Download Marginalization - Dufour

Chapter Seven
Marginalization and Transnationalizing Movements:
How Does One Relate to the Other?
Pascale Dufour
From June 25th to 27th, 2010, the “Mouvement des Sans Voix” (MSV) (literally,
the movement of people without a voice) organized the third edition of the “Forum des Sans” (FSS) (the social fora of the “withouts” or of the “have-nots”) in
Bamako, Mali. At the same time, world leaders were meeting in Toronto, Canada,
for the G8/20 summit. The MSV was established in 2005 as an initiative of young
activists from Mali, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Togo, Benin, and Guinea. Its original name was Mouvement Alternative de la Jeunesse Africaine. Today, the
movement is broader and is part of the No-Vox transnational network. The MSV
defines itself as a movement of struggle and resistance in the defense of human
rights.1
The FSS is organized each year by the MSV. Its main aim is to discuss questions relating to marginalized and poor people, and to propose alternatives to neoliberal economic policies. According to its website: “The FSS is an anti-capitalist
space whose aim is to create and consolidate national and supra-national links of
struggles against capitalism, to develop and consolidate solidarities among peoples, sine qua non condition of emancipation.”2
The 2010 FSS was also a step towards the preparation of the World Social Forum (WSF) that took place in Dakar, Senegal, in February 2011. Without doubt,
the MSV is very critical of the WSF process, and especially of some European organizations, and the MSV wished to make the world gathering in Dakar a “moment of resistance of African peoples.”3 The FSS could be described as a transnational event where marginalized people from diverse parts of the world gather to
defend fundamental human rights, promote new rights, discuss and exchange practices and analyses about the struggles against all forms of discrimination and domination. One of the particular targets of the FSS is to promote and ensure participation of the “have-nots” (les sans) in international gatherings such as the WSF. This
event is very interesting from the point of view of the transnationalization of collective action, for at least three main reasons:
1 No Vox, Mouvement des Sans Voix, http://afrikka.no-vox.org/spip.php?rubrique11.
2 Primitivi, Mali: Forum des "sans" du 25 au 27 juin 2010 (author’s translation). See
http://www.primitivi.org/spip.php?article356.
3 Mouvement des sans Voix, Le FSM 2011 ou la grande exhibition des réseaux,
http://www.mouvementdessansvoix.com/spip.php?article49.
2



Transnationalization is, in this case, different from internationalization
because it does not depend on international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, but it is
rather linked to the emergence and spread of another global social event:
the WSF;
This transnationalizing movement is driven by some of the world’s most
marginalized/ underprivileged actors. These activists are quite different
from the “rooted cosmopolitan” archetype described by Tarrow (2005):
white young men, multilingual, graduate students or professional workers. On the contrary, activists from the FSS are part of the “semiinvisible” described by Escobar (2008). They belong to countries (in Africa), that are not generally seen as being at the forefront of modern western history or even of social struggles, and they also represent underprivileged people in terms of the world-class struggles, as well as in terms of
the world-racial struggles. Of course, it does not mean that these people
are not educated or multilingual, but they are, unquestionably, coming
from the South, and are mostly young and black. These are not the usual
characteristics of activists that we find in transnational social movements’ literature.
The FSS is an ongoing transnationalization process; it is not just a big
onetime event, with demonstrations or some other direct actions, but rather a process that began in 2005, and that is still alive today, testifying to
its continuity.
Thus, starting from this empirical example, we would like to address a more
theoretical concern in this chapter: how are the transnationalization and the marginalization processes related? As stressed in the introductory chapter of the book,
we use the term marginalized people to refer to people’s weak volume of political
resources and subsequently, to their dominated position in a certain domain of
power relations (Mouchard, 2010). From the literature on transnational social
movements in general, we know that such processes are extremely costly, difficult
to sustain and largely ineffective in terms of direct outputs emanating from the
struggles (Bandy and Smith, 2005; McCarthy, 1997: 245). The literature on the
transnationalization of marginalized people’s movements also discusses the fragility of the mobilizations of marginalized collective actors on the global scale (Giraud et al., 2005; Dufour, 2010). In particular, the question of alliances with other
social actors appears very problematic (Hmed, 2007). In this context, questions
arise regarding how (and why) powerless people initiate processes of transnationalization? How and why they participate in processes of transnationalization and,
furthermore, why they continue to do so? Even if they are critics of the overall
process, as we have mentioned is the case of the MSV for the World Social Forum, why do they choose to invest energy in these kinds of networks and events?
The main theoretical argument of the chapter is that in order to understand
more accurately how marginalized people’s movements and transnationalization
processes are embedded, we need to open our understanding of transnationalization processes to see what the actors do when they build transnationalizing move-
3
ments. In order to analyze experiences such as the FSS, we propose first to consider transnationalization as a social practice of solidarities building, and second,
as practices of “translation”.
In the first part of the chapter, we briefly go back to the sparse literature that
has examined both social movements’ transnationalization and marginalized people, to see what kind of explanations they have developed. In the second part, we
suggest that, to reach a more comprehensive view of the phenomenon, we should
also take into account two elements that have been neglected: the question of
transnationalization as a solidarities-building process led by a search for recognition beyond borders, what De Sousa Santos (2005) called the work of “translation”.
Studying transnational social movements from marginalized people’s point of
view
Donatella della Porta and Sidney Tarrow (2005: 7) refer to transnational collective
action as “the coordinated international campaigns on the part of networks of
activists against international actors, other states, or international institutions”.
This generally accepted definition has two implications. First it implies that the
transnational aspect of collective action is defined by the presence of activists or
groups belonging to more than one nation-state (the focus is therefore on the
“international” or the “multinational” character of the coalitions). Second, the
implication is that the target of the actions is also “international” or
“multinational” and that it must possess institutional features (governmental or
non-governmental).
As we have shown elsewhere (Dufour, 2010), the works that cross-over the
question of marginalized collective actors and the question of transnational social
movements can be divided into two parts. For one part of the study,
transnationalization of marginalized collective actors could be analyzed with the
same tools and theories developped for other social movements. For example,
several European studies show how movements use changes in European
institutions and dynamics to create new places of protest, at the European level,
for their national groups or coalitions. The case of the immigration issue is a good
illustation of this process (see Geedes, 2000; Danese, 1998; Monforte, 2010). In
most of these studies, transnationalization is seen as a scale shift: movements
invest in another institutional level, which is transnational in the case of the
European Union (or international if the analysis concerns the way movements
invest in the United Nations). In particular, these studies have employed the classic boomerang effect and spiral model (Sikking, 2005: 171) to explain the collective action of the unemployed in France vis-à-vis European institutions and the organization of activists from various European countries into networks. The
boomerang effect and spiral model describe a series of actions that occur when activists – who are operating within a domestic opportunity structure that is generally closed, owing to repression or exclusion from the national system of representa-
4
tion – search for international allies from more open international political opportunity structures in order to exert a pressure on their national government “from
above”. The mobilizations of the unemployed in the late 1990s and the emergence
of the European marches against unemployment follow this logic, at least in part
(Chabanet, 2002). Chabanet (2002) has demonstrated how the mobilizations
against unemployment that targeted the European Union (EU) were archetypical
of the externalization process described by Imig and Tarrow (2001); the EU offered an additional level of opportunity, a sounding box, compelling national
States to respond to demands made at the European level.
In these studies, transnationalization of marginalized people movements is a
question of collective actors’ instrumental interests: transnationalization is seen by
activists (and mostly leaders of movements) as a tool, a strategy, efficient to reach
some external (usually national) gains, valid for the group itself. In that sense, the
finality of transnationalization is outside the process of transnationalizing itself.
Some groups decide to “go transnational” as they could decide to build upon or to
deepen some local alliances. The answer as to how they do that is related to
specific sociological mechanisms and political dymanics, as is the case for other
social movements strategies.
The other part of the works done on the issue, focus more on the effect that
these new, and transnational, spaces of protest have on marginalized collective actors. For example, in the case of the so-called alter-globalist movement: 4
By joining the new anti-globalisation movement, these organisations sought to
assert their legitimacy to represent the victims of neoliberal globalisation in France
(…). For organisations defending marginalized people who struggled to be heard
within traditional social mobilisations, the concept of anti-globalizations allowed
them to take part in a potentially large-scale movement. (Desbos, 2010: 230)
In this context, marginalization and transnationalization are mainly related by
the spread of a Gobal Social Justice movement. Struggles against neo-liberal
capitalism have offered a radical critique of neo-liberal political actions, and thus,
have suggested a common frame for all collective marginalized actors. For
example, in the case of Droit au logement (DAL), one of the main networks
defending the right to housing for all in France, the links with the alterglobalization movement are presented as being there from the beginning of the
Justice Movement from the end of the 1990s. “The emergence of DAL is
characteristic of a new type of engagement, independent from traditional political
parties. DAL developped a solidarity network with other organisations involved in
the defence of the ‘sans’” (Desbos, 2010: 221). This enlargement is directly
linked, by the author, to the building of the so-called “alter-globalist” discourse.
DAL was a founding partner of ATTAC,5 one of the main alter-globalization
4 The term “alter” is a French expression that has come to replace “anti” with respect to the
globalization processes. It implies that activists are not against globalization as such but rather that they wish to promote another, non-capitalist, vision of the world.
5 Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Aid to Citizens.
5
organizations in France, and as such, it was directly concerned with the question
of transnationalization from the beginning, even if the relationships between the
two networks are not always easy. In that view, the dynamism of marginalized
people’s movements in the 1990s and 2000s is embedded in the emergence of the
Global Justice Movement and the love-hate relationship that marginalized
people’s movements developped with it. The multiple tensions that exist between
the two are seen as a concrete source of development.
Here, the answer as to why marginalized people’s movements participate in
transnational social movements is more a question of contingency and contextual
history; how transnationalization occurs explains why it happens.
Transnationalization could be chosen as a strategy by leaders’ movements, but this
strategy exists (or could be chosen at the time considered) because of historical
contingencies and not only because of actors’ interests. In this chapter, we propose
another kind of answer, complementary to the two that have already been
proposed in the literature. Instead of searching for interests (what are marginalized
collective actors’ interests in transnationalization strategy?), we explore
transnationalization as a social practice. How do marginalized collective actors
become transnationalized? What is the “daily activist work” that is required for
transnationalization to occur and to continue? In the following section, we propose
a theoretical answer, one that could lead empirical research on transnational
movements and networks of marginalized people.
Transnationalization and social forums for marginalized people: A process of
solidarities building and a work of translation
As reported by Dufour et al. (2010), Dennis Young identified as early as 1992
major obstacles to the building of cross-border coalitions: political, cultural, and
linguistic diversity, which jeopardizes the very notion of coalition as it makes
agreeing on common interests arduous; the physical distance separating activists,
who then require significant resources in terms of travel; economic barriers to the
movement of people, goods, and information that restrict opportunities to form
coalitions; and the specificities of local political contexts that determine, in part,
the opportunities for local groups to act at a global level.
In the case we are exploring, – marginalized people’s movements –, we could
add to this list all the barriers and obstacles usually mentionned in the literature
(lack of non-material resources such as know-how, lack of social integration, etc.).
It is improbable that the constrains that exist for these movements locally or
nationally vanish at the global scale. On the contrary, we could expect these
constrains to play a major role in the transnationalizing process. If we pursue our
line of enquiry, when a transnational movement continues through time, it means
that marginalized people have succeeded in dealing with all these obstacles
(several kinds of diversity, physical distance, economic barriers and local political
contexts). In the following pages, we argue that these elements are not only
obstacles, but also tools upon which transnational social movements could be
built. We focus on two of them: solidarities and diversities.
6
Building and deepening solidarities
According to the open letter the MSV published in November 2010, the WSF in
Dakar (February 2011) was to be an important step in the struggle against the
capitalist system. MSV members went to Dakar because they wanted to turn the
event:
into a moment of resistance and permanent struggle of peoples from Africa, until
the victory of the human being over capital. We go there to discuss together the
long-term struggles, strategies and alternative perspectives to globalization.
Brothers and sisters “without voices” from Africa and elsewhere, you count more
than a vast army of women and men imported to Dakar by the power of networks.
We should not forget the ferocity of anti-capitalist activists for a worthy and
prosperous Africa. (author’s translation)6
As Teune (2010: 3) indicated, transnational exchange is not a natural thing.
Social movements’ transnationalizing is always the result of a convergence,
beyond national borders, of actors’ differing interests and identities. If some basic
sense of shared meaning is necessary to initiate transnationlization, 7 or at least a
basic sense of collectivity, the work of convergence implies continuous exchanges
among activists, discussions, negotiations and mutual learnings. Convergence
building is thus a process in which not only solidarities among activists are created
and traveled but also deepened (Devin, 2004).
In other words, “the building of solidarities by actors involved in
transnationalization processes goes hand in hand with the decisions made,
strategies formulated, and specific mechanisms established within their respective
organizations, movements or networks” (Dufour et al., 2010: 4). Activists build
stronger ties amongst themselves in the course of their mobilizations and actions.
More or less conflictual, this process promotes shared understandings of problems
and analyses, and sometimes even solutions. For example, building solidarities in
the context of an alter-globalization movement translates for activists into a deepening of their shared understanding of injustice at specific moments (mass demonstrations and social fora). As Agrikoliansky, Fillieule and Meyer underlined
(2005: 40), “protest events are privileged moments when injustice frames are
drawn that structure the critique of globalization” (author’s translation). In this
sense, social fora offer a very specific context for transnational solidarities build6
Mouvement des sans Voix, Le FSM 2011 ou la grande exhibition des réseaux,
http://www.mouvementdessansvoix.com/spip.php?article49.
7 As Storm and Häse argue in their chapters in this book, the typical Western notion of collective action quite generally implies that the establishment of movement starts with (unproblematic individual) shared intentions. The Chinese notion of guanxi means that the decision to engage in connections with others (in a group or a movement), could also be the
result of collective concerns that exist before the formation of the group (because of common past trajectories, rituality or fixed roles).
7
ing: during two or three days, activists gather in one place and participate in workshops, conferences, discussions, debates, thoughts, exchanges, etc. Social fora are
“spaces that produce solidarities” (Mésini, 2009: 196) in the very nature of what
they are.
Building and deepening solidarities among networks’ activists means also that
people will transform their perception of commonality between themselves. This
is not only a question of frame connections or of necessity to find an umbrella sufficiently loose and encompassing to connect the multitude of struggles – such as
the master frame for the Global Justice Movement: anti-neo-liberalism (della Porta
et al., 2006; Jossin, 2010) – it is also a question of transnational collective identity. How could it work?
The work of translation
As Teune (2010) stresses, social movement theorists should evade a “paternalist
conception of commonality” and look carefully at a “frame alignment process”
(Snow et al., 1986) that occurred in transnational coalitions. Building commonality is not only a question of language (finding the words that will suit all participants), but also experiences and cognitive concepts. It is far too short to explain alignment of frames with instrumental strategies to reach certain (often seen
as non-problematic) goals on the basis of a common rationality (Smith, 2002).
More and more, research explores dimensions linked with the “cross-national traffic of ideas and practices”, using concepts such as diffusion, translation, reception,
learning (Roggeband, 2007: 247). As we have seen, in the case of transnationalizing solidarities, the requirement is very high: not only do ideas and practices need
to travel “well”, but some commonality has to be built and deepened through time
(Mohanty, 2003).
In the case of social fora experiences, de Sousa Santos has identified the work
of “translation” as one of the main concrete practices that sustained the process as
well as one of the main challenges to face in the near future. For de Sousa Santos:
Translation is the procedure that allows for mutual intelligibility among the experiences of the world, both available and possible, as revealed by the sociology of absences and the sociology of emergences, without jeopardizing their identity and autonomy, and without, in other words, reducing them to homogeneous entities. (De
Sousa Santos, 2005: 16)
In a context of multi-national belongings, some concrete questions are asked in
relation to: multi-languages situations, cultural misunderstandings, diversity of social struggles practices and objectives, diverging priorities, multiplicity of local
constrains. For a network to manage and overcome these difficulties, translation is
necessary:
The work of translation is a work of epistemological and democratic imagination,
aiming to construct new and plural conceptions of social emancipation upon the ruins of the automatic social emancipation of the modernist project. (De Sousa Santos,
2005: 21)
8
In this specific process, “diversity is celebrated, not as a factor of fragmentation
and isolationism, but rather as a condition of sharing and solidarity” (De Sousa
Santos, 2005: 17). We propose, as a working hypothesis, that in the case of the
FSS, translation, as a social practice, is at work. The FSS creates a specific moment and place where such a practice is possible. We can also go further and say
that if the FSS continues through times, it is at least partially because this work of
translation is done.
The cultural translation we are speaking of involves several steps (these steps
are not linear, they overlap, but for the clarity of discussion we present them successively). The first step is the communication and expression of activists’ voices.
Here, the problem of languages is central as Doerr (2009) has shown. Who is able
to speak, how and when? What are the consequences of direct translation by nonprofessionals on the deliberative process? Is the moment of communication inclusive or not? The second step relates to exchanges, discussions, sharing and mutual
understanding. In the case of marginalized people, it could be the time when they
realize their common position of domination in their respective societies, but also
their fragile position in the Global Justice Movement. The third step implies a process of re-appropriation of personal and collective histories and recognition of the
personal and collective histories of others. As de Sousa Santos underlines (as well
as Barthes, 1970; and Sandoval, 2000), this step is crucial: the work of translation
would not be fair and complete if recognition of the histories of others (as singular
as well as collective histories) is not there. Without recognition, there is no cultural translation, only a colonial process. To belong to a movement (marginalized or
not) means that activists are seen by others as sharing some elements of a collective identity.
For example, to belong to women’s movements means to be recognized as a
woman by other members of the movements and by public opinion. It is also a
way to be able to give some content to what it is to be a woman, which is a way to
re-affirm a women’s own identity. In that sense, being part of a movement is a
double process in terms of recognition: a way to make his or her own individuality
recognized by others (in the networks, groups and at large), and a way to create
something collective on the very content of this individuality.
In the case of marginalized people participating in social fora, this question of
recognition is crucial. If they are not recognized by other social movements they
will not exist in the social forum space as marginalized people and the problem
they carry with them, their claims, will not be heard and not even expressed. So,
one of the first aims they put forward when they participate in social fora, is to be
there to be recognized as a “legitimate collective actor” that can best express the
social suffering of part of the world population.8 Recognition, in this perspective,
is the process by which “epistemic injustice” is repaired: “the injustice of having
some significant area of one’s social experience obscured from collective understanding owing to persistent and wide-ranging hermeneutical marginalization”
(Fricker, 2006: PAGE). As Lazzeri suggests, a fight for recognition is thus a way
8
No Vox, http://www.no-vox.org/
9
to overcome the material conditions as the symbolic depreciation an individual or
a group leave with (Lazzeri, 2009: 344). In the FSS, activists accept that they are
at the margins of their own society. The fact to be together, as part of the FSS (and
the MSV) is a way to recognize others as peers and to be recognized by others as
such.
The results of a successful work of translation are thus mutual learning, the empowerment of the people involved and the emancipation of the (collective and individual) subject. In the “work of translation”, collective and individual positions
of domination are put in context: if one is able to understand the dynamics of relationships others (who are peers) live in, s/he will also be able to better understand
the social mechanism (especially domination and resistance), in which s/he lives
and which defines the shared conditions of marginalized people. By naming what
activists of the FSS have in common, participants are also in a process of emancipation: they learn how to speak for themselves (rather than “speak by others” as
Bourdieu (1982) said), and they create some space of autonomy to exist by themselves in the context of the alter-globalization field of protest. At the same time,
they recognize and identify the similarities of their conditions and positions in
their respective societies, and are able to recognize and identify the multiplicity of
their situations with all their differences. A successful translation, in this perspective, would be a process in which the existence of the transnational collective is
reinforced and at the same time in which all individual, as well as groups differences, could be expressed (and recognized).
Of course, the question of recognition is not new in the literature of social
movement studies (see Poletta, 2008). However, the context of social fora is.
Therefore, is it possible to build sustained solidarities in a context of multinational
belonging? And how is it possible to go beyond national borders in the content of
the solidarities and claims that were built? As the literature has shown, transnational social movements and networks face specific difficulties and barriers that
are even more salient in the case of marginalized collective actors. The concrete
gains they can make in transnationalizing, independently of the success or the
failure of the movement as a whole, are directly linked with this work of translation.
Conclusion
If we go back to the beginning of the chapter, we have some hypothetical answers
to the three intriguing dimensions we highlighted in our case study. Of course,
these hypotheses will need empirical validation, which was not the aim of the
chapter. We first underlined the fact that the FSS is not a “classical” case of transnationalization. The process that creates the network is not a shift of scale of actions where activists “go international”. We suggest that it could be a building solidarities process, among peer activists from Africa and other part of the world.
The proclaimed finality of the network, – to fight the neo-liberal agenda –, is
probably not the whole story. Building solidarities beyond borders allows marginalized collective actors to exist at the global scale, as a social movement among
10
other recognized and legitimate social movements. In other words, it could be strategically important for them simply to continue “to be there”.
Secondly, “classic” rooted cosmopolitans do not drive this global network; activists are mainly part of the “semi-invisible” class of the world. This characteristic is probably particularly crucial for the question of recognition. Activists from
the FSS are at the margins of their respective societies, and also of the “world systems,” and their place inside the alter-globalization field of protest is very fragile.
If they want to exist – and to be recognized – as such, if they want to have a voice,
they probably need to pursue solidarities building processes beyond national borders.
Third, we mentioned the question of the continuity of the network. If we agree
that participation in a movement or a network such as FSS and MSV is a way to
reaffirm its belonging to a certain community or collective, we understand much
better why people, even if they lack resources, opportunities and even concrete results of their actions, continue to mobilize transnationally. They do so also to “ensure the conditions of reproduction of their circle of recognition, to ensure the continuity of their identity, so to ensure or to overcome the uncertainty that could
change this circle, make it weaker or disappear” (Lazzeri, 2009: 151, author’s
translation).
We argue that the concrete practice that allows activists to build and deepen
transnational solidarities is translation. With the “work of translation”, activists
mutually recognize and understand themselves, as the same and different at the
same time (what De Sousa Santos called mutual intelligibility). They develop the
tools that could be used for their collective and individual emancipation. The
“work of translation” is not the monopoly of marginalized people movements; it
concerns all movements and networks which develop and sustain transnational
ties. Nevertheless, because of their specific position, in their respective society,
the “output” of this work is extremely important for them. It creates the very possibility of their individual and collective existence, for themselves as well as for
the movements of others.
Bibliography
Agrikoliansky, Éric, Olivier Fillieule and Nonna Meyer. (2005).
L’altermondialisme en France. La longue histoire d’une nouvelle cause. Paris:
Flammarion.
Bandy, Joe, and Jackie Smith. (2005). Coalitions across Borders: Transnational
Protest and the Neoliberal Order. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Barthes, Roland. (1970). Mythologies, Paris: Le Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard.
Chabanet, Didier. (2002). Les marches européennes contre le chômage, la précarité et les exclusions. In B. Richard, D. Chabanet et V. Wright, dir (eds.)
L’action collective en Europe. Paris: Presses de sciences po, pp. 461–493.
Chabanet, Didier et Frédéric Royall. (2010). Mobilising against Marginalisation
in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
11
Danese, Gaia. (1998). Transnational collective action in Europe: the case of migrants in Italy and Spain, Journal of ethnic and Migration Studies, 24, 4: 715733.
De Sousa Santos. (2005).The future of the World Social Forum: The Work of
Translation, Development 48, 2: 15-22.
della Porta, Donatella, Massimillano Andretta, Lorenzo Mosca, Herbert Reiter.
(2006). Globalization from Below: Transnational Activists and Protest Networks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
della Porta, Donatella, and Sidney Tarrow, eds. (2005). Transnational Protest and
Global Activism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Desbos, Clément. (2010). Limits on the Integration of the “sans” within the antiglobalisation Movement: The Case of Droit au logement in ATTAC France
(1998 – 2008). In Chabanet, Didier and Frédéric Royall. (2010). Mobilising
against Marginalisation in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 211-234.
Devin, Guillaume, ed. (2004). Les solidarités transnationales. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Dufour, Pascale, Masson Dominique, and Caouette Dominique. (2010). Transnationalizing Women’s Movements: Solidarities beyond Borders. Vancouver:
UBC Press.
Dufour, Pascale. (2009). Globalization and the Collective Action of the Socially
Excluded in France: At the Heart of the Margins? French Politics, 7, 3-4: 316341.
Escobar, Arturo. (2008). Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes.
Duram and London: Duke University Press.
Fricker, Miranda. (2006). Powerlessness and Social interpretation. Espiteme, 96108.
Giraud, B., Garcia, G., Mouchard, D. and Yon, K. (2005). La question sociale au
Forum social. In É. Agrikoliansky and I. Sommier (eds.) Radiographie du
mouvement altermondialiste. Le second Forum social européen. Paris: La dispute, pp. 187–212.
Hmed, Choukri. (2007). Aux marges de l’altermondialisme: la représentation des
classes populaires issues de l’immigration au deuxième forum social européen.
In S. Cadiou, S. Dechezelles and A. Roger (eds.) Passer à l’action: les mobilisations émergentes. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 249–269.
Imig, D. and Tarrow, S. (2001). Mapping the Europeanisation of contention: Evidence from a quantitative data analysis. In I. Doug, et S. Tarrow (eds.) Contentious Europeans. Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 27–53.
Jossin, Ariane. (2010). How do activists Experience Transnational Protest Events?
The case of Young Global Justice Activists from Germany and France. In
Teune, Simon, ed. The transnational Condition. Protest Dynamics in an
Entangled Europe. London: Berghan Books, pp. 42-66.
Lazzeri, C. (2009). Conflits de reconnaissance et mobilisation collective, Politique
et Sociétés, vol.28, 3: 117-160.
McCarthy, John D. (1997). The Globalization of Social Movement Theory. In
Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the
12
State, ed. Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, 243-59. New
York: Syracuse University Press.
Mésini, Béatrice. (2009). Les Sans dans les forums sociaux. Luttes aux confins et
lignes de confront. Politique et Sociétés, 28, 1 : 193-228.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. (2003). Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing
Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Monforte, Pierre. (2010). Le secteur associatif face aux politiques européennes
d’immigration et d’asile. Quels acteurs pour quels modes d’européanisation?.
Politique Européenne, 31 (2) : 119-145.
Mouchard, Daniel. (2010). Les mouvements sociaux, laboratoires de la démocratie. La Vie des Idées. http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Les-mouvementssociaux.html [consulted on November 24, 2010].
Polletta, Francesca. (2008). Culture and Movements. The Annals of the American
Academy of political and Social Science, 619: 78-95.
Roggeband, Conny. (2007). Translators and Transformers: International Inspirations and exchange in Social movements. Social Movement Studies, 6,3:245259.
Sandoval, Chela. (2000). Methodology of the Oppressed, Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Smith, Jackie, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, eds. (1997). Transnational
Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State. New York:
Syracuse University Press.
Smith, Jackie. (2002). “Bridging Global Divides? Strategic Framing and Solidarity
in Transnational Social Movement Organisations”, International Sociology
17(4): 505-528.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden and Robert D. Benford. (1986). Frame Alignement Processes, Micromobilizations and Movement
Participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 4: 464-481.
Teune, Simon. (2010). The Transnational Condition: An Introduction. In Teune,
Simon, ed. The transnational Condition. Protest Dynamics in an Entangled
Europe. London: Berghan Books, pp. 1-22.
Tarrow, Sidney. (2001). Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in
International Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 1-20.
Tarrow, Sidney. (2005). The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Young, Dennis R. (1992). Organising Principles for International Advocacy
Associations. Voluntas 3 (1): 1-28.