Building the uncompromised alternative
A review of “Constructive resistance – Resisting injustice by creating solutions” by Majken Jul Sørensen, Stellan Vinthagen and Jørgen Johansen, Rowman and Littlefield, 2023, 219 pages.
Reviewed by Rob Fairmichael
This is an important book in exploring, in some detail, the concept and practice of ‘building the alternative’ without being compromised and/or bought out by the state or capitalism. Emphasis is put on both being ‘constructive’ and ‘resistance’ and in integrating the two; it was Gandhi who coined the term constructive resistance and it was an important construct to him (think weaving khadi cloth). However the authors do analyse different movements in different parts of the world and the extent to which they meet these values (e.g. charts on page 41) with some fascinating detail. The evolution of women’s shelters, the first arguably in London in 1972, transformed the debate about gender-based interpersonal violence and put the focus on men as perpetrators, and therefore patriarchy as a problem, in giving women an out from being trapped in so-called ‘domestic’ violence.
The authors are themselves well known, in some circles, activists and theoreticians. INNATE was a co-organiser of a webinar with Majken Jul Sørensen earlier in 2024 on nonviolent alternatives to the war in Ukraine.
An initial definition of constructive resistance in the book (page 1) is “initiatives where people start to build elements of the society they desire independently and in opposition to the dominant structures already in place.” The examples they give immediately following are of squatted, previously empty, houses being used for people to live in or for self-organised community centres, and Wikipedia as an example of challenging experts’ ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’.
Moving to a ‘new society’ of any kind is difficult when the old elites, or perhaps new but equally repressive ones, are so good at regaining power; “When constructive elements are left out, old elites can use the uncertain situation to their advantage to regain power, as we have witnessed in many of the recent unarmed political revolutions” (page 101) – think the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011. I might add that while the Irish Free State did undergo a civil war at the start of its existence, the new regime became even more reactionary on many social matters than the old, and something like the Sinn Féin/Arbitration courts, imperfect as they were, disappeared into the woodwork and ‘the law’ reasserted itself in conservative form.
Of course the action by councils and MPs of republican persuasion transferring their allegiance from Westminster to the first Dáil in 1919 could also be considered as constructive resistance in creating the new entity they wanted, unshackling from the British state. However on a social and economic level it would be difficult to think of examples in Ireland which fitted both ‘construction’ and ‘resistance’. Important as credit unions are in Ireland they are hardly trying to overthrow the existing financial system, and agricultural coops, essential in rural development in years past, are now large scale economic units within the existing system (and, it can be argued, essentially part of the problem of methane production by cattle).
One example given in the book is the development of nonviolent accompaniment and monitoring, partly developing from Witness for Peace (the US organisation, not the Northern Irish one) noticing that the Contras in Nicaragua did not attack while US citizens were around (in the period around 1983). We can learn and develop new methodologies as we do things.
An ongoing issue in the book is about compromise and being compromised: “A recurring dilemma for those involved in constructive resistance is how much to compromise radical ideals in order to become “mainstream” and make the alternative interesting and available to broader audiences…” (page 183). They cover Thomas Mathiesen’s concept of being ‘in defined’ or ‘out defined’ by the existing powers; ‘in defined’ is to be judged as no threat and therefore ‘one of us’ in essence whereas to be ‘out defined’ it to be depicted as a beyond the pale rebel, past redemption. Successful movements need to avoid either definition so as not to be either co-opted or cast out and rejected as crazy hippies or crackpots.
In dealing with the example of the Transition Movement (on a non-carbon future) the authors place this relatively high on the constructive scale but low on resistance to existing dominant structures. The Fairtrade movement is similarly placed.
The book has detailed studies of Polish resistance to the state and state (Soviet style Communist) control in the 1980s, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the peasant-based MST movement in Brazil, and the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico. Partial success – before temporary failure – came for KOR and then Solidarity in Poland by being factory-based rather than street-based (where the state security could easily get people) and in having support from the Catholic church and farmers. “When the factory occupations became widespread in 1980, Polish workers had found a way to build small communities, minimizing the interference from the state. Solidarity set up a democratic structure with transparent decision-making, mutual aid, and solidarity alliances, and continued the development of independent free media. These were elements of the kind of society they wanted to see in Poland in the future….” (page 113).
The authors pinpoint the Freedom Charter process of 1955 as a key element of democratic involvement in the South African struggle. MST in Brazil and the Zapatistas in Chiapas are the current examples given of large scale constructive resistance. However nothing is simple and the authors analyse difficulties and possible pitfalls (e.g. the involvement and participation of women) as well as successes, though the distribution of land to 350,000 landless farmers in Brazil by MST is a success by any progressive definition – and some of the details of the organising involved is astounding.
300,000 people are involved in the Zapatista movement, in 1,000 communities, and it is based among Maya people. While they did have a short violent phase, and still have an army for defensive purposes, if they had continued with war against the state then, as the book states, they would have been wiped out by that state. Instead they have built self-governing and self-sustaining structures with the goal of changing relations between rulers and ruled without taking (state) power. Both MST and the Zapatistas have impressive grassroots decision making structures and processes. A European example in the book is analysis of an anti-dam campaign in Innerdalen in Norway 1978–82 which faced many of the questions that activists reading this may be familiar with.
Without vision the people may not perish but they certainly won’t get very far. The conclusions in the book include that “If movements were more focused on putting their visions into practice through direct actions, creating some of the necessary solutions, people might be more able to envision future societies free of at least some of the major systemic dominations, violences, and injustices. But in order for that to happen, people also need to nurture visions of a different society.” (page 202)
There are other examples of possible positivities from social movements which may or may not fit the category of constructive resistance. One generally problematic area I would certainly identify would be decision making within social and political movements; do we model inclusion, and how do we a) hold together with differences of opinion, b) allow different routes to be taken internally, or c) split amicably? Any large scale social movement is likely to get disagreements which risk the integrity of the movement or may necessitate different people going in different directions. Do we look on the ‘dissidents’ as traitors to the cause or do we celebrate different flocks flying in roughly the same direction but by different routes? Do we encourage involvement and grassroots input? Clearly this latter happens with the likes of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas.
One example of what could have been constructive resistance from the peace movement is Ireland is the “People’s Campaign” associated with Ciaran McKeown in the Peace People in the period around 1994. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/21987821321/in/album-72157613614963634/ This sought to develop an alternative assembly model for Northern Ireland based on the experience of the basic democratic model of the Åland Islands in the Baltic; each of the 570 electoral wards in Northern Ireland would have discussions locally and two representatives elected. However this plan was decided on by using traditional majoritarian decision making internally and the task – of persuading people in general that it was a good idea let alone operationalising it – was massive and it disappeared without trace after a few years. Whether such a system would have been any more or less positive or workable than what came to pass is open to debate which I won’t go into here. It could also be said that many community groups in the North during the Troubles provided a space for trying to build a non-sectarian or less sectarian future.
Mediation is another area in Ireland where there has been construction but extremely low resistance. In four decades mediation has gone from the far margins to the mainstream, with mediation looked on favourably by the legal system (in both jurisdictions in Ireland). It relieves a bit of pressure on the legal system, and is obviously preferable from the disputing parties’ point of view both in potentially avoiding legal divisiveness and cost. And lawyers have not lost out since they joined the mediation bandwagon as well in training up as mediators. Outside of that, at a community level, mediation has largely been professionalised which raises questions about accessibility for all (in terms of cost). But we are still in a better place to have what we have though community-based mediation systems are very limited.
In the political process, especially later on, in the Troubles in Northern Ireland, conciliation, communication and mediation efforts by individuals and groups helped in an enormous way to bring about the Good Friday Agreement, imperfect as that was and is. This mirrored the inclusiveness which those involved sought to foster. At the time some of this was considered traitorous by the state and by right-wingers who wanted to ‘root out the men of violence’ – even though the state itself secretly engaged in such contact when it felt it appropriate throughout the Troubles.
As stated at the start, this is an important book; it asks peace, social and political activists fundamental questions about how we go about trying to reach our goals. The problem for us is that we may feel so far from the possibilities of building a challenging alternative that we feel it cannot be done or at least that we cannot do it. ‘Living the revolution’ is always a big challenge but our work and witness can add to positive possibilities for the future. This book can be of considerable assistance in thinking about such possibilities.