In considering this question my focus is on Mikayla Novak’s
recent book, Freedom
in Contention, Social Movements and Liberal Political Economy.
Before going further, I should note that Mikayla uses an “entangled
political economy” framework to examine social networks. That framework,
developed by Richard Wagner, views individuals and groups as being intertwined
in overlapping relationships of different kinds - collaborative or competitive,
or consensual or exploitive. In pursuing their goals, social movements have an
irrepressible tendency to entangle with other movements, and with economic and
political organizations.
In making the case that social movements have contributed to
expanding economic, political, and social freedoms, Mikayla discusses the historical
role of some important social movements. The American revolution is discussed as
the culmination of a movement resisting imposition of unfair taxation. The
Anti-Corn Law League is discussed as a movement rallying public support in
opposition to agricultural tariffs that benefitted landowners at the expense of
consumers. The movements involved in progressive extension of the voting
franchise, including female suffrage activism, are discussed as part of a
struggle to gain recognition that all individuals should have equal standing to
participate in politics. The success of the American Civil Rights Movement in
expanding economic, political, and social freedoms is argued to have inspired
subsequent movements including anti-war, environmental and feminist movements.
The author’s coverage of contemporary social movements highlights
responses to regulation limiting voluntary productive entanglements of an
economic nature. Movements discussed include the Tea Party and the campaign to
counter restrictive effects of regulation on availability of medication for
people living with HIV/AIDS.
Mikayla also highlights the ongoing challenges posed by
cultural-institutional environments that fail to prevent those with political
influence using it to obtain benefits at the expense of others, and which
repress social movement activities. She paints an alarming picture of rising
illiberalism:
“Economic freedom has waned, minorities
and many other groups around the world are victimized by violent, reactionary
backlash dynamics, and, increasingly, we are meeting the end of a police
baton or are being haunted by the constant eye of the surveillance state. All
in all, the disturbing trend is that illiberalism appears, again, on the rise.”
(p 136)
However, that is followed immediately by a more optimistic
message about the future of freedom:
“Nevertheless, it is our position that great encouragement
should be taken from the demonstrated self-organizational abilities of ordinary
people, worldwide, to formulate social movements to demand their liberties and
human rights.” (p 136)
Progress
Although Mikayla does not discuss the concept of progress to
any great extent, she makes the important point that social evolution tends to
be discordant and discontinuous. As a liberal, she focuses on the role of
social movements play in the evolution of free and open societies, and
expresses strong opposition to “totalizing schemes (drawn up by social movement
participants, and by others) aiming at wholesale change to society”.
I believe that social movements have been an important
driver of progress, as the concept is defined in my book Freedom, Progress,
and Human Flourishing. I
define progress as growth of opportunities for human flourishing – that means growth of opportunities for all individuals to meet their
aspirations more fully. I don’t discuss the role of social movements
explicitly, but note that social changes accompanying economic progress have played
an important role in improving the opportunities available to women and members
of minority groups.
My view of cultural evolution as largely benign and
emancipative is consistent with the view of social movements that Mikayla
presents. There is, however, a slight difference in emphasis. I view cultural
evolution as the net result of progressive struggle and conservative
resistance, and argue that conservative resistance serves a useful purpose in
averting social changes that might later be widely regretted. Mikayla
recognizes that counter-movements may be informed by ideological commitments
rather than being reactionary, but she leaves the impression that they are more
likely to oppose liberal freedoms than to advance them. (See pages 90-91.)
There is also an interesting difference between the items
that Mikayla and I discuss as illiberal tendencies. As noted above, Mikayla
emphasizes the tendency for minorities and many other groups around the world to
be victimized by violent, reactionary backlash dynamics. The things I write
about under this heading include cancel culture, attempts to suppress views of
opponents, and terrorism. I think we are both right!
Summing up
Mikayla’s book makes an important contribution in reminding
readers in the Western democracies of the emancipative role of social movements
in realization of economic, political, and social freedoms that they now tend
to take for granted. In that context,
social movements have been important drivers of progress, including the spreading
of opportunities for more people to meet their aspirations more fully. Although
I am somewhat concerned about the illiberal tendencies in some contemporary
social movements, I share Mikayla’s optimism about the abilities of ordinary
people to formulate social movements to advance and protect liberty.
Usually I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never stop myself to say something about it. i am Really very happy to say that this post is very interesting to read.You’re doing a great job Man, Keep it up. I blog at
ReplyDeleteSEX Educations