that new practices must
be adapted to local and national cultural repertoires through processes of cultural
translation (Doerr, 2009) and are by no means always successful (Wood, 2010).
Activists built on a tradition of deliberative practices developed in anti-militarist,
feminist, environmental and the Okupa (squatters) movement to slowly shift their
asamblearia practice towards a more deliberative model. Maecklebergh (2012, p. 223)
also cites an activist asserting that there is no facilitation culture at all in Spain. This is
simply untrue.6 While there may not be a developed deliberative culture that is identical to
those developed elsewhere, the asamblearia tradition has a long trajectory, from a diverse
range of social movements since (at least)7 the late 1970s, including the conscientious
objectors, free radio, squatted social centres, ecologist, feminist and anti-capitalist
movements, among others (Flesher Fominaya, 2007a, 2010; Juris, 2008; Martnez &
Garca, 2014).
The continued influence of local deliberative practices (albeit based on autonomous
principles of consensus) is also clear in the document written on 31 May 2011 designed to
facilitate large assemblies (Acampada Sol, 2011a). Two key elements of the guide involve
the two constant aspects of Spanish asamblearismo: the turno de palabra (or order of
speaker intervention) and the orden del da (or meeting agenda). As I have shown
elsewhere (Flesher Fominaya, 2005), these assembly practices were resistant to alteration
and very gradually modified over time to correspond to more inclusive deliberative
practices. One key modification, which was slowly adopted in some autonomous
deliberative spaces, was the alteration of the turno de palabra to favour those who had not
spoken previously. Previously, common practice was that the turno de palabra was
followed by strict order of petition, with the same people able to intervene as many times
as they raised their hands regardless of how many times they had spoken before.8
Key actors transforming the deliberative practices in autonomous spaces in Madrid
came from groups such as AA/MOC (Alternativa Antimilitarista/Movimiento de Objecion
de Conciencia Antimilitarist Conscientious Objectors Movement), active since 1989, and
Women in Black (feminist pacifist organization). Activists from both groups were very
active in two influential nodes of GJM-related militancy in Madrid, the Consulta Social
Europea (CSE) and the Espacio Horizontal Contra la Guerra (EHCG) and introduced new
forms of deliberation and consensus decision-making, such as the fishbowl method
introduced to the CSE national assembly in Ciudad Real (2003).9 The ability to reach
consensus in large assemblies was a key problem for the CSE, and activists were not well
versed in alternative deliberative practices, instead trying to graft consensus ideals onto
the rituals that they knew from experiences in institutional left-dominated assemblies (see
Flesher Fominaya, 2005, 2014a). The transformation of deliberative practices, therefore,
was a long, contested and arduous process.
The Long March of Autonomous Collective Identity and Practice
If it is true that autonomous activists in Madrid were very inspired by the transnational
GJM, it is also true that the global imaginary did not have an immediate and strong
influence on deliberative practices, which continued to be shaped by local and national
repertoires of asamblearismo. These in turn were transmitted via a long progression of
autonomous social movement groups in Spain since the 1980s. If in 2005 the institutional
left still held more sway organizationally but autonomous groups were gaining discursive
Debunking spontaneity 151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
legitimacy thanks in great measure to the legitimacy conferred on autonomous politics
by the GJM with both actors active in various GJM initiatives and mobilizations
(Flesher Fominaya, 2005, 2007a), it is clear that in the 15-M movement, the autonomous
approach to politics has gained the upper hand, with little involvement of institutional left
groups [with the exception of Izquierda Unida (IU)] and a now widespread and clear cut
rejection of formal party or union participation in the movement.10 In 2012, when a
member of national federation party IU implied in a press conference that Juventud sin
Futuro (JSF) members were seeking to participate in IU directive organs, JSF immediately
put a statement on their webpage asserting that:
While we are glad that (IU) is still interested in the opinions of the people on the
street and have reached consensus in their X assembly to strengthen ties with social
movements [ . . . we . . . ] categorically deny that we have ever approached IU in the
terms expressed by (Mr. Garzon) to participate in the directive bodies (of IU) or any
other party. (JSF, 2012)
This dance between institutional left parties such as IU and autonomous groups, where
the parties or unions try to integrate, co-opt or claim credit for mobilizations and the
groups behind it in periods of visible mass protest, and autonomous groups refuse to be co-
opted and claim their autonomy, is a well-worn feature of the Spanish political
landscape. Tensions between institutional left and autonomous actors came to a head in
November 2001, in Zaragoza, at one of the largest social movement assembly encounters
in Spain. There were fierce debates between institutional left actors who insisted on
structure based on a platform with clearly defined groups, competencies and spokespeople
and the (mostly) anarchists and autonomous actors who insisted on function through a
campaign with decentralized autonomous components. The latter argued that the former
were indebted to political institutions and that there was no reason to suppose that they
would be able to work together.
However, the need for active boundary work between the institutional left and
autonomous groups (such as the case of the JSF above) if anything is less marked than it
was in the recent past when autonomous groups could still be dismissed as swarms of
mosquitoes lacking in political experience and legitimacy, as was claimed by some
institutional left actors during the GJM. Meanwhile, many activists in autonomous spaces
rejected collaborating with institutional left groups after the 2001 Zaragoza State
Assembly and boycotted their events (Flesher Fominaya, forthcoming).
Over time, autonomous practices made increasing headway in anti-capitalist GJM
spaces in Madrid, slowly displacing the grip institutional left influences had on
asamblearia practices (Flesher Fominaya, 2005). Romanos (2013) describes how the use
of humour, which was once a contested practice that met with strong resistance from
institutional left actors and even some autonomous activists (Flesher Fominaya, 2007b),
has become a widely accepted central strategic and cultural practice in the 15-M Madrid
networks, further underscoring the development and continuity of autonomous movement
culture over time.
Yet, this line of continuity can be drawn farther back than the GJM experiences as well.
An autonomous anti-capitalist Okupa (squatters) movement flourished in Madrid from
19851999, as did the Free Radio movement, facing strong police repression, reaching
internal crises and decline before morphing into various movement organizations (from
152 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
ecological to anti-militarist to rural communal occupations) and projects with the
resurgence of activism in the GJM. During this period, the local groups that were
coordinated within the Autonoma struggle were highly reflexive and engaged in
deliberative practices (Lucha Autonoma, 1998) while at the same time being some of
earliest to mobilize against precarious labour (or precarity as it is now known) (see
Casanova, 1999).
In The City and the Grassroots, Castells (1983) documents the thriving neighbourhood
association movement in Madrid in the late 1970s. Castells discussion of Madrids
Citizen Movement can be seen as laying important groundwork for demands for citizen
participation in local government and political decision-making processes through citizen
representation. These neighbourhood associations were geographically organized and
originally fought for very localized issues, extending over time to a wide range of issues
and a federation structure (FRAVM, Federacion Regional de Asociaciones de Vecinos de
Madrid). The FRAVM and its youth wing, Jovenes de la FRAVM, continue to be an
important forum for grassroots political participation and many youth members were also
active in various collectives in Madrids GJM network. Although the FRAVM falls clearly
on the institutional left divide of the autonomous/institutional left cleavage, it forms part of
a grassroots participatory political culture in Madrid with roots back (at least) to the end of
the dictatorship.
The Democratic Turn: Continuity and Evolution in Autonomous Practice
On the fifth day of protest we appeared in the Stock Exchange. At 12 in the morning
more than 100 people had managed to enter the opulent building (Plaza de la
Lealtad) and interrupt the session while we shouted slogans against precarity and
social exclusion. Outside 20 mothers dressed in black supported the action holding
up a placard against precarity and distributing pamphlets.
While this may read like an account of a direct action from the 15-M movement, it is in
fact from 1999. It comes from the series of direct actions taken in the annual Rompamos el
Silencio (Lets Break the Silence) campaign carried out in Madrid by activists in diverse
groups in the anti-capitalist autonomous movement network, organized within the CSOA
El Laboratorio (later known as Labo 01). Clearly, the critiques of the anti-capitalist
movements, also active during the GJM, have carried over into the current wave of protest,
and many of the frames and slogans are the same. Nevertheless, having stressed the line of
continuity in issues, certain tactics and movement practices, it is also true that the recent
15-M protests have some new emphases that represent an important shift in the demand for
increased democracy, although this demand itself is not new:
What do we mean when we say that the social networks and the citizens need to
enter the decision making process? What are we really based on, what do we want?
We believe in a participatory, deliberative democracy. Thats the real nexus between
all these different groups. People want to participate, not just be passive receptors of
decisions, we want to create tools to be active political subjects [ . . . ]. We need to
ask ourselves: what is this new political culture that we in the social movements are
trying to develop? [ . . . ] How do we want to intervene and what mechanisms can we
Debunking spontaneity 153
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
develop so that [state] powers can be limited by the public and so that the public can
really intervene in [ . . . ] legislation [ . . . ]?
As with the example above, this quote could have come from a 15-M activist, yet it comes
from an activist in the Madrid GJM network in 2002.11 While a critique of political and
economic elites has been at the heart of anti-capitalist and autonomous protest for decades,
there has been a turn to a much more sustained, profound and engaged critique of the
democratic institutions put in place during the Spanish transition to democracy and of
specific mechanisms that facilitate political corruption, lack of transparency and lack of
real democracy. This democratic turn, with its emphasis on democratic reform and
renewal and a reclaiming of the constitution, with its guarantees of basic social rights
(housing, education), as opposed to an out of hand rejection of the state and the political
class in previous waves is very notable. If autonomous democratic demands during the
GJM often centred around a rejection of the state as fundamentally illegitimate and a
practice that involved primarily the creation of alternative democratic spaces, in the 15-M
there is an evolution (both strategic and perhaps ideological) which combines pre-
figurative practices of radical democracy within social movement spaces with a highly
organized attack on the illegitimacy of representative democratic institutions, using the
courts (both national and international) and the law to hold politicians and officials
accountable for their actions within the legal frameworks of the state itself.
Far from representing anti-politics as some observers have claimed, if anything, one of
the key differences from the GJM is a re-engagement with the state and the direct appeal to
state institutions and laws as the basis of claims and demands (as opposed to abstract
principles or ideologies) (Flesher Fominaya, 2014b). Holding the political classes
accountable to their own laws is a different strategy than arguing that the laws themselves
or the rules of the game are illegitimate. This does not mean that individual laws are not
contested as illegitimate (the current electoral laws that favour the large parties, the laws
that favour economic elites over ordinary citizens, the criminalization of protest, etc.), but
not the legal framework of the state as a whole.
Key indicators of this democratic turn include the first points of the 15-M manifesto,
which relate to electoral reform and constitutional reforms and guarantees12; the original
15-M campaign/slogan Real Democracy Now!; actions such as crowdfunding to indict
Rodrigo Rato (Bankia director and former managing director of the IMF) for fraud (20
Minutos 2012); the creation of wiki pages that list all politicians indicted or found guilty of
fraud or corruption13 and the strategic use of the courts as a form of contestation.
One of the most dynamic social movement actors within 15-M, the Platform for those
Affected by Mortgages (PAH), exemplifies this evolution. The PAH combines
decentralized, horizontal forms of organization, direct action and very sophisticated
legal challenges to contest abusive clauses in existing mortgage law, and to call for the
reform of housing law and policy (Flesher Fominaya & Montanes, 2014).
If direct action such as the interruption of the stock exchange above relied on symbolic
protest to raise consciousness, in crisis-ridden Spain more practical direct actions are being
taken. If activists in the GJM were primarily concerned with controlling the
multinationals, now they are concerned with controlling the politicians (who they see as
ultimately responsible for the current crisis) and reforming the democratic institutions
themselves, which also reflects the shift from more transnational to more national arenas
and targets of protest (Flesher Fominaya, 2014b).
154 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
Also different is the shifting of assembly practice from more self-contained physical
spaces such as social centres and activist assemblies to public arenas, and the resulting
unprecedented intensity of direct engagement with ordinary citizens (Romanos, 2011)
(but see Plataforma 0,7% below). However, the aspiration to do this is not new, but was at
the heart of the Consulta Social Europea (European Social) project, an earlier precursor
movement that aspired to radical participatory engagement with citizens as the ultimate
raison detre of its existence and which encompassed activists from a wide range of
collectives in Madrid in the early 2000s (see Flesher Fominaya, 2005, 2010). The
European Social Consulta aspired to holding public consultas (or popular referenda) on the
streets and plazas of Spain on issues of concern to them, and was itself inspired by the
success of the 1999 RCADE (Red Ciudadana por la Abolicion de la Deuda Externa)14
campaign which managed to gather more than a million signatures for third world debt
cancellation through consultas in over 500 Spanish cities and towns for the 2000 general
elections (Flesher Fominaya, 2005). Activists involved in that process are currently active
in 15-M, and the 2014 movement-organized referendum on the monarchy continues this
tradition.15
Although the occupation of public space in tents has also been called new in Spain,
this is not the case. In 1994, the 0,7% campaign of solidarity with third world debt
(Plataforma 0,7) set up 30 tents on Madrids central Paseo del Prado. The tents grew to
over 500 and remained for a week, and over 100,000 people gathered to protest, including
holding a cacerolada (pot banging session) in front of the Popular Party headquarters.
Open-air meetings were held at night, and 300,000 signatures were gathered to present to
parliament in a Popular Legislative Initiative. The campaign brought together diverse
movement groups working in the 0,7% campaign, with such slogans as We need to
change this social model that wastes and destroys (Frances, 1996; Plataforma07ymas,
undated).
The continuity from asamblearismo in Madrid from previous periods of mobilization
through to 15-M is readily apparent in a multitude of ways. In the documentary on the
origins of 15-M (Moran, 2012), one activist describes the original decision to stay in the
Puerta del Sol:
There were people that came from the anti-Bologna movement, there were people
who came from the movement for the right to housing [ . . . ] There were people from
active social movements and people with a tradition of asamblearismo [ . . . ] From
the first moment in the first assemblies you could see that there were people there
who knew how to handle those processes.
Botella Ordinas (2011) also makes a compelling case for the role of autonomous
movements in fostering and nurturing the asamblearia practices evident in the 15-M from
the beginning, arguing that these had been developed over time in squatted social centres
and related social movement spaces. Drawing on specific examples of assemblies and
actions within 15-Ms original Acampadasol, she traces the exact practices used for
decision-making and coordination to their roots in asamblearismo (see also Martnez &
Garca, 2011; Romanos, 2011). Tejerina and Perugorra (2012) draw on activists own
genealogical mapping and narrative of becoming (Polletta, 1998) to recognize the past
influences of mobilizations, and the role of previously mobilized actors in strategies of
integration of new members into 15-M.
Debunking spontaneity 155
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
The continuity between the GJM and 15-M is also very clear from key actors and
spokespeople/commentators within the movement. Examples include Carlos Taibo, a
long-term participant in social movements including the GJM who gave the speech after
the original 15-M protest, Ada Colau (highly visible spokesperson of PAH), Amador
Fernandez-Savater, Juan Carlos Monedero, Angel Calle, Guillermo Zapata, Miguel
Martnez and Pablo Iglesias Turrion. The latter, who was active in the GJM in such groups
as Los Invisibles (a Spanish version of the Disobeddienti), has sparked controversy within
the movement by deciding to run for the European parliament on a 15-M ticket,
Podemos, causing many autonomous activists to openly denounce what they see as a
betrayal of movement principles (but which others see as a necessary evolution for the
movement) (see Flesher Fominaya, 2014c). As can be seen in the heated debates over
cooptation and capitalization of the movement for political ends by these grassroots
parties, the central tensions between Institutional Left and autonomous approaches to
activism and politics also continue from the GJM through to 15-M.
In addition to these key figures, 15-M assemblies in Madrid have a strong presence of
experienced autonomous activists who were active in the GJM and other movement
mobilizations. Groups such as AA/MOC continue to prepare civil disobedience workshops
for 15-M activists as well as participating directly in the movement. On the eve of the mass
22M Marches of Dignity (22 March 2014, see Flesher Fominaya, 2014d), the 15-M
newspaper madrid15m published an article by Asamblea Antimilitarista de Madrid
(March 2014, p. 7) reflecting on 25 years of civil disobedience, written by activists
involved in that 25-year trajectory (madrid15m 2014). They do not draw a direct line of
causality between the AA/MOC and 15-M, but argue that the non-violent civil
disobedience practiced in the conscientious objectors movement was adopted in many
other social movements and immediately assumed by the first assemblies of 15-M as a de
facto defining characteristic.16
Other lines of influence can be traced from autonomous movements into 15-M practice.
Gracia Trujillo, a sociologist and feminist/queer activist involved in autonomous spaces in
Madrid since the 1990s and currently active in the 15-M Asamblea Transmaricabollo de
Sol, a feminist/queer space, traced her own trajectory through squatted autonomous
feminist projects in Madrid towards a queer activism that is currently lodged within a
broader 15-M struggle, bringing queer perspectives to anti-austerity and other 15-M
activism. The influence of feminist movements within 15-M is most strikingly illustrated
by the widespread use of the feminine plural (e.g. nosotras) by activists of all genders as a
political and didactic position. Trujillo also traces a clear line of continuity between
previous autonomous movements and 15-M, while recognizing evolution and change as
well in terms of openness and incorporation of new actors:
I dont think that 15-M would have happened at all without a previous trajectory of
mobilization of organized people, and here the anti-globalization movement is
fundamental, certainly for Feminismos Sol and Transmaricabollo, and I would
actually say for 15-M in general. (Interview, Madrid, 14 February 2014)
Autonomous principles are reiterated constantly in 15-M assemblies one constituent
meeting for a new coordinating space between assemblies in Madrid was held up for
almost 2 hours as activists refused to constitute the space unless it adhered to the principles
156 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
of non-representation and horizontality, despite the fact that everyone seemed to be in
favour of that anyway (Fieldnotes, 2 February 2014).
In the state-wide 15-M coordinating meeting held on 23 March 2014, group after group
stressed the centrality of horizontality and non-representation as fundamental and defining
organizing principles (Acta Reunion Estatal, 23 March 2014, Madrid).
Finally, when activists left the square to go back to the neighbourhoods to work on the
local level, it was primarily to squatted and non-squatted social centres which are to this
day the most commonly used spaces for 15-M assembly meetings. The logic of
coordination between 15-M assemblies in Madrid is virtually indistinguishable from that
used in the GJM, apart from developments in the use of ICTs. The same logic of
networking within campaigns is followed, and the same rules of engagement are
reiterated: people act as bridges (enlaces or points of connection) between assemblies,
sharing information, but not representing, unless they come with an explicit consensus
from their assembly to represent the assembly (rare for autonomous assemblies, more
common for NGOs participating in campaigns with autonomous actors).
Precipitating and Intermediate Factors of 15-M
My emphasis on continuity is not intended to downplay the importance of precipitating
and intermediate factors in the emergence and strength of the mobilizations. While
detailed analysis of these lies outside the scope of this article, it is clear that factors
such as the failure of the established labour unions to resist the governments proposals
for the social pact (via the General Strike 2010) and the increasing rates of
unemployment and housing evictions due to inability to pay mortgages have favoured
the emergence of extra-institutional collective action and a shift from support for more
institutional left organizations towards more autonomous ones. In addition, there are
number of recent precursor movements that have also played a role in the current
social movement landscape. The student mobilizations against the Bolonia university
reforms, notably on the Universidad Carlos III and Universidad Complutense
campuses, have played a key role in developing activist student network that were also
active in groups such as JSF and DRY (key mobilizers of 15-M). As two members of
JSF write:
Contrary to what it may seem many times, social movements do not come out of
nowhere, the contacts and routines that make the transformation of indignation into
an assembly possible are woven and mature thanks to already established practices.
For this reason, in order to start talking about Juventud Sin Futuro we need to go
back to the anti-Bolonia movement and even to the V for Vivienda movement (H
for Housing movement).17 (Raboso & Merino, 2011)
Other important precursor movements include the Movement for the Right to Housing
which began in 2003 and encompasses collectives such as V de Vivienda and the PAH.
Initially a platform that encompassed unions and political parties, by 2006 it was
mobilizing under the autonomous slogan of no acronyms, no flags in reference to the
desire to have no parties or unions advertising at their protests (Haro Barba & Sampedro,
2011). Also crucial were the cyberactivist campaigns against the legal reform of Internet
freedom (Ley Sinde) which became Nolesvotes (a call to boycott political parties who
Debunking spontaneity 157
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
supported the Ley Sinde), and later evolved further to boycott all parties involved in
corruption cases. These mobilizations combined three important elements of 15-M: high
youth involvement, the use of Internet activism to support street mobilizations and the
increasing focus on political corruption as a central mobilizing theme.
Transnational influences, such as Arab Spring and particularly the occupation of Tahrir
Square in Egypt, the Saucepan Revolution in Iceland, the anti-austerity protests in Greece
and the mass student protests in Europe against austerity cuts to education were also
important.
Conclusion
It is not possible to adequately analyse social movement dynamics and development
without considering the culture and history of the movements and how they are shaped by
local and national contexts. The maintenance of collective identity and movement culture
(including deliberative practices, master frames, slogans and repertoires of action) through
movement networks in periods of relative latency or in periods of abeyance is still a
relatively understudied aspect of mobilization that is crucial to explaining the continuity
and evolution of movement culture (or conversely its rupture) from one cycle of
contention to the next. My discussion highlights the need for historically grounded
analyses that pay close attention to movement cultures in understanding contemporary
anti-austerity mobilizations. Adopting such an approach might help explain variations in
the strength of anti-austerity mobilizations across different national contexts in addition to
the more commonly analysed shorter-term organizational, structural and political-
economic factors.
My analysis builds on previous work on abeyance and continuity, but the focus on
autonomous movements highlights some key differences from Taylors (1989) seminal
discussion of continuity in the US womens movement, in which she focused on the
institutionalized wing of the movement (i.e. organizations with personnel and
centralized organizational structures). Taylor depicts a holding process whereby
movements sustain themselves in non-receptive political climates between intense
periods of mobilization. In her case study, during periods of abeyance, committed activists
became increasingly marginalized and socially isolated. This was not the case in these
autonomous movements. Instead, activists continued to be actively integrated into groups
and assemblies, engaging in protest and activism within the submerged networks and
laboratories around diverse issues, albeit with less intensity. As such, these movements
were not in abeyance so much as less visible and less active. Activism is integrated into the
day to day lives of those involved in movement subcultures, fuelling collective identity
processes. This suggests that continuity processes in pre-figurative, lifestyle or sub-
cultural movements such as autonomous movements may be quite different to those in
more institutionalized movements.
I am also building on earlier work by Taylor (1989) and Polletta (1998) that question
immaculate conception origin myths and spontaneity arguments to explain the
emergence of mass mobilization. As I have shown, the 15-M movement is not a
spontaneous collective response to precipitating events (Arab Spring, European anti-
austerity and student protests); or even the intermediate causes such as the global financial
crisis (which after all started in 2008 and did not trigger a highly visible mass response in
Spain until 2011) or the persistent failure of the labour unions to effectively stand up to the
158 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
government during the social pact agreements, although both types of cause are crucial in
understanding the timing and strength of the mobilizations. Neither the precipitating nor
the intermediate causes on their own would have led to sustained mobilizations
especially based on consensual asamblearia practice and public occupations had it not
been for the long march of autonomous social movements over the past 30 years in Spain,
inspired, influenced and often legitimated by outside events and movements to be sure, but
forged on the local and national terrain.
To say 15-M was not spontaneous is not to say it was expected. No one could predict the
resonance and intensity of the mobilizations. To say 15-M was not spontaneous is also not
to say that many people who were previously not politically active did not join the
mobilizations once they were underway. The presence of large numbers of new people,
however, is not an argument against continuity or for newness. A notable feature of any
new intense protest cycle is the mobilization of new participants. The public occupation of
Madrids central plaza undoubtedly transformed and galvanized citizen grievances in a
profound way. The wide spread coloured marea (or tide) movements from all sectors of
society show how encompassing anti-austerity protest is in Spain today. I am also not
arguing that 15-M was the inevitable outcome of autonomous practice. Clearly structural
conditions are important, as are trigger events, and external influences and inspirations.
Arguing against spontaneity and newness narratives in scholarship is not at odds with
recognizing the benefits these narratives can have for movements. Polletta (1998) has
argued that spontaneity narratives serve important strategic purposes even when not
consciously deployed. Clearly, the spontaneity narrative serves important purposes for 15-
M too. It helps advance another related 15-M movement narrative, that of the movement
of ordinary citizens as opposed to activists. Spontaneity also serves as an autonomous
identity marker that distinguishes assembly style deliberative practices from more
centrally organized collective action, in a way similar to how the US students Polletta
(1998) describes distinguished their activism from bureaucratically planned politics.
The deliberate obscuring of agency through ambiguous narratives that Polletta (1998)
describes can also be seen as important in the Spanish context, where deep-seated right
left cleavages and distrust of activists appearing to belong to the other side prevent the
inclusion of participants in citizen mobilizations. As in Pollettas case, these narratives are
not just produced for outside audiences but form part of the stories participants tell
themselves and each other. They are also pre-figurative in the sense that they represent
what activists would like to see, and in part they are true in the sense that when hundreds of
thousands of people take to the streets, the mobilization clearly encompasses many
ordinary citizens. Autonomous movements deliberate refusal of acronyms and flags
responds to an ideological positioning but also a strategic one that seeks greater inclusivity
and participation, a posture that is widespread in 15-M. Obscuring agency, however, can
be a double-edged sword in Spain, where people often want to know who is behind a
project before joining it.
Spontaneity (and newness) narratives also make newcomers feel the movement belongs
to them and allow new participants to develop their own origin myths and distinguish
themselves from the past (e.g. generations; mobilizations; out-dated, corrupt and
illegitimate political formations).
Finally, although I have stressed the problems of myopia of the visible and myopia of
the present (Melucci, 1994), I am not arguing that there is nothing new about these
recent mobilizations, nor that new features are not worthy of further exploration. As has
Debunking spontaneity 159
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
been mentioned earlier, there has been a significant shift towards an emphasis on the
reform of the democratic institutions and structures themselves, a deep questioning of the
structures put in place during the transition to democracy, and a sustained attack on the
corruption of the political classes, which signal not only a significant development within
Spanish social movements but also points to a strong line of connection with waves of
contention elsewhere in Europe, the Americas and North Africa (Flesher Fominaya,
2014b). The scope and intensity of the engagement with citizens in public arenas is also
unprecedented and the use of ICTs has also evolved. As Melucci (1994) argued, the new
social significance of the movements should be recognized and explored. To claim
newness for the autonomous features of the Spanish 15-M movement, however, is to
overlook one of the central structuring cleavages of the European social movement
landscape and the history and evolution of social movements in Spain. Our search for the
new, important as it is, should not come at the expense of erasing the history and agency
of the social movements and activists that have come before and paved the way for the
current contentious response to the global crisis, its architects and beneficiaries.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the editor and anonymous reviewers of the journal for their constructive feedback.
Funding
Part of this research was funded by the German Marshall Foundation, The John L. Simpson Foundation and the
European Union Marie Sklodowska Curie Fellowship, for which the author is grateful.
Notes
1. Indignados is a term used by mass media and by which the movement is known outside Spain; activists refer
to themselves as 15-M, arguing both that indignant does not even begin to describe their anger, and that it
overlooks other emotional responses, such as hope and solidarity. I therefore use Indignados initially as a
descriptor before reverting to 15-M.
2. Other characterizations of this cleavage in the political science literature have used the terms left-libertarian
versus left-authoritarian.
3. This disillusionment was widespread in European autonomous movements, leading to the creation of
alternative autonomous parrallel ESFs, again illustrating the autonomous/institutional left cleavage in the
European social movement landscape.
4. The focus of her argument rests on the strong similarities between the practices she witnessed in Barcelona
and those she experienced elsewhere. However, the peculiarities of local practices are downplayed although
they emerge in the narrative the particular emphasis on the need for consensus for example which has
long been a feature of movement culture but much less salient in Madrid than in some other contexts.
5. Movimiento de Resistencia Global or Movement of Global Resistance.
6. But is typical of activist narratives in the Spanish context which are often marked by a sense of inferiority
with respect to other contexts, stemming from the fact that Spain missed many of the social movement
experiences of the 1960s and 1970s due to the dictatorship. It is true that this hampered the absorption of
deliberative practices that flourished elsewhere during this period, but only strengthens the importance of
local and national deliberative traditions in the Spanish context in the post-transition period.
7. Assembly practices can be traced farther back, to anarchist practices before Franco, for example although
continuity is harder to prove.
8. A 2001 book on methods of asamblearismo practice states that the turno de palabra can be modified to
favour those who either have not spoken or have not intervened in a long time, and to allow people to respond
if they have been alluded to (Lorenzo Vila & Martinez Lopez, 2001, p. 57). Despite the availability of the
book at social movement events, its recommendations were not widely adopted at the time.
9. 2021 December 2003 Ciudad Real (La Mancha).
160 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
10. Autonomous assemblies are in principle open to all, but as individuals, not as members or representatives of
parties or unions.
11. Interview with Txema in Madrid 2002.
12. The two first points of the manifesto produced by the (15-M/DRY) general assembly in the Puerta del Sol on
20 May 2011 were a change in the Electoral Law to open lists and a one person one vote system, and that the
fundamental rights stipulated in the Spanish Constitution be upheld: the right to a decent home, to universal
and free healthcare, to free circulation of people, and to a public and non-religious education. Acampada Sol
(2011b).
13. See 15-Mpedia http://wiki.15m.cc/wiki/Lista_de_pol%C3%ADticos_imputados for those charged; see
http://wiki.15m.cc/wiki/Lista_de_pol%C3%ADticos_condenados for those found guilty. 15-Mpedia is an
activist-run project with excellent sources.
14. Citizen network for the abolition of foreign debt.
15. The idea of a consulta with questions generated from the grassroots is also the basis of a recent 15-M project
called the autoconsulta: http://autoconsulta.org/mutaciones.php.
16. Indeed the chants of the 15-M crowd with their hands in the air of These are our weapons (Estas son
nuestras armas) is a common one at mass protests in Spain, signifying non-violence.
17. Translation from Spanish by author.
References
Acampada Sol. (2011a, May 31). Gua rapida para la dinamizacion de asambleas populares [Quick Guide for the
facilitation of popular assemblies]. Retrieved from http://madrid.tomalaplaza.net/2011/05/31/guia-rapida-
para-la-dinamizacion-de-asambleas-populares/
Acampada Sol. (2011b). Propuestas aprobadas en la Asamblea de hoy da 20 de mayo de 2011 en ACAMPADA
SOL [Proposals accepted in todays assembly of 20th of May, 2011 in Acampadasol]. Retrieved from http://
madrid.tomalaplaza.net/2011/05/20/propuestas-20-mayo/
Acta Reunion Estatal 15M del 23 de marzo de 2014, Asamblea General Sol [Minutes of 15M StaewideMeeting of
23 March, 2014]. Retrieved from: http://madrid.tomalaplaza.net/2014/03/31/acta-del-encuentro-estatal-
15m-del-23-de-marzo-de-2014/
Asamblea Antimilitarista de Madrid. (2014). Insumision: 25 anos desobedeciendo [Conscientious Objection: 25
years of disobedience]. madrid15m, 23.
Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2012). No parties, no banners. Boston Review. Retrieved from http://www.
bostonreview.net/BR37.1/gianpaolo_baiocchi_ernesto_ganuza_spain_indignados_democracy.php
Blakeley, G. (2006). Its politics, stupid! The Spanish general election of 2004. Parliamentary Affairs, 59,
331349.
Botella Ordinas, E. (2011). La democracia directa de la Puerta del Sol [The direct democracy of the Puerta del
Sol]. La vie des idees.fr, 24 May.
Casanova, G. (1999). Armarse Sobre las Ruinas: Historia del Movimiento Autonomo en Madrid [History of the
autonomous movement in Madrid]. Madrid: Potencial Hardcore.
Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Dalakoglou, D. (2012). Beyond spontaneity. City, 16, 535545.
Della Porta, D. (2007). The global justice movement: Cross-national and transnational perspectives. Boulder and
London: Paradigm.
Doerr, N. (2009). Language and democracy in movement: Multilingualism and the case of the European Social
Forum process. Social Movement Studies, 8, 149165.
DRY. (2011). Manifiesto. Democracia Real Ya. Retrieved from http://www.democraciarealya.es/manifiesto-
comun/manifesto-english/
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2005). The logic of autonomy: Principles, praxis and challenges of autonomous anti-
capitalist movement (PhD dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2007a). Autonomous movement and the institutional left: Two approaches in tension in
Madrids anti-globalization network. South European Society & Politics, 12, 335358.
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2007b). The role of humour in the process of collective identity formation in autonomous
social movement groups in contemporary Madrid. Humour and Social Protest, International Review of
Social History, 52, 243258.
Debunking spontaneity 161
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2010). Creating cohesion from diversity: The challenge of collective identity formation in
the global justice movement. Sociological Inquiry, 80, 377404. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.
2010.00339.x
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2011). The Madrid bombings and popular protest: misinformation, counterinformation,
mobilisation and elections after 11-M. Contemporary Social Science, 6, 119.
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2014a). Movement culture as habit(us): Resistance to change in the routinized practices of
resistance. In B. Baumgarten, P. Daphi, & P. Ullrich (Eds.), Conceptualizing culture in social movement
research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2014b). Social movements and globalization: How protests, occupations and uprisings are
changing the world. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2014c). Spain is different: Podemos and 15-M.Open Democracy, May 29, 2014. Retrieved
from http://opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/cristina-flesher-fominaya/%E2%80%9Cspain-is-
different%E2%80%9D-podemos-and-15m#_ftn6
Flesher Fominaya, C. (2014d). Spains marches of dignity, 22M, 2014: Not anti-politics. Open Democracy,
March 25. Retrieved from http://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/cristina-flesher-fominaya/
spain%E2%80%99s-marches-of-dignity-22m-2014-not-antipolitics
Flesher Fominaya, C. (forthcoming). Autonomous social movements and the paradox of anti-identitarian
collective identity. In J. Jasper & A. McGarry (Eds.), The identity dilemma. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Flesher Fominaya, C., & Montanes Jimenez, A. (2014). Transnational diffusion across time: The adoption of the
Argentinian Dirty War escrache in the context of Spains housing crisis. In Donatella DellaPorta & Alice
Mattoni (Eds.), Spreading protest (pp. 1942). Colchester: ECPR Press.
Frances, J. (1996, December 14). La acamapada en Madrid del 0,7% se duplica en tan solo seis das. El Pas.
Retrieved from http://elpais.com/diario/1996/12/14/sociedad/850518004_850215.html
Goodwin, J. (2011). Why we were surprised (again) by the Arab Spring. Swiss Political Science Review, 17,
452456.
Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (1999). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process
theory. Sociological Forum, 14, 2754.
Haro Barba, C., & Sampedro, V. (2011, August). The new social movements in Spain: The protests for the right to
housing as an immediate predecessor of the 15-M movement. Paper presented at the 6th ECPR General
Conference, Reykjavik.
Holloway, J. (2002). Changing the world without taking power. London: Pluto Press.
JSF. (2011). Manifiesto. Juventud Sin Futuro. Retrieved from http://www.juventudsinfuturo.net/2011/03/prueba-
2.html
JSF. (2012). Nota aclaratoria. Juventud Sin Futuro. Retrieved from http://juventudsinfuturo.net/nota-aclaratoria-
de-juventud-sin-futuro-sobre-declaraciones-posteriores-a-la-x-asamblea-federal-de-izquierda-unida
Juris, J. S. (2008). Networking futures: The movements against corporate globalization. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Katsiaficas, G. (2006 [1997]). The subversion of politics. Oakland, CA: AK Press Distribution.
Lorenzo Vila, A., & Martinez Lopez, M. (2001). Asambleas y reuniones: metodologas de autoorganizacion
[Assemblies and meetings: Methods for self-organization]. Madrid: Editorial Traficantes de Suenos.
Lucha Autonoma. (1998). Una vision de la Coordinadora de Colectivos (19901997) [A view from the
coordinator of collectives]. Madrid: Editorial Traficantes de Suenos.
Maecklebergh, M. (2012). Horizontal democracy now: From alterglobalization to occupation. Interface, 4,
207234.
Martnez, M., & Garca, A. (2011). Ocupar las plazas, liberar los edificios [Occupy the plazas, liberate the
buildings]. Retrieved from http://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/articulo_ACME_8000_v1_doc.
pdf
Martnez, M., & Garca, A. (Eds.). (2014).Okupa Madrid (19852011) Memoria, reflexion, debate y autogestion
colectiva del conocimiento [Occupy Madrid (19852011) Memory, reflexion, debate and self-organization
of knowledge]. Madrid: Seminario de Historia Poltica y Social de las Okupaciones en Madrid-Metropolis.
Retrieved from http://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/?Okupa-Madrid-1985-2011-Memoria
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 19301970. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
162 C. Flesher Fominaya
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
nivers
ity of
Brig
hton]
at 16
:08 04
June
2015
-
Melucci, A. (1994). A strange kind of newness: Whats new in new social movements? In Enrique Larana, Hank
Johnston, & Joseph R. Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity (pp. 103130).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Moran, A. (Director), (2012). La Plaza, La gestacion del movimiento 15-M. Madrid: La Informacion.
Nez, H. (2012). Entre los militantes y los laboratorios deliberativos: el 15-M [Among Militants and Deliberative
Laboratories: The Indignados]. In B. Tejerina & I. Perugorria (Eds.), From social to political (pp. 123140).
Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.
O Beachain, D., & Polese, A. (2010). Rocking the vote: New forms of youth organisations in Eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union. Journal of Youth Studies, 13, 615630.
Plataforma07ymas. (undated). Historia acampada 1994, video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
vQrjzBG02R14Polletta, F. (1998). It was like a fever . . . narrative and identity in social protest. Social Problems, 45, 137159.
Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Raboso, A., & Merino, A. (2011). Y nosotros que? [What about us?] In Juventud Sin Futuro (pp. 2228).
Barcelona: Icaria.
Romanos, E. (2011). El 15-M y la democracia de los movimientos sociales [15-M and democracy in social
movements]. La vie des idees.fr, 24 May.
Romanos, E. (2013). Collective learning processes within social movements: Some insights into the Spanish
15M/Indignados movement. In C. Flesher Fominaya & L. Cox (Eds.), Understanding European move