(Im)possibilities of Autonomy: Social Movements in and beyond Capital, the State and Development

Abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Permanent repository link: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/15568/ Link to published version: http://dx. AbstractRecently, we have witnessed the emergence of what appears to be a new set of claims in contemporary social movements based around the idea of autonomy. In this paper we interrogate this demand for autonomy. In order to do this, we first engage with existing literatures, identifying three main conceptions of autonomy: 1) autonomous practices vis-à-vis capital, or, what Negri calls, the 'selfvalorization' of labour; 2) self-determination and independence from the state; and 3) alternatives to hegemonic discourses of development. We will then problematize and point out the central potentials, weaknesses and antagonisms at the heart of the concept of autonomy. We argue that social movements' demands for autonomy point to, what Laclau and Mouffe call, the impossibility of society, the idea that society can never be complete. That is, there will always be resistances, such as those expressed by 2 autonomous social movements. However, this also lets us understand the conception of autonomy to be incomplete. Autonomy itself is hence an impossibility. To point to these limits of the discourses of autonomy, we discuss how demands for autonomy are tied up with contemporary re-organizations of: 1) the capitalist workplace, characterized by discourses of autonomy, creativity and self-management; 2) the state, which increasingly outsources public services to independent, autonomous providers, which often have a more radical, social movement history; and 3) regimes of development, which today often emphasize local practices, participation and self-determination. Behind these critical reflections on the conception and practice of autonomy is the idea that autonomy should always be seen as something relational. That is, autonomy can never be fixed; there is no definite ground for demands for autonomy to stand on. Instead, social movements' demands for autonomy are embedded in specific social, economic, political and cultural contexts, giving rise to possibilities as well as impossibilities of autonomous practices.

Challenging the Degeneration Thesis: the Role of Democracy in Worker Cooperatives?

“…The ensuing discussion connects members' desire for control to the concept of autonomy. At first glance the desire to "[take] control and responsibility of one's own life", especially when connected to the study of entrepreneurialism, speaks to the individualised project of selfrule: a project that utilises the concept of autonomy as a vehicle to responsibilisation (Böhm, Dinerstein and Spicer, 2010). As such, the drive to autonomy is a potential source of degeneration.…”

Organizing resistance movements: contribution of the political discourse theory

“…In addition, one can note that many resistance campaigns -particularly those using non-hierarchical, informal methods -often rely extensively on voluntary work (Böhm, Dinerstein & Spicer, 2010). Again, this is a terrain where OS should be able to contribute usefully to PDT.…”

“…For us, and a growing number of organizational scholars, this broader understanding of organization includes the study of resistance movements (Misoczky & Vecchio, 2006;Misoczky, 2010;Hoffmann, Silva, & Dellagnelo, 2009;Fontenelle, 2010;Spicer & Böhm, 2007;Böhm, Dinerstein, & Spicer, 2010). This paper discusses the possibilities and limits of a joint articulation of organization studies (OS) and, what has been called, political discourse theory (PDT), which is a body of literature that has been analyzing social resistance movements for some time.…”

“…Specifically, we have engaged with a number of PDT publications by the 'Essex-school' -a range of studies produced by University of Essex-based scholars who have used and reframed the original works by Ernesto Laclau (Howarth, 1994(Howarth, , 1997Griggs and Howarth, 2000, 2004 -as well as works produced by OS scholars (Böhm, Dinerstein & Spicer, 2010, Otto & Böhm, 2006, Levy, 2008, Levy & Scully, 2007, Fontenelle, 2010, van Bommel & Spicer, 2011Contu, Palpacuer & Balas, 2013). We have read and analyzed these studies closely by identifying: (1) the main theoretical categories used; (2) the way these categories were applied to the empirical studies; (3) the main analytical outcomes that were put forward; and (4) the gaps or non-answered questions that we see in connection to the way resistance is organized in these empirical settings.…”

How Content Analysis may Complement and Extend the Insights of Discourse Analysis

“…A discourse of autonomy, in which people are seen as either potentially capable (potentially autonomous) of or actually enacting self-determination and independent action (autonomous), has underpinned many of the demands made by social movements in a range of spaces (Böhm, Dinerstein, & Spicer, 2010). This discourse was taken up in the data set in combination with a discourse of reproductive rights and to emphasize actions that lead to empowerment, as illustrated in the following extracts:…”