Anybody coming in the eve of 25? I Will arriverà atto 8.30 pm in order TO go together TO University? Mariangela

jasper teunissen <jasperteunissen@...> ha scritto:

>Dear Chico,
>Thanks for your reply and the attachments, will read them more carefully 
>as soon as possible. I will also leave for Tunis tomorrow and I will 
>stay after the forum to join the IC meetings (do you know where and when 
>they take place?), so we definitely can find some time to continue the 
>discussion. Looking forward!
>greetings jasper
>
>
>Op 22-3-2013 19:04, chico whitaker schreef:
>> Dear Jasper, only now, some days before the beginning of th 2013 WSF, 
>> I am having a little bit of time to consider, as I promised, at least 
>> (as my time is not so elastic...) some of the questions you put in the 
>> mail you wrote in February. I think it is never too late, as this 
>> discussions will necessarily continue. As I hope we will have the 
>> opportunity to talk personally during the Forum, this may facilitate 
>> our interchanges.
>> But let me at first thank your patience to read so many of my texts. 
>> Some others that you did not read (I wrote so many, during this 12 
>> years...) could perhaps explain some misunderstandings. But no 
>> problems, let me do the possible now.
>> I will write in italic characters under your questions, as they appear 
>> in your text below. So:
>>
>> Le 02/02/2013 18:26, jasper teunissen a écrit :
>>>
>>> *Re: World Social Forum: space or movement? *
>>>
>>> *A reply to Chico Whitaker's proposals for the future of the WSF*
>>>
>>> by Jasper Teunissen
>>>
>>> 2 February 2013
>>>
>>> *Introduction*
>>>
>>> In the process towards the World Social Forum (WSF) in Tunis next 
>>> month, some efforts have been made to start a discussion about the 
>>> future of the WSF, but have so far found little resonance, at least 
>>> certainly not in the public domain.
>>>
>> /Let me say at first that you misunderstood the aim of my proposals. 
>> You say: "/a reply to Chico Whitaker's proposal for the future of the 
>> WSF/". it is not; it is for the future of the IC, only. //Both 
>> questions are naturally related but they are very different. About the 
>> future of the WSF I would write much more... I wrote even a book about 
>> the challenge the WSF faced from its beginning ... T//he discussion we 
>> began after the IC meeting in Monastir in June (I wrote also something 
>> specifically about this meeting) was not about the WSF future but 
>> about the IC future. So, my last four texts were about the IC 
>> problems. The texts (the mine and from others) had not so much 
>> resonance in the public domain because they were still to be discussed 
>> in the //working group created in Monastir "on the IC future". /
>>>
>>> Among of the contributions are a number of recent proposals by Chico 
>>> Whitaker, one of the founding figures of the WSF. I think these 
>>> proposals need attention and further discussion. Another reason to 
>>> write down some thoughts on Whitaker's texts is the fact that he 
>>> regularly refers to, speaks to, and even shares his dreams about the 
>>> so-called new movements of Occupy and Indignados (2011, 2012a, 2012b, 
>>> 2013b).
>>>
>> /Many of us are very interested in the so-called new movements 
>> experiences. And I am very glad to see how many activities they will 
>> realize in Tunis, overcoming some difficulties that appeared when they 
>> thought about coming to Tunis. /
>>>
>>> As a particpant in both a local social forum and Occupy related 
>>> initiatives, I'm especially interested to see how relations between 
>>> the two could evolve.
>>>
>>> And one last note: I don't doubt Whitaker's intentions concerning the 
>>> future of the WSF, and in fact I agree with many of the underlying 
>>> thoughts and I warmly support the search for radical improvements in 
>>> the WSF process.
>>>
>> /Here I think we need to identify two types of improvements: in the IC 
>> ans in the WSF process, without merging them./
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, here I will concentrate on some critical points, trying 
>>> to get a better understanding of the ideas about movements and open 
>>> spaces on which Whitaker's proposals are based.
>>>
>>> *1. The dissolution of the IC and the start of a new movement*
>>>
>>> The first step in Whitaker's proposal is to dissolve the 
>>> International Council of the World Social Forum (IC). Looking at the 
>>> history and context of the current crisis within the IC, I think the 
>>> formal declaration of the end of the IC is just the final step in the 
>>> acceptance of an accomplished fact . Whitaker argues the IC has 
>>> 'already fulfilled the functions it could meet' (Whitaker, 2012c), 
>>> but I think we should be more direct: the IC has failed to fulfull 
>>> its role as a permanent body that will give continuity to the WSF.
>>>
>> /In this point this is absolutely not what I think nor what I intended 
>> to say. It would be too long to explain it, but you can read //the 
>> text I wrote after the Monastir meeting, that I referred to above. It 
>> is a //longer (14 pages...) explanation on how I see the IC history 
>> and its role in this 12 years (very important for the WSF success, 
>> specially in at least its first 9 or 10 years). I am annexing it to 
>> his mail, in case //you have the time to read it./
>>>
>>> The reality is that the WSF 2013 is going to happen anyway, without a 
>>> functioning IC.
>>>
>> /Let me tell you a joke: in Dakar, most (not all...) of the FSM 
>> participants were able to re-organize the WSF from down, as the Forum 
>> Organizers had so many unforeseen problems that the first //two days 
>> of the //Forum were an authentic chaos. At the end of he Forum, some 
>> of us (IC members) said: this Forum proved that a WSF do not need 
>> "organizers"... Even we could say to them: don't try to organize (or 
>> even "facilitate") anything./
>>>
>>> The second step of the proposal is the establishment of a new 
>>> movement that takes over the role of the IC as 'facilitator and 
>>> animator' of the WSF process, assigning to itself the power to decide 
>>> about the location of the next WSF, 'the only really important 
>>> decision that the IC takes' (Whitaker, 2012c).
>>>
>> /This was not a proposition but a matter of fact...//See the text 
>> annexed/.
>>>
>>> There is much to say about Whitaker's detailed vision of how such a 
>>> new movement would work (2013a, b), but here I will just mention a 
>>> few observations and concerns.
>>>
>>> First, the establishment of a new movement is clearly a step further 
>>> than the earlier proposal suggesting a power shift from the 
>>> Brazil-France tandem to a Canada-Mahreb tandem (Whitaker, 2012a),
>>>
>> /The power shift I suggested has nothing to do with the creation of a 
>> new movement, but with the need of new blood in the difficult tasks of 
>> "facilitating" and stimulating the WSF process. The tandem 
>> Brazil-France seemed to me, at that occasion, already a little bit 
>> tired, after so many years... And the Maghreb is showing its force in 
>> the 2013 WSF facilitation (and the Quebec is proving also it with 
>> their initiatives towards a pan-Canadian Forum). /
>>>
>>> but at the same time the creation of a new movement within the 
>>> context of the WSF has been tried before: 'The Network of the World's 
>>> Social Movements'. [1] I haven't heard anything about it ever since.
>>>
>> /I never said or thought about this type of proposal. Perhaps it was 
>> an idea of the author of the text you cited (Ezequiel Adamovsky?). I 
>> don't know who could have tried this before. /
>>
>>> Second, except from methodological adaptations, such as the 
>>> participation based on individuals instead of organisations, I don't 
>>> see any fundamental differences with the /intended/setup and goals of 
>>> the IC, that is: analysing the political situation in the world, 
>>> facilitating the WSF process and choosing the location of the next 
>>> WSF. In this sense the proposal is not as radical as Whitaker wants 
>>> us to believe.
>>>
>> /About the question of the creation of a new movement, and 
>> subsequently its eventual role in the definition of the WSF location, 
>> I did a revision in my firs proposal, after having discussed it with 
>> many people. And I wrote a last paper (the fourth, //bu//t only in 9 
>> points in 1 and half page...), separating completely the two 
>> propositions: a new IC and a new Movement. I am annexing it to this 
>> mail too. /
>>>
>>> Third, I see a problem with the order of things. Whitaker proposes a 
>>> new movement based on a new Manifesto or Charter, initially crewed by 
>>> the current IC members, and then gradually add 'people that 
>>> constitute or constituted the Organization Committees of the 
>>> national, regional, continental or World Social Forums, and even 
>>> local ones [...]' (2013a para 1.4). After that, local chapters of the 
>>> new movement can be founded.
>>>
>>> In many ways this reminds me of a somewhat similar initiave, namely 
>>> the International Organization for a Participatory Society (IOPS), 
>>> which, to put it bluntly, first presents a blueprint of a new 
>>> society, then forms a new organisation from within its own inner 
>>> circle, and only then seeks further participation and expansion. [2] 
>>> I think we should not adopt such a top-down approach if we aim for an 
>>> actively involved, broader and more localized base for a global process.
>>>
>>
>>> As I understand it, one of Whitaker's most important motivations for 
>>> his proposal is to find a way to include the latest generation of 
>>> movements. I agree this is a key question in the evolution of the 
>>> WSF. But inviting others to something new, to something 
>>> pre-established that is not theirs yet, is always extremely 
>>> difficult. I wouldn't expect many new people to join such a new 
>>> movement, especially if they are not familiar with the WSF, its 
>>> history and its possible usefulness.
>>>
>> /Here also you have completely misunderstood me. I never spoke about 
>> "local chapters", for instance... Movements can be created from above, 
>> but this is better applied to the creation of institutions, parties, 
>> NGOs. etc. Real "movements" are created always from down, by a initial 
>> group of people that become aware of the necessity and possibility of 
>> action, facing a specific question. If this group is able to convince 
>> others to join them, the movement grows. From down to up. For many 
>> reasons it can also stop is growth. But this would be another 
>> discussion. For our discussion here, I proposed only that the group of 
>> people that had built a mutual confidence along the IC existence could 
>> act like an initial group, trying to answer to the need we have in 
>> fact of a new world movement (different and separately of the WSF, 
>> that is as process of multiplying open spaces where to meet 
>> horizontally  and respecting the diversity, and build articulations, 
>> and even new movements...) . But this point we could discuss more 
>> deeply personally. Writing in English is not so easy for me. /
>>
>>> Having said this, I don't have any magic answers on how to overcome 
>>> these problems, but I would like to share some embryonic ideas and 
>>> suggestions that popped up while reading Whitaker's discussion texts. 
>>> But first I will try to give a brief reflection on Whitaker's views 
>>> on the role of social movements and the WSF as open space.
>>>
>>> *2. WSF, movement and space*
>>>
>>> According to Wikipedia the WSF 'tends to meet in January at the same 
>>> time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's 
>>> Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This date is consciously picked 
>>> to promote their alternative answers to world economic problems in 
>>> opposition to the World Economic Forum.' [3]
>>>
>> /The idea was not to be "rival" but to say the we could have a non 
>> market (Davos) approach to solve the world problems, denying the only 
>> economic growth of the capitalist system. We wanted to show that their 
>> "unic thougth" ("pensée unique") was not the answer./
>>>
>>> For the 2013 edition the tradition of the overlapping date with the 
>>> WEF in Davos has been abandoned for the first time in the history of 
>>> the WSF. Although this seems a trivial point, it made me realize how 
>>> deep the similarities between the WSF and WEF are, where the WSF has 
>>> been mimicking the WEF as an event for the leaders of, in this case, 
>>> another world, while Whitaker has made opposite claims (2004b). Let 
>>> me explain.
>>>
>> /The idea of doing the WSF at the same days as Davos was a 
>> communication strategy: we thought we could then oblige the main media 
>> to speak about the WSF, even with only ten little lines saying that 
>> there were people thinking on alternatives to the marker economies....
>> The tradition was broken not now in Tunis but in Dakar, in 2011. I am 
>> not sure it was a good decision (of the IC, following the Dakar Forum 
>> "organizers"). Many say that the WSF is now invisible in the main 
>> media, and our alternative media do not arrive everywhere... We have 
>> still to find a new way to broke the barriers of the mass 
>> communication. //
>> //But please, don't say we were "mimicking" the WEF! It seems you 
>> don't know the WSF methodology! The WSF was not and is not an event of 
>> "leaders" (in Davos, 2.000 people, in Porto Alegre and Belem even 
>> 150.000 people...). And the WSF content is decided but its 
>> participants (through the self-organized activities) and not by its 
>> "organizers". /
>>>
>>> In an interview addressing Occupy Wall Street, Whitaker frames the 
>>> position of social movements as follows: '[W]e are not 99% against 
>>> 1%. Those who have already the courage to speak up are many, but 
>>> perhaps more or less 1%, against the 1% who controls and exploits the 
>>> rest of the world.' (2012b) So, we have a powerful elite (symbolized 
>>> by the WEF) on the one hand, a small group who resists on the extreme 
>>> opposite site (symbolized by the WSF) and in the middle there is the 
>>> 98%. Whitaker continues: '[W]e need to change our strategy. We need 
>>> to turn ourselves to the 98%' (2012a)
>>>
>>> I think this vision becomes problematic exactly where it puts the 
>>> social movements outside of the 98%, as those who already see, those 
>>> who already know. It's a simplicfication of reality in which the 98% 
>>> has two options: this 1% or that 1%, us or them. I think this is an 
>>> elitist, exclusive, vanguardist, moralistic and alienating picture 
>>> and it ignores the reality that a vast majority of the world 
>>> population is engaged in a day to day struggle for a life in peace 
>>> and dignity, a struggle that takes many forms, and some of them may 
>>> be less visible than others. I just don't think we can 'network' all 
>>> these struggles by placing ourselves outside or above them.
>>>
>> /Again a misunderstanding. And a big misunderstanding. Please...  
>> About this point I invite you to come to an activity I am 
>> participating in Tunis ("And the 98%?"), the 28th, 3d slot (16h00 to 
>> 18h30), in the room G101. If you have time, you can visit the blog 
>> that was created to prepare this workshop (www.98percent.net). You 
>> will see that one of our discussions will be about the idea of 
>> "Volontary servitude" of the French philosopher La Boetie (text 
>> written in 1500...) re-analysed by people from today, in our present 
>> societies. It will be certainly very interesting. /
>>
>> /I would like to go further, because many things you say in the 
>> continuation of your text make possible other reflections. Open space, 
>> Charter of Principles, things learned in the school about geography, 
>> etc. As a good intellectual, Jasper, you entered slowly but 
>> enthusiastically in a concepts discussion that could transform our 
>> exchange in a warm polemic with one trying to smash the other... //I 
>> would still only say  that in the beginning of my first paper on the 
>> IC future //I said //that we had to overcome the space 
>> //_or_//movement //logics //to go to the space //_and_//movement 
>> logics. Nothing to do with "wraping " the WSF with a new movement.../
>> /But I cannot continue. //I//t would be too long to explain all the 
>> differences in what you say I am saying and what I tried to say... 
>> //My last paper sent now could perhaps explain many things. //My time 
>> is over. Tomorrow I am flying to Tunis and I have still many practical 
>> things to do.
>> //Till Tunis, Jasper. Let us continue. Chico Whitaker /
>>>
>>> I'm not only having trouble with this narrow definition of movements, 
>>> I also would like to discuss the meaning of open space. Much has been 
>>> written about the WSF as an open space for movements. Here I will 
>>> limit myself by just looking at some of the Whitaker's (maybe 
>>> outdated, I don't know) hypotheses on the WSF as open space:
>>>
>>> 'A space has /no leaders/. It is only a place, basically a horizontal 
>>> space, just like the earth's surface, even if it has some ups and 
>>> downs, It is like a /square without an owner/. If the square has an 
>>> owner other than the collectivity, it fails to be a square, and 
>>> becomes private territory. Squares are generally open spaces that can 
>>> be visited by all those who find any kind of interest in using it. 
>>> Their purpose is solely being a square, whatever service they render 
>>> to its users. The longer they last as squares the better it is for 
>>> those who use them for what they offer for the realisation of their 
>>> respective objectives.'
>>>
>>> (Whitaker, 2004a, p.113, /author's emphasis/)
>>>
>>> This vision contradicts with almost everything I was taught in human 
>>> geography courses at university. But here I won't go into the 
>>> historical and theoretical analysis of the relations between people 
>>> and space, it's enough to have a look at the recent experiences of 
>>> Tahrir, Sol, Zucotti and hundreds of other squares around the world. 
>>> Here we have learned that the creation of a safe and open space, 
>>> trying to realize a glimpse of another world, often right at a 
>>> central point in the 'normality' of the dominant logic, is not that 
>>> easy. We have learned that open spaces are always a product of a 
>>> complex interaction between many different interests, intentions and 
>>> expectations, both within the occupied squares and in relation to the 
>>> rest of the world. Therefore, we can not just simply declare a space 
>>> open and horizontal, and expect it to behave according to a certain 
>>> set of principles forever. Instead, in the struggle for open spaces 
>>> we always have to take into account questions of power, ownership and 
>>> directions.
>>>
>>> In the debate between those who have seen the WSF as movement, and 
>>> those who have seen it as a space, Whitaker always sided with the 
>>> latter: 'For me, there is no doubt that it is fundamental to ensure 
>>> at all costs the continuity of the Forum as a space and to not yield 
>>> to the temptation of transforming it now or even later, into a 
>>> movement.' (Whitaker 2004a)
>>>
>>> Now, nearly a decade later, Whitaker proposes to wrap the WSF space 
>>> up in a new movement, saying that 'we should have the WSF _as_ space 
>>> and a new movement (the APW -- Another Possible World) _as_ movement, 
>>> in parallel, without mixing both. We should nevertheless link them 
>>> [...]' (Whitaker 2013c para 1).
>>>
>>> If we want to come to a widely shared vision of the future of the 
>>> WSF, can we base it on abstract and theoretical interpretations of 
>>> spaces and movements? Can we draw strict lines between spaces and 
>>> movements, and at the same time try to link them? Or can we develop 
>>> new forms of global movement meetings based on practical experiences 
>>> from the social forums, the occupied squares, and elsewere?
>>>
>>> *3. Some suggestions*
>>>
>>> /On charters and principles/
>>>
>>> While Whitaker repeatedly states that 'it's not a question of 
>>> modifying the WSF Charter of Principles' (2012a, 2013a para 1.1), I 
>>> think the Charter of Principles and its meaning within the WSF 
>>> process should be rediscussed at some point. Without concluding that 
>>> the text is not relevant or valuable anymore, I see many reasons to 
>>> have another look at it, not only because of its limitations (and 
>>> violations), but most importantly because I think anything should be 
>>> open to discussion, always.
>>>
>>> /A next WSF in cyberspace?/
>>>
>>> If the location of the next WSF is such a delicate matter, why not 
>>> have an edition of the WSF in cyberspace, as an experiment? I see 
>>> many opportunities here. First, it could improve the online 
>>> infrastructure of the WSF and many participating social movements. 
>>> Second, this could trigger the organisation of interconnected local 
>>> events around the world, building a base for the future of the WSF 
>>> process. Third, it could attract new types of participants, 
>>> especially the ones that are not already engaged in any existing 
>>> organisation or movement (the 98 percenters?). Fourth, it 
>>> automatically gives new generations and new movements a position at 
>>> the forefront, since they were born in a landscape shaped by online 
>>> social networking. Fifth, it doesn't have the enormous environmental 
>>> costs and it doesn't need a concentration of financial resources. 
>>> Well, there are more arguments for (and against) a WSF in cyberspace, 
>>> but it's just another option that can be considered.
>>>
>>> /Opening up the spaces for debate/
>>>
>>> I think, when talking about the future of the WSF and the futures of 
>>> social movements, we need to communicate and discuss our various 
>>> needs and expectations regarding meetings on the global scale. Only 
>>> then we are able to build a collective and practical framework to 
>>> organize such meetings. The WSF in Tunis offers us another moment to 
>>> do this and we have to make sure that these debates are not kept 
>>> inside the exclusive spaces of IC mailinglists and IC meetings.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Notes*
>>>
>>> [1] See: Ezequiel Adamovsky, 2003, 'The World Social Forum's New 
>>> Project: The Network of the World's Social Movements' 
>>> http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/newproject.htm
>>>
>>> [2] See: http://www.iopsociety.org/
>>>
>>> [3] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum
>>>
>>> *References*
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, 2004a, 'The WSF as Open Space', in: Sen, J., A. 
>>> Anand, A. Escobar, P. Waterman (eds.), /World Social Forum: 
>>> Callenging Empires/, New Delhi, Viveka Foundation, p.111-121, 
>>> http://www.choike.org/documentos/wsf_s302_whitaker.pdf
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, March 2004b, 'World Social Forum -- A Process in 
>>> Construction', 
>>> http://www.pekea-fr.org/PubliSurNLetter/Whitaker-En-NL13.pdf
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, November 2011, 'Inverted tale -- from the end to the 
>>> beginning (imagine is possible)', http://www.e-joussour.net/en/node/12054
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, January 2012a, 'New Perspectives in the WSF Process', 
>>> _http://www.ciranda.net/article6100.html_
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, February 2012b, 'A View From Brazil: World Social 
>>> Forum Co-founder Chico Whitaker Offers an International Perspective 
>>> on the Occupy Wall Street Movement', 
>>> _http://www.ussocialforum.net/node/373_
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, December 2012c, 'World Social Forum: space or 
>>> movement? Thinking about the WSF International Council future in new 
>>> perspectives', December 2012, 
>>> http://chicowhitaker.net/artigo_eng.php?artigo=44
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, January 2013a 'Additional notes to the text proposing 
>>> the dissolution of the WSF IC', 
>>> http://chicowhitaker.net/artigo_eng.php?artigo=45
>>>
>>> Chico Whitaker, January 2013b, 'More notes about my proposal on the 
>>> WSF IC ', January 2013 http://chicowhitaker.net/artigo_eng.php?artigo=66
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[...]/1359837008625 
>>> <http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/02/1359837008625>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to 
>>> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@... 
>>> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@...>. Please 
>>> contact 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... 
>>> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@...> 
>>> for questions.
>>>
>>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
>>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr <http://www.avg.fr>
>>> Version: 2013.0.2897 / Base de données virale: 2639/6074 - Date: 
>>> 01/02/2013
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[...]/1363975816602 
>> <http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/03/1363975816602>
>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to 
>> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@... 
>> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@...>. Please 
>> contact 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... 
>> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@...> 
>> for questions.
>
>
>
>--
>Archive: http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/03/1363989636860
>To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@....  Please contact 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... for questions.