15 thoughts on “4 – Resistance and Social Non-Movements”
Rabia Mir
This week’s reading was terrible for the cynic inside me! Reassuring for the hopeful academic who can now theorise the effect of individual agency, of pushing boundaries and of unrelenting persistence over time. Bayat managed to relate many of the Western European theorists to Middle East conditions and was yet able to break away from the problems such theories bring when applied to the Middle East (as described by Said in Orientalism).
My main struggle with the text was the undefined use of Islamism and Islamist. Both within academia and in popular media these two terms have been used to mean different things. In the beginning it seemed Bayat linked it to Salafi trends but then he also spoke more generally about urban social movements with Islamist trends or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I am still left wondering what he means by those terms. I think using any “-isms” or “–ists” preceded by name of a religion is problematic.
In his work, Bayat examines the subaltern in contexts of political repression (2). He argues that due to orientalist history, the West has largely ignored the Middle East in terms of its “strides for change” (4). He calls this agency “social nonmovements.” He explains that much of these nonmovements occur in the streets due to the lack of space in the traditional political arena (12) and the poverty and dispossession that the urban population has suffered (13). A politics emerges in the street where strangers recognize one another as sharing interests and sentiments. Social nonmovements, as defined by Bayat, are “collective actions of noncollective actors…ordinary people whose fragmented but similar activities trigger much social change…” (15). He further describes them as politics of ordinary practices (20). Many people practicing these activities could open up space to change the norms (21) and further, these social nonmovements are often a “struggle for citizenship” (26).
Similarly, Bayat describes a phenomena that he calls “quiet encroachment,” which are “direct actions of dispersed individuals” in order to acquire a necessity (35) or improve their life (48). Quiet encroachment can have the following outcomes: “redistribution of social goods” (49) and gaining autonomy (the ability to live an informal life). Their infringement tends to cost “the
state, the rich, and the general public” (80). In addition, Bayat includes a discussion of the increased role of NGOs in the Middle East in the neoliberal era (75). He also analyzes the ways in which Muslim women resist and negotiate gender discrimination through what he calls the “power of presence,” which are everyday practices (87-88). Next, he presents strategies of the youth nonmovement that “reclaim youthfulness through passive networks” (120). Lastly, Bayat discusses the battle waged on fun, coming from both religion and bourgeois rationality (capitalist work ethics) (144-146).
1) I would like to reflect on how Bayat sees quiet encroachment to be a cost to public. Do you agree? It seems to me that since quiet encroachment attempts to improve lives of the individuals participating in the practice and could lead to “passive networks,” the overall outcome would serve the public interest. Then again, I guess it depends on what public we are talking about. When we think of public, should we be thinking of groups such as immigrants, women, youth, etc. or should we think only of the elite?
2) What do you think Bayat means when he says he wants to generate an “alternative modernity”? What would that look like? I think we must first define what modernity means and then try to decipher how Bayat hopes to alter that type of modernity.
The concept of social non-movements is intriguing and even more so their ability to be more resilient
than their more active counterparts. Positing this with the apparent development of “post-Islamism”,
described by Bayat as a fusion between faith and freedom, is a little more complex. Which leads to my question: what exactly is this post-Islamism? Where does it take place and how?
Bayat also talks about “street politics” or “political street” in connection with the “encroachment of the
ordinary” and their ability to construct what he deems as social non-movements. I recall that when I
visited Pakistan for the first time 2 years ago, I saw cows and sheep being herded on streets. In light of
the current readings, that seems like the ‘occupation’ of streets by businessmen and vendors that Bayat
describes in Egypt or even the ‘peasants’ having migrated to more urban areas. In the example of the
Iranian women wearing headscarves with a few inches of hair showing, it reminds me of when in
Istanbul we saw hijabi women smoking! It was shocking and delightful at the same time because we
recognized in that moment the subversion of the act of smoking while wearing a hijab – in a sense it not
only challenged the assumed moral code that comes with wearing a hijab but also sought to resignify
what wearing the hijab could look like. In a sense also saying that she wears the hijab, the hijab does not
wear her. And whereby through these subversions, in “big numbers” as Bayat describes it, there is a
norm that is created which, as the readings point out, is harder for government to fight against simply
because it works on hegemonic discourse. That is to say, if something is normalized and naturalized, it
subjects an opposing view, even if that is of the authority, into the realm of subversion.
One can say that this week’s reading has definitely grabbed my attention for a number of reasons. This reading does not only bring to our attention the Middle East and the issues associated with it, but also provides one with a great understanding of the way change comes about in the Middle East. Once it comes to the Middle East, when one speaks about change one must understand how ordinary people have brought about change in a number of ways. Unlike other countries, as Bayat has stated, Arab countries “seem to be richer than they are developed”. In other words, despite the massive oil revenues, Arab countries tend to be low in income, productivity, literacy, and health conditions. The state of social development that Arab countries are in tends to be tied to poor political governance. What has provoked me in this thought is how poor political governance is associated with a frustration in the demands for democracy and the rule of law. It seems like such frustration prompts opposition movements using violent measures that are undemocratic and exclusive. Change has not been introduced into the region until the late 2000s. As domestic and international constituencies expressed different expectations as to how to instigate change in the region throughout the years, change has been brought about to the region in a number of ways. Before getting into that, one of the main ideas that I found interesting throughout the reading is that despite having the authoritarian polity within an authoritarian regime exhibiting great intolerance towards organized activism, people have always found a way to have their voice echoed for the purpose of change. Some of the forms that change has been instigated include durable social movements, endemic protest actions, revolutionary mobilizations and social nonmovements. The form I found most interesting is the one that doesn’t come to mind as much, social nonmovements. With the unnoticed social and yet collective practices that individuals engage in on a daily basis, I believe that significant changes are possible for regions like the Middle East itself. All in all, I believe that the forms of change that this reading explores reveal how individuals not only manage to resist collectively, but also go beyond the limitations that exist in terms of authoritarian rule by expressing agency and motivation for instigating change. Two questions that I believe are essential for discussion are the following,
1. Can we consider “post-Islamism” to be an alternative modernity that could perhaps instigate change?
2. Is there a possibility for organized activism to succeed without the existence of political opportunity?
I thought week 4 reading was vey interesting, especially regarding the explanation of social non movement and collective outcomes. It has been a fundamental puzzle for social science to explain the relation between the macro and micro level and vice versa and its connection to revolutions and popular rebellions. Here I found the author’s presentation of public spaces, marginalized/or atomised individuals and the connection to common positions and networks as extreme interesting inputs in the debate. Especially how the author are taking everyday life, struggle and the quite encroachment into account, which for gives a more realistic and convincible argument/narrative. I also found the evaluation of power interestering, trying to elicit a more distinct concept of power, so we don’t get lost in poststructuralism (not completely agreeing with his interpretation of Foucault though)
Question:
What have been the aftermath of the Arabic Spring? Are we seeing the post-Islamist refolutions that the author was predicting?(Which is a type of indigenous political reform marked by a blend of democratic ideals and religious sensibilities)
What kind of political streets do we have in the western part of the world(especially USA)? (where the urbanisation and neoliberal city is even more salient, with increasing inequality and structural racism)
Week Four readings response – Curtis Rowland
Resistance and Social Non-Movements
Bayat works hard to explode some of the tropes used to characterized the deteriorating social situation in some areas of the Middle East. His work undermines the external western bias that he also suggests is present in the internal critique of Muslim intellectuals (in reference to the creators of the Arab Human Development Report) in the region. His theory around action-oriented nonmovements (Bayat ix) of masses of ordinary people going about their daily lives in such a way that creates small slights toward the domineering forces that control their lives, without coordination, aligns with the idea that people are people everywhere and counters the erroneous comparisons assuming one (western) side of a comparison is normal or right (Bayat 5). He also suggests that this daily-life street protesting is preferable to driving protest underground where it is apt to be co opted by undemocratic process and cults of power (Bayat 11). While these actors of nonmovements start as individuals, the “empire” invariably pushes them together when a clamp down on their submissive behaviour begins (Bayat 24). Bayat suggest that the often non-partisan action of the poor (previously seen as parties not given to social change) is shown in all forms of living such as singing folk songs (Bayat 51), this seemed like a good tie-in to Antigone’s this week as well.
Question – On page 20 Bayat describes nonmovements as being made up of “…the ordinary practises of everyday life… the poor people building homes… the international migrants crossing borders to find new livelihoods; the women striving to go to college, playing sports… conducting ‘men’s work’ or choosing their own marriage partners.” Does Bayat not fall into the comparison bias (one side as normal) that he warns about earlier in his book? Are these ordinary practises he describes not extraordinary f?
‘This book is about the art of presence, a story about agency in times of constraints,’ says Bayat. It also discusses revolutions as something that can never be predicted nor planned, but rather something that just happens. I disagree with the author as there must be some planning prior to any revolution-except for what she called ‘non-movements.’ She also notes that the new Middle East is influenced by the ordinary people and not only the elites, the military, foreigners and tyrannical rulers-the act of the ordinary people matter as they, through what the author calls ‘non-movements’ communicate their grievances.
1. Social non movements have the following elements that i found significant;
a) Action-oriented activities that are not ideologically driven, claims are individualistic and quiet compared to loud public protests.
b) Engaged in practices embedded in everyday ordinary life
c) Individuals practiced what they claim instead of protests-the author termed this’ the politics of practice and not protests.’
d) Practiced by large numbers of fragmented people, not a few protesters on the street. This form of activism does not lie on the unity of actors but rather on the power of big numbers.
2. Street politics, the political street or the Arab Street; the author noted that this provides room for expression of grievances between the State and the people, a place for expression of identity, connecting with strangers, and non institutionalized people such as youths, vendors, street children or housewives. The street is seen as a soft spot for uprising due to its urban nature-for instance Cairo’s Tahrir square provided revolutionary spaces.
Questions
1. How different are social non-movements from what the author described as street politics?
2. In what ways can ‘ordinary people’ influence change using social non-movement in the face of a militarized, undemocratic, and tyrannical State that controls public spaces?
In 1993, Italian artist Marco Brambilla did something unique in his career, he directed a Hollywood Movie. Demolition Man–featuring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes–tells the story of a futuristic world where crime has been, for the most, erradicated and there is a high control of behaviour even in private spaces. Everything is surveilled and revolution, as well as crime, is hidden in one single place: the sewers. Here a paralel society develops. There is no surveillance but that does not mean that one does not need to be careful. The underground is a space of freedom but also a space where the luxuries of everyday are not affordable. To survive they have to take from the surface and they see it as vindication as their freedom had been taken away out there.
The reading somehow connected me with this world as we talked about failing governments around the world who neglect people which and viceverse. There is no mutual agreement and both of them despise each other. Those who resist are seen like a threat as much as those who impose. in spite of that, there is a necessity of each other. The legitimacy of governments is built on the people and the luxury of everyday is dependent, more or less, on getting the resources owned by public and private entities. However, this is not a movie plot, people is not in a constant battle but trying to live the day-to-day. When there is tension, however, this can be perceived from a nation-state perspective as resistance. There are a couple of characteristics that are worth mentioning. Firstly, these street politics, as the author calls them, are atomized. There is no clear leadership and that makes it really difficult to restrict. Secondly, There is a mutual understanding of the action of each other. Like bees in a colony, they recognize each other and know how to react when their way of living is being threatened.
This is a daily activiy and so trivial that any western reader my wonder why all the fuzz about it and how is this political, and here is where the role of surveillance comes into place. When there is no liberal democracy, everyday behaviour is policed (this is more dramatic when this changes are done in a very small time frame, Iran is a good example). Without democratic venues of participation–unions, political parties, free elections, freedom of speech, freedom to protests–small acts are what is left and they become politicized.
What is surprising is to what extent this behaviour is effective and I think that is where a couple of questions emerge:
a) How do we measure it?; and
b) What’s the effect of this over generations?
As this is the result of breeding, it is predictable that growing up in more or less authoritative regimes will have an effect on people’s expectations and demands.
Bayat is essentially arguing that traditional social movements like trade unions and student groups usually do not thrive under an authoritarian regime. He focuses on the notion of “non-social movements” which are made up of non-collective actors engaging in collective action. Beyat says these actors have the “shared practices of large numbers of ordinary people” and are involved in “fragmented but similar activities” to bring about social and political change. For Beyat social movements run smoother in Western societies because they are “organized, sustained” and pose a “self-conscious challenge to existing authorities.” These are movements use traditional leadership structures. Conversely, non-movements (as Beyat argues occur in the Middle East) are action motivated by non-ideological factors that are formed under a repressive regime. calling this “quiet encroachment.” Beyat says the strength of non-movement comes from the power of numbers of people involved. They must all be experiencing some sort of oppression and reacting to that oppression by doing similar continuous things.
Beyat goes on to critique the Arab Spring’s social movement. Although it was change made by the people, he questions if these demonstrations were successful because they failed to “buil[d] . . . organs of alternative power” and establish “a recognized leadership and organization …blueprint [for a] future political structure.”
But, Beyat says these groups of change makers are not looking for direct results in political structure (well at least in the short term). Instead, their main concern is achieving the social rights that they were denied.
1) Are non-social movements becoming more predominant in the West? Examples of these of this would be the Black Lives Matter movement and Idle No More, which we have seen take similar form (in some ways) to the movements in the Middle East (groups of ordinary citizens experiencing oppression and mobilizing).
In this week’s readings, Bayat proposes a breakdown of the Western idea of the Arab world. It discusses the social deterioration seen in different parts of the Middle East, which resembles the struggle of many other societies existing across the globe. Bayat reminds us of who we are as humans, and how do we situate ourselves in relation to one another. I felt drawn to the notion of “quiet encroachment” in particular. This theoretical framework serves well to thinking about the formation of slums in Latin America, specifically in Brazil. There, you have mainly ordinary Brazilians who moved from the Northeast to the South in search of a better life. They didn’t find the support they needed from the state/government. Driven by “necessity,” as Bayat states, these people started spontaneous land occupations —amid very poor living conditions and a very oppressive, discriminatory Brazilian middle and upper classes, these people needed a place to call home. They then went on to become outsiders, searching for their dignity while struggling to adapt to life in major urban centres. To me, it is the perfect example of a social nonmovement.
Questions:
1- Can social nonmovements negotiate in times of “expanding integration”? How so then?
2- Struggling to remain free from the state, how can “urban subalterns” claim for their basic rights —sanitation, schools, security etc.— without compromising their power?
In this portion of the book Bayat is looking at the Middle East through a revolutionary lens. His narrative of events and social activities in Iran is not something that I read in the history or sociology textbooks while I was studying there. It was fascinating to me to read about concepts, such as Neoliberal city or street politics, and think about real life examples of these concepts that I have experienced in Tehran.
One thing that Bayat tries to bring to light in this book is that “Middle Eastern societies have been characterized more in terms of historical continuity rather than change”. He then further explains what he means by change and the different kinds of changes that were/are happening in certain societies in the Middle East. Bayat describes the concept of Social non-movements as : 1. Organized and sustained claim making on target authorities, 2. A repertoire of performances including associations, public meetings, media statements and street marches 3. Public representations of the cause’s worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment. He further explains that these non-movements happen within “passive networks” such as parks, neighborhoods, or street corners.
Concepts such as Post Islamism and Secular Muslims are tied to the experiences of women fighting for gender equality and freedom. He drew a fair picture of what women have been experiencing in the contemporary past of Iran. As he mentioned, it is almost impossible to voice concerns or openly discuss matters of gender equality as a woman from there. Therefore, it was refreshing to read about it in a free analytical form.
Lastly, Bayat talks about the “soft states” and the uncontrolled zones of relative freedom. After reading this text I realized that most of my personal social experiences at home were taking place in these zones:
“Authoritarian states do not tolerate any independent and organized dissent.
These regimes, despite their omnipresent image, preside over the states- “Soft states”- that lack the capacity, consistency, and machinery to impose full control, even though they may wish to. Consequently, there exist many escapes, spaces, and uncontrolled holes- zones of relative freedom- that can be filled and appropriated by ordinary actors. The genius of subaltern subjects- nonmovements- lies precisely in discovering or generating such escapes.”
Questions
1. Do uncontrolled holes- zones of relative freedom exist in non-authoritarian states such as Canada or the U.S.?
2. How are the refugees changing the political discourse in Europe? Are they bringing along with them a culture of the street politics or social non-movements?
I enjoyed Bayat’s fresh perspective on how societies, particularly Middle Eastern, that are generally perceived to be traditional and fixed in the world, are constantly evolving through everyday social nonmovements. It presents a new angle on how the dynamics of social change vary across countries. However, I feel that social nonmovements may be characterized as natural evolution of societies where different actors evolve and modify their everyday actions, based on their new ideas and shifting realities rather than conscious individual acts of defiance.
Questions/topics for class discussion:
1. What are the necessary societal conditions for social nonmovements to begin?
2. When does it become difficult or conducive to defy the established public order and challenge the state’s control through everyday activities? In what ways do people express themselves in states that exercise strict authoritarian control?
3. I would like to explore the term “post-Islamism” and its meaning in more detail.
Asef Bayat describes processes of social change by example of revolutions and events in the Middle East and shows the power of people, social structures and regional communities; hence the subtitle: ‘how ordinary people change the Middle East’. He introduces the concepts of ‘art of presence’ and ‘nonmovements’, described as ‘the courage and creativity to assert collective will in spite of all odds, to circumvent constraints, utilizing what is available and discovering new spaces within which to make oneself heard, seen, felt, and realized. The art of presence is the fundamental moment in the life of nonmovements, in life as politics.’ Bayat gives us hope. Even though a coercive authority may fall short of providing necessary care for its people and suppress the people, there is room for change. Power for change lies in the people itself and exists in the often-invisible social structures and unconventional narratives; it lies in the non-official movements that exist in communities.
The play Antigonas: Women’s Tribunal is a beautiful example of such. Nine women, of which six were real victims of the political violence and genocide in Colombia, performed on stage and shared their story. While unheard by their government these nine women found a way to tell their story, to voice their sorrows, to try to find justice and therefore all together create change. While unheard by an official tribunal they found a tribunal in the audience and were able to bring their individual cases to court. They used different ways to express themselves because some stories were unable to be told or because they lacked the language to describe the events and give their testimony. They were screaming in silence, showed objects of their lost loved ones, sang and played music, all accompanied by the video projections in the back. The women were hit and hurt by telling their stories and supported each other in doing so. This might also be a reason that there were three actors and six survivors: in order for the actresses to be strong supporters of and facilitators for the victims. They play touched me emotionally as I felt that the women were collectively processing their trauma, bit by bit as they perform their play every time again.
The distinction of non-movements vs. movements seems like a slightly troublesome distinction because the major distinction seems to be determined by the perspective of the person performing the naming. Naming is a form of power. A movement of any kind occurs because of a challenge to an existing distribution of power. It seems problematic that something is deemed a “non” movement because that implies that they are not really a movement. I realize that from a theoretical standpoint this is not the intention but the wording chosen makes the distinction problematic.
Choosing to make a distinction between post-Islam, Islam, Islamism, and Islamist is extremely problematic because the distinction is not made for any other tradition. The exception for this of course post-Christiandom so including post before a tradition is a way to discuss how the tradition is functioning in the post-WWII era of globalization where the nation-state has lost some of its centrality. Using all these different terms to discuss Islam is a form of orientalist rhetoric because it implies that for some unknown reason the tradition defies understanding. All the different forms that Islam manifests themselves in are broken into different categories because the tradition has been essentialized as just one thing by certain authors. It is unnecessary and weakens his argument by adding terms without familiar or easily understood definitions.
Bayat piece is very interesting and made me re-evaluate what I considered and defined as a “social movement.” As well as understanding political vs. social movements which are achieved in different ways but aim for social change within a group. Looking at leaderless movements that can stem organically from an event or a gap within a community. Bayat describes the power of non-movements to be defend by the “consequences of similar practices that a large number of subjects simultaneously perform” and can be facilitated online by both active and passive participation. The key defining role is that non-movements do not have to turn into collective movements to mean something, they can have a significant impact on their own. At first I perceived this as an oxymoron to the definition of “movement.” After reading further I interpreted it as a non-movement is an attempt to make a social impact without the noise? Noise of the media, government, and overall social structures and institutions around the community.
I agree with Bayat that there is a need to “comprehend the specific fluidity of the region’s people, movements, cultures, and social structures” Especially in this globalized society where movements can be virtual and include different communities; it is important to comprehend how and why people gain power and assert social change and I think Bayat touches on some interesting correlations and relationships in the Middle-East. Although, I am not sure I fully understand his concept of “post-Islamism.”
Question:
1) Can non-movements become social movements, when do they transition?
2) What exactly is post-Islamism?
This week’s reading was terrible for the cynic inside me! Reassuring for the hopeful academic who can now theorise the effect of individual agency, of pushing boundaries and of unrelenting persistence over time. Bayat managed to relate many of the Western European theorists to Middle East conditions and was yet able to break away from the problems such theories bring when applied to the Middle East (as described by Said in Orientalism).
My main struggle with the text was the undefined use of Islamism and Islamist. Both within academia and in popular media these two terms have been used to mean different things. In the beginning it seemed Bayat linked it to Salafi trends but then he also spoke more generally about urban social movements with Islamist trends or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I am still left wondering what he means by those terms. I think using any “-isms” or “–ists” preceded by name of a religion is problematic.
In his work, Bayat examines the subaltern in contexts of political repression (2). He argues that due to orientalist history, the West has largely ignored the Middle East in terms of its “strides for change” (4). He calls this agency “social nonmovements.” He explains that much of these nonmovements occur in the streets due to the lack of space in the traditional political arena (12) and the poverty and dispossession that the urban population has suffered (13). A politics emerges in the street where strangers recognize one another as sharing interests and sentiments. Social nonmovements, as defined by Bayat, are “collective actions of noncollective actors…ordinary people whose fragmented but similar activities trigger much social change…” (15). He further describes them as politics of ordinary practices (20). Many people practicing these activities could open up space to change the norms (21) and further, these social nonmovements are often a “struggle for citizenship” (26).
Similarly, Bayat describes a phenomena that he calls “quiet encroachment,” which are “direct actions of dispersed individuals” in order to acquire a necessity (35) or improve their life (48). Quiet encroachment can have the following outcomes: “redistribution of social goods” (49) and gaining autonomy (the ability to live an informal life). Their infringement tends to cost “the
state, the rich, and the general public” (80). In addition, Bayat includes a discussion of the increased role of NGOs in the Middle East in the neoliberal era (75). He also analyzes the ways in which Muslim women resist and negotiate gender discrimination through what he calls the “power of presence,” which are everyday practices (87-88). Next, he presents strategies of the youth nonmovement that “reclaim youthfulness through passive networks” (120). Lastly, Bayat discusses the battle waged on fun, coming from both religion and bourgeois rationality (capitalist work ethics) (144-146).
1) I would like to reflect on how Bayat sees quiet encroachment to be a cost to public. Do you agree? It seems to me that since quiet encroachment attempts to improve lives of the individuals participating in the practice and could lead to “passive networks,” the overall outcome would serve the public interest. Then again, I guess it depends on what public we are talking about. When we think of public, should we be thinking of groups such as immigrants, women, youth, etc. or should we think only of the elite?
2) What do you think Bayat means when he says he wants to generate an “alternative modernity”? What would that look like? I think we must first define what modernity means and then try to decipher how Bayat hopes to alter that type of modernity.
The concept of social non-movements is intriguing and even more so their ability to be more resilient
than their more active counterparts. Positing this with the apparent development of “post-Islamism”,
described by Bayat as a fusion between faith and freedom, is a little more complex. Which leads to my question: what exactly is this post-Islamism? Where does it take place and how?
Bayat also talks about “street politics” or “political street” in connection with the “encroachment of the
ordinary” and their ability to construct what he deems as social non-movements. I recall that when I
visited Pakistan for the first time 2 years ago, I saw cows and sheep being herded on streets. In light of
the current readings, that seems like the ‘occupation’ of streets by businessmen and vendors that Bayat
describes in Egypt or even the ‘peasants’ having migrated to more urban areas. In the example of the
Iranian women wearing headscarves with a few inches of hair showing, it reminds me of when in
Istanbul we saw hijabi women smoking! It was shocking and delightful at the same time because we
recognized in that moment the subversion of the act of smoking while wearing a hijab – in a sense it not
only challenged the assumed moral code that comes with wearing a hijab but also sought to resignify
what wearing the hijab could look like. In a sense also saying that she wears the hijab, the hijab does not
wear her. And whereby through these subversions, in “big numbers” as Bayat describes it, there is a
norm that is created which, as the readings point out, is harder for government to fight against simply
because it works on hegemonic discourse. That is to say, if something is normalized and naturalized, it
subjects an opposing view, even if that is of the authority, into the realm of subversion.
One can say that this week’s reading has definitely grabbed my attention for a number of reasons. This reading does not only bring to our attention the Middle East and the issues associated with it, but also provides one with a great understanding of the way change comes about in the Middle East. Once it comes to the Middle East, when one speaks about change one must understand how ordinary people have brought about change in a number of ways. Unlike other countries, as Bayat has stated, Arab countries “seem to be richer than they are developed”. In other words, despite the massive oil revenues, Arab countries tend to be low in income, productivity, literacy, and health conditions. The state of social development that Arab countries are in tends to be tied to poor political governance. What has provoked me in this thought is how poor political governance is associated with a frustration in the demands for democracy and the rule of law. It seems like such frustration prompts opposition movements using violent measures that are undemocratic and exclusive. Change has not been introduced into the region until the late 2000s. As domestic and international constituencies expressed different expectations as to how to instigate change in the region throughout the years, change has been brought about to the region in a number of ways. Before getting into that, one of the main ideas that I found interesting throughout the reading is that despite having the authoritarian polity within an authoritarian regime exhibiting great intolerance towards organized activism, people have always found a way to have their voice echoed for the purpose of change. Some of the forms that change has been instigated include durable social movements, endemic protest actions, revolutionary mobilizations and social nonmovements. The form I found most interesting is the one that doesn’t come to mind as much, social nonmovements. With the unnoticed social and yet collective practices that individuals engage in on a daily basis, I believe that significant changes are possible for regions like the Middle East itself. All in all, I believe that the forms of change that this reading explores reveal how individuals not only manage to resist collectively, but also go beyond the limitations that exist in terms of authoritarian rule by expressing agency and motivation for instigating change. Two questions that I believe are essential for discussion are the following,
1. Can we consider “post-Islamism” to be an alternative modernity that could perhaps instigate change?
2. Is there a possibility for organized activism to succeed without the existence of political opportunity?
I thought week 4 reading was vey interesting, especially regarding the explanation of social non movement and collective outcomes. It has been a fundamental puzzle for social science to explain the relation between the macro and micro level and vice versa and its connection to revolutions and popular rebellions. Here I found the author’s presentation of public spaces, marginalized/or atomised individuals and the connection to common positions and networks as extreme interesting inputs in the debate. Especially how the author are taking everyday life, struggle and the quite encroachment into account, which for gives a more realistic and convincible argument/narrative. I also found the evaluation of power interestering, trying to elicit a more distinct concept of power, so we don’t get lost in poststructuralism (not completely agreeing with his interpretation of Foucault though)
Question:
What have been the aftermath of the Arabic Spring? Are we seeing the post-Islamist refolutions that the author was predicting?(Which is a type of indigenous political reform marked by a blend of democratic ideals and religious sensibilities)
What kind of political streets do we have in the western part of the world(especially USA)? (where the urbanisation and neoliberal city is even more salient, with increasing inequality and structural racism)
Week Four readings response – Curtis Rowland
Resistance and Social Non-Movements
Bayat works hard to explode some of the tropes used to characterized the deteriorating social situation in some areas of the Middle East. His work undermines the external western bias that he also suggests is present in the internal critique of Muslim intellectuals (in reference to the creators of the Arab Human Development Report) in the region. His theory around action-oriented nonmovements (Bayat ix) of masses of ordinary people going about their daily lives in such a way that creates small slights toward the domineering forces that control their lives, without coordination, aligns with the idea that people are people everywhere and counters the erroneous comparisons assuming one (western) side of a comparison is normal or right (Bayat 5). He also suggests that this daily-life street protesting is preferable to driving protest underground where it is apt to be co opted by undemocratic process and cults of power (Bayat 11). While these actors of nonmovements start as individuals, the “empire” invariably pushes them together when a clamp down on their submissive behaviour begins (Bayat 24). Bayat suggest that the often non-partisan action of the poor (previously seen as parties not given to social change) is shown in all forms of living such as singing folk songs (Bayat 51), this seemed like a good tie-in to Antigone’s this week as well.
Question – On page 20 Bayat describes nonmovements as being made up of “…the ordinary practises of everyday life… the poor people building homes… the international migrants crossing borders to find new livelihoods; the women striving to go to college, playing sports… conducting ‘men’s work’ or choosing their own marriage partners.” Does Bayat not fall into the comparison bias (one side as normal) that he warns about earlier in his book? Are these ordinary practises he describes not extraordinary f?
‘This book is about the art of presence, a story about agency in times of constraints,’ says Bayat. It also discusses revolutions as something that can never be predicted nor planned, but rather something that just happens. I disagree with the author as there must be some planning prior to any revolution-except for what she called ‘non-movements.’ She also notes that the new Middle East is influenced by the ordinary people and not only the elites, the military, foreigners and tyrannical rulers-the act of the ordinary people matter as they, through what the author calls ‘non-movements’ communicate their grievances.
1. Social non movements have the following elements that i found significant;
a) Action-oriented activities that are not ideologically driven, claims are individualistic and quiet compared to loud public protests.
b) Engaged in practices embedded in everyday ordinary life
c) Individuals practiced what they claim instead of protests-the author termed this’ the politics of practice and not protests.’
d) Practiced by large numbers of fragmented people, not a few protesters on the street. This form of activism does not lie on the unity of actors but rather on the power of big numbers.
2. Street politics, the political street or the Arab Street; the author noted that this provides room for expression of grievances between the State and the people, a place for expression of identity, connecting with strangers, and non institutionalized people such as youths, vendors, street children or housewives. The street is seen as a soft spot for uprising due to its urban nature-for instance Cairo’s Tahrir square provided revolutionary spaces.
Questions
1. How different are social non-movements from what the author described as street politics?
2. In what ways can ‘ordinary people’ influence change using social non-movement in the face of a militarized, undemocratic, and tyrannical State that controls public spaces?
In 1993, Italian artist Marco Brambilla did something unique in his career, he directed a Hollywood Movie. Demolition Man–featuring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes–tells the story of a futuristic world where crime has been, for the most, erradicated and there is a high control of behaviour even in private spaces. Everything is surveilled and revolution, as well as crime, is hidden in one single place: the sewers. Here a paralel society develops. There is no surveillance but that does not mean that one does not need to be careful. The underground is a space of freedom but also a space where the luxuries of everyday are not affordable. To survive they have to take from the surface and they see it as vindication as their freedom had been taken away out there.
The reading somehow connected me with this world as we talked about failing governments around the world who neglect people which and viceverse. There is no mutual agreement and both of them despise each other. Those who resist are seen like a threat as much as those who impose. in spite of that, there is a necessity of each other. The legitimacy of governments is built on the people and the luxury of everyday is dependent, more or less, on getting the resources owned by public and private entities. However, this is not a movie plot, people is not in a constant battle but trying to live the day-to-day. When there is tension, however, this can be perceived from a nation-state perspective as resistance. There are a couple of characteristics that are worth mentioning. Firstly, these street politics, as the author calls them, are atomized. There is no clear leadership and that makes it really difficult to restrict. Secondly, There is a mutual understanding of the action of each other. Like bees in a colony, they recognize each other and know how to react when their way of living is being threatened.
This is a daily activiy and so trivial that any western reader my wonder why all the fuzz about it and how is this political, and here is where the role of surveillance comes into place. When there is no liberal democracy, everyday behaviour is policed (this is more dramatic when this changes are done in a very small time frame, Iran is a good example). Without democratic venues of participation–unions, political parties, free elections, freedom of speech, freedom to protests–small acts are what is left and they become politicized.
What is surprising is to what extent this behaviour is effective and I think that is where a couple of questions emerge:
a) How do we measure it?; and
b) What’s the effect of this over generations?
As this is the result of breeding, it is predictable that growing up in more or less authoritative regimes will have an effect on people’s expectations and demands.
Bayat is essentially arguing that traditional social movements like trade unions and student groups usually do not thrive under an authoritarian regime. He focuses on the notion of “non-social movements” which are made up of non-collective actors engaging in collective action. Beyat says these actors have the “shared practices of large numbers of ordinary people” and are involved in “fragmented but similar activities” to bring about social and political change. For Beyat social movements run smoother in Western societies because they are “organized, sustained” and pose a “self-conscious challenge to existing authorities.” These are movements use traditional leadership structures. Conversely, non-movements (as Beyat argues occur in the Middle East) are action motivated by non-ideological factors that are formed under a repressive regime. calling this “quiet encroachment.” Beyat says the strength of non-movement comes from the power of numbers of people involved. They must all be experiencing some sort of oppression and reacting to that oppression by doing similar continuous things.
Beyat goes on to critique the Arab Spring’s social movement. Although it was change made by the people, he questions if these demonstrations were successful because they failed to “buil[d] . . . organs of alternative power” and establish “a recognized leadership and organization …blueprint [for a] future political structure.”
But, Beyat says these groups of change makers are not looking for direct results in political structure (well at least in the short term). Instead, their main concern is achieving the social rights that they were denied.
1) Are non-social movements becoming more predominant in the West? Examples of these of this would be the Black Lives Matter movement and Idle No More, which we have seen take similar form (in some ways) to the movements in the Middle East (groups of ordinary citizens experiencing oppression and mobilizing).
Week 4 – readings response
In this week’s readings, Bayat proposes a breakdown of the Western idea of the Arab world. It discusses the social deterioration seen in different parts of the Middle East, which resembles the struggle of many other societies existing across the globe. Bayat reminds us of who we are as humans, and how do we situate ourselves in relation to one another. I felt drawn to the notion of “quiet encroachment” in particular. This theoretical framework serves well to thinking about the formation of slums in Latin America, specifically in Brazil. There, you have mainly ordinary Brazilians who moved from the Northeast to the South in search of a better life. They didn’t find the support they needed from the state/government. Driven by “necessity,” as Bayat states, these people started spontaneous land occupations —amid very poor living conditions and a very oppressive, discriminatory Brazilian middle and upper classes, these people needed a place to call home. They then went on to become outsiders, searching for their dignity while struggling to adapt to life in major urban centres. To me, it is the perfect example of a social nonmovement.
Questions:
1- Can social nonmovements negotiate in times of “expanding integration”? How so then?
2- Struggling to remain free from the state, how can “urban subalterns” claim for their basic rights —sanitation, schools, security etc.— without compromising their power?
In this portion of the book Bayat is looking at the Middle East through a revolutionary lens. His narrative of events and social activities in Iran is not something that I read in the history or sociology textbooks while I was studying there. It was fascinating to me to read about concepts, such as Neoliberal city or street politics, and think about real life examples of these concepts that I have experienced in Tehran.
One thing that Bayat tries to bring to light in this book is that “Middle Eastern societies have been characterized more in terms of historical continuity rather than change”. He then further explains what he means by change and the different kinds of changes that were/are happening in certain societies in the Middle East. Bayat describes the concept of Social non-movements as : 1. Organized and sustained claim making on target authorities, 2. A repertoire of performances including associations, public meetings, media statements and street marches 3. Public representations of the cause’s worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment. He further explains that these non-movements happen within “passive networks” such as parks, neighborhoods, or street corners.
Concepts such as Post Islamism and Secular Muslims are tied to the experiences of women fighting for gender equality and freedom. He drew a fair picture of what women have been experiencing in the contemporary past of Iran. As he mentioned, it is almost impossible to voice concerns or openly discuss matters of gender equality as a woman from there. Therefore, it was refreshing to read about it in a free analytical form.
Lastly, Bayat talks about the “soft states” and the uncontrolled zones of relative freedom. After reading this text I realized that most of my personal social experiences at home were taking place in these zones:
“Authoritarian states do not tolerate any independent and organized dissent.
These regimes, despite their omnipresent image, preside over the states- “Soft states”- that lack the capacity, consistency, and machinery to impose full control, even though they may wish to. Consequently, there exist many escapes, spaces, and uncontrolled holes- zones of relative freedom- that can be filled and appropriated by ordinary actors. The genius of subaltern subjects- nonmovements- lies precisely in discovering or generating such escapes.”
Questions
1. Do uncontrolled holes- zones of relative freedom exist in non-authoritarian states such as Canada or the U.S.?
2. How are the refugees changing the political discourse in Europe? Are they bringing along with them a culture of the street politics or social non-movements?
I enjoyed Bayat’s fresh perspective on how societies, particularly Middle Eastern, that are generally perceived to be traditional and fixed in the world, are constantly evolving through everyday social nonmovements. It presents a new angle on how the dynamics of social change vary across countries. However, I feel that social nonmovements may be characterized as natural evolution of societies where different actors evolve and modify their everyday actions, based on their new ideas and shifting realities rather than conscious individual acts of defiance.
Questions/topics for class discussion:
1. What are the necessary societal conditions for social nonmovements to begin?
2. When does it become difficult or conducive to defy the established public order and challenge the state’s control through everyday activities? In what ways do people express themselves in states that exercise strict authoritarian control?
3. I would like to explore the term “post-Islamism” and its meaning in more detail.
Asef Bayat describes processes of social change by example of revolutions and events in the Middle East and shows the power of people, social structures and regional communities; hence the subtitle: ‘how ordinary people change the Middle East’. He introduces the concepts of ‘art of presence’ and ‘nonmovements’, described as ‘the courage and creativity to assert collective will in spite of all odds, to circumvent constraints, utilizing what is available and discovering new spaces within which to make oneself heard, seen, felt, and realized. The art of presence is the fundamental moment in the life of nonmovements, in life as politics.’ Bayat gives us hope. Even though a coercive authority may fall short of providing necessary care for its people and suppress the people, there is room for change. Power for change lies in the people itself and exists in the often-invisible social structures and unconventional narratives; it lies in the non-official movements that exist in communities.
The play Antigonas: Women’s Tribunal is a beautiful example of such. Nine women, of which six were real victims of the political violence and genocide in Colombia, performed on stage and shared their story. While unheard by their government these nine women found a way to tell their story, to voice their sorrows, to try to find justice and therefore all together create change. While unheard by an official tribunal they found a tribunal in the audience and were able to bring their individual cases to court. They used different ways to express themselves because some stories were unable to be told or because they lacked the language to describe the events and give their testimony. They were screaming in silence, showed objects of their lost loved ones, sang and played music, all accompanied by the video projections in the back. The women were hit and hurt by telling their stories and supported each other in doing so. This might also be a reason that there were three actors and six survivors: in order for the actresses to be strong supporters of and facilitators for the victims. They play touched me emotionally as I felt that the women were collectively processing their trauma, bit by bit as they perform their play every time again.
The distinction of non-movements vs. movements seems like a slightly troublesome distinction because the major distinction seems to be determined by the perspective of the person performing the naming. Naming is a form of power. A movement of any kind occurs because of a challenge to an existing distribution of power. It seems problematic that something is deemed a “non” movement because that implies that they are not really a movement. I realize that from a theoretical standpoint this is not the intention but the wording chosen makes the distinction problematic.
Choosing to make a distinction between post-Islam, Islam, Islamism, and Islamist is extremely problematic because the distinction is not made for any other tradition. The exception for this of course post-Christiandom so including post before a tradition is a way to discuss how the tradition is functioning in the post-WWII era of globalization where the nation-state has lost some of its centrality. Using all these different terms to discuss Islam is a form of orientalist rhetoric because it implies that for some unknown reason the tradition defies understanding. All the different forms that Islam manifests themselves in are broken into different categories because the tradition has been essentialized as just one thing by certain authors. It is unnecessary and weakens his argument by adding terms without familiar or easily understood definitions.
Bayat piece is very interesting and made me re-evaluate what I considered and defined as a “social movement.” As well as understanding political vs. social movements which are achieved in different ways but aim for social change within a group. Looking at leaderless movements that can stem organically from an event or a gap within a community. Bayat describes the power of non-movements to be defend by the “consequences of similar practices that a large number of subjects simultaneously perform” and can be facilitated online by both active and passive participation. The key defining role is that non-movements do not have to turn into collective movements to mean something, they can have a significant impact on their own. At first I perceived this as an oxymoron to the definition of “movement.” After reading further I interpreted it as a non-movement is an attempt to make a social impact without the noise? Noise of the media, government, and overall social structures and institutions around the community.
I agree with Bayat that there is a need to “comprehend the specific fluidity of the region’s people, movements, cultures, and social structures” Especially in this globalized society where movements can be virtual and include different communities; it is important to comprehend how and why people gain power and assert social change and I think Bayat touches on some interesting correlations and relationships in the Middle-East. Although, I am not sure I fully understand his concept of “post-Islamism.”
Question:
1) Can non-movements become social movements, when do they transition?
2) What exactly is post-Islamism?