Introduction
We have seen the majority of contemporary European social movements fail to achieve systemic change, despite their passion and appeal, mainly because they are unable to embark on a real radical change of their own mindset—or ‘imaginary’. The revolutions that these movements bring are sometimes tremendous and yet, once they are over, slowly everything returns to its original place. While their core messages continue to resonate, they somehow prove unable to translate their energy into effective action and long-term change. This paper tries to explore how social movements lack a radical social imaginary by examining Castoriadis’ conception of the social imaginary and its establishment, and specifically his critique of the capitalist imaginary: of the bureaucratisation and rationalisation of the modern world. It builds on to develop Castoriadis’ ideas on a collective of individuals who aim to overcome society’s heteronomy through their radical and autonomous will. Through Castoriadis’ theoretical perspective in relation to contemporary European social movements as Otpor, the Icelandic Revolutions and Indignados, this paper explores the reasons why these movements failed and succeeded, in order to show ultimately how bureaucratic capitalism conditioned them. This paper argues that there is a need for contemporary social movements to achieve a radical social imaginary, as Castoriadis imagined it, in order to achieve true autonomy.
The social imaginary and the problem of the capitalist imaginary
Castoriadis (1986) argued that each society has its own logic, which is set up by its collective social imaginary. Social imaginaries are neither real, nor rational: instead, the imaginary forms a perception of reality and makes all the necessary connections to reason logically. Society is therefore a form of self-creation and self-establishment. However, most societies through history are heteronomous, law-based, instituted societies. The dogma ruling societies is that their establishment does not depend on individuals, that they cannot make their own law—instead, the system and its values and rules are established by an external force.
The social imaginary of the modern society appears to be a capitalist imaginary, and it comes along with new attitudes, values, norms, a new social definition of reality and of being, of what counts and what does not count. The capitalist imaginary seems to build on rationalism everywhere: industries, markets, government institutions… But Castoriadis was very critical of rationalism: firstly because you cannot explain imagination on the basis of logic alone, insofar as the logic of rationalisation hides the existence of the collective imagination; and secondly because modern societies associate rationalisation with unlimited economic growth. Castoriadis argued that what makes individuals ‘human’ is a sense of limits (Murphy, 2014).
Rationalisation produced a kind of capitalism that Castoriadis (drawing from Max Weber) calls bureaucratic capitalism: the genesis of hierarchical structure, as multiple classes, offices and processes emerged within modern society. As a consequence, the direction and the implementation of production were split and led to instrumentalisation, where human beings became mere instruments for the production targets (Murphy, 2014). According to Castoriadis, true democracy is the social creation of the individual and collective project of autonomy: to be autonomous is to give laws to oneself (Klooger, 2014). Hence, the project of autonomy clashes with social imaginaries that attribute the establishment of society to some external source of power and instrumentalise its citizens.
Castoriadis (1987) is convinced that human freedom depends on the power of imagination, and that radical social imaginaries have the potential to abolish the established order. For him, the imaginary is the driving force for revolutions, and it is truly radical when its significations are created ‘ex nihilo’ (Canceran, 2009). A radical transformation occurs when there is a shared social imaginary of autonomy and equality, along with unlimited questioning of the social and political order (Browne, 2014). True democracy is thus a system that continually establishes itself, insofar as the ideas of freedom, equity and equality and the way in which they are implemented are continuously evolving.
How bureaucratic capitalism conditions contemporary social movements: three examples
Otpor is a democratic youth movement created by a small group of students and activists at Belgrade University. During its period of activity, from 1998 until 2003, its numbers grew tremendously. What began as a civic protest group, eventually turned into a movement that contributed to overthrowing Milosevic’s regime and the transition to democracy (Rosenberg, 2011). Otpor had a structured organisation, and beyond its provocative attitude, the unity and commitment to non-violent methods were seen as the keys to its success (Mrvos, 2010). Although it looked like a leaderless movement, Otpor in fact had a well organised political structure, a discreet leadership and a light but efficient hierarchy (Nenadic & Belcevic, 2006). While data about Otpor’s financing sources were kept secret, it was later revealed that Otpor received substantial funds from US government-affiliated organisations and that its activists had professional training and were taught non-violent resistance methods by specialised US intelligence members (Engdahl, 2017).
While the students who initiated Otpor underwent a transformation in their social imaginaries by questioning the social and political order, the transformation was not radical, as they did not create a new structure, meanings or ideas ex nihilo. They used elections to trigger change towards a more democratic government, and they used the established society to pursue their goals, without questioning society itself.
What made Otpor so attractive for Serbia’s youth, disenchanted by traditional political parties and their corrupt practices, was its alleged rejection of formal, bureaucratic procedures. The openness and versatility, along with their unifying message, allowed Otpor to embrace people of all backgrounds and opinions (Kurtz, 2010). Otpor provided Serbia’s people a medium to voice their concerns and sparked their interest in politics simultaneously giving a sense of responsibility and initiative. But in order to mobilise the population, Otpor spread a false picture of the movement. Moreover, what had been a youth party became a party dominated by adults, led by foreigners and their interests. And if they were somehow autonomous at the beginning, the US government managed to confine their autonomy. The same democratic foundations of the US were applied to overthrow Milosevic and establish democracy in Serbia (Engdahl, 2017). In fact, what looked like a revolutionary social movement was steered by the US’ capitalist bureaucracy.
After Milosevic’s overthrow Otpor became a political party: it changed its structure and methods of operation, established a clear leadership and hierarchical structure that ran against the decentralised nature of its revolutionary politics. Otpor gave up altogether the project of autonomy, equality and true democracy and embraced in exchange the capitalist significations of expansion and growth. Otpor decided to stand for elections but failed to enter parliament and so the organisation dissolved while those at the top traded their revolutionary mask for comfortable positions within the pre-established Democratic Party (Joksic & Spoerri, 2011). The reasons that motivated them to revolt in 1998 faded as they gained power and installed comfortably within the commodities and privileges that capitalist bureaucracies offer to the higher elements of the hierarchy.
Turning to the Icelandic protests movement known as the ‘Saucepan Revolution’, which occurred in the wake of the Icelandic financial crisis from 2008-09. Protesters asked for the resignation of government officials, new elections, a new constitution and the prosecution of bankers and politicians responsible for the mishandling of the nation’s finances. During half a year, Icelanders occupied Reykjavik’s Austurvöllur Square every Saturday, banging on pots and pans in sign of protest and holding public meetings. The mobilisations were successful: the President resigned, a new constitution drafted through public participation was presented and the bankers were put in jail (Shishade, Fominaya & Cox, 2012).
Arguably, Icelanders were favourable to radical ideas for change prompted by the economic collapse resulting from the banking crisis. But these radical ideas where followed by not so radical demands: Icelandic protesters engaged with existing structures in an effort to shift power within the system. The truly revolutionary dimension of the Saucepan Revolution was that decision-making power was transferred from the government to the people. Icelanders became autonomous individuals when they decided to rebel against the system and steer their own life and future. In this sense, the Saucepan Revolution did not undergo a radical transformation, but created a new kind of political awareness through large citizens’ participation at public meetings (Bernburg, 2016). Everybody was welcome to participate on equal footing and there was no established leadership or hierarchy. Icelandic activists often let themselves be influenced by interpretations offered by external observers, and sometimes used their narratives to reinterpret their own goals and motivations (Olafsson, 2014). Thus they accepted the changing nature of imaginaries and kept questioning their beliefs and adjusting their activities accordingly.
Given that the main purpose of the Saucepan Revolution was to reform and change political culture, the movement did not bring radical systemic change, nor was it intended to. After the government stepped down and a new left wing coalition took power, most of the engaged protesters were willing to work with the new government. Icelanders were convinced that the new government came from the revolution, and that it would make a difference as regards previous governments (Olafsson, 2014). On that assumption, people gave power back to the new elite, thus perpetuating the previous bureaucratic model. In 2013, the right-wing parties that set the ground for the banking crisis were back in power (England, 2015). This said, the Saucepan Revolution did not turn its back to its revolutionary politics, but it was unable to sustain its potential against the heteronomous model of society and its bureaucratic patterns. The whole movement was thus conditioned by bureaucratic capitalism since it didn’t go far enough it its imaginary transformation to start questioning society itself.
Turning to the ‘Indignados’ or ’15-M’ anti-austerity movement started in 2011 in Madrid that subsequently spread to other Spanish cities. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in different cities and protested against the political system that had led to the crisis. The 15-M movement asked for political reforms to reconstruct democratic processes and socioeconomic rights, and denounced governmental corruption. A series of demonstrations, assemblies and occupations of public spaces took place during the following three years (Shishade, Fominaya & Cox, 2012). The Indignados impacted Spanish political life in such a profound manner that it can be regarded as having started a new political cycle: it destabilised the old model of politics, in particular the decades of bi-partisan hegemony between the Socialist PSOE and the Conservative PP.
Apart from the end of the bi-partisan structure, no further revolutionary change was brought about in Spain. However, the different reactions, reforms and protests produced by 15-M opened the way for such a possible evolution. For the first time ever since the transition to democracy period, large numbers of the population actively engaged in politics, an intense combination of different social movements happened and many initiatives of self-organisation took place. Politics was no longer the sole territory of institutions and political parties (Martínez & Domingo, 2014).
According to Cameron (2011) Indignados was also innovative in relation to the thinking process itself: its members undertook a deep investigation on the reality of the crisis and the methods to transform it. Therefore, the use of public space was essential for the movement (Mouffe, 2012) and contributed to a more defined view on autonomy, in an attempt to bring in new people into politics, via an open invitation to discuss and develop true democracy through direct and participatory models (Mena, Sánchez & Collado, 2018). Indignados avoided engaging with ideological agendas, unions and, most importantly, politicians. Moreover, they avoided all pre-conceived political significations and the leadership of traditional organisations. In this sense, Indignados seems to have achieved a profound change of their imaginary, whereby the notions of autonomy, equality and questioning were permanently present. The 15-M movement challenged the bureaucratic capitalist ideology based on competition and individualism and promoted a collaborative and solidary model.
The 15-M movement did not lack a radical social imaginary: it just reached its limits. It created a free space within the city, but could not make the next step and create an autonomous society within the city, because they their means and actions were limited and they were constrained by society’s bureaucratic structure. Beyond their claim of public space and search for a true democracy, Indignados addressed the ultimate question, namely what is what people want to change, rather than who is best prepared to bring about change (Cameron, 2011).
The need for contemporary social movements to achieve a radical social imaginary
What Castoriadis pointed out most importantly with bureaucratisation is not just that it produces hierarchy, alienation and instrumentalisation, but that it also destroys the sense of meaning. As bureaucratic rationality spread throughout every aspect of life, the way in which organisations addressed challenges changed: rather than fixing a problem directly, they created new rules, methods and procedures (Murphy, 2014). These procedures increased the complexity of the initial problems and proposed even more complex actions to solve them, resulting in additional offices and functions which were increasingly disconnected from the original problem. As a result, peoples’ work became increasingly devoted to meaningless action. Once citizens realise their work is meaningless, they tend to retreat into private life and focus on consumption. Work becomes purely the source of income and/or economic stability, and stops being a source of inherent meaning (Castoriadis, 1964). As a consequence of this bureaucratisation process, all kinds of social activities stopped making any sense for people and destroyed citizens’ responsibility and sense of initiative. Castoriadis noted the effect of all this on political participation: confronted with all this nonsense, people just disengage from politics (Murphy, 2014).
While social movements bring meaning to the people and trigger their interest in politics, they cannot be the sole driver of change, but rather and instrument of the revolutionary change. Change has to come from the people themselves: the idea of resistance can only be successful if it is accepted as a personal mission, pointing towards the project of autonomy. Empowering people to have a voice is an enormous task, but it is not enough: people still need to want it and take it. The established capitalist society has persuaded its citizens that what they do and say doesn’t matter, so it’s the role of social movements to show the opposite. If the notions of autonomy, equality and questioning are present among people, then the radical social imaginary will have been accomplished.
Currently, we see the emergence, spread and decline of social movements throughout the world that do not lead neither to systemic change nor to the replacement of the government. We should focus more in understanding how capable the social movements are of expanding while sustaining their will, how they reproduce and evolve within different situations, and what kind of diverse institutions are they able to create (Martínez & Domingo, 2014). It’s significant to note that soon after Otpor appeared came the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring in the Middle East. Otpor created a movement of enormous impact, during two years it inspired and shaped massive mobilisations of civil resistance (Kurtz, 2010). Like Otpor, the Saucepan Revolution inspired many other social movements, notably Indignados. 15-M didn’t create a long-term solution to Spain’s political situation, but their actions changed the perception and the dynamics between citizens, governments and economic interests in Spain. Indignados showed an extraordinary capacity to spread (it inspired, for instance, the Occupy movement in the USA) and kept high levels of participation and mobilisation along the three years of its existence. The anti-austerity political party Podemos is perhaps the most visible legacy of the 15-M in Spain.
Social movements that don’t achieve a radical social imaginary inevitably become more institutionalised as they grow. The above mentioned movements went through exceptional growth and rapid evolution, and often could not cope with the high demands for actual change (Nenadic and Belcevic, 2006). Too often, leaders emerged from these movements are progressively replaced by managers: bureaucratic structures are created, and there is a general accommodation towards a specific goal, rational procedures and heteronomy. Too many social movements have failed to resist the temptation of moving up in the hierarchy of organised politics and have abandoned the idea of true democracy (Joksic & Spoerri, 2011).
Social movements need to be in accordance with the uncertainty of the world and recognise that there is no truth that exists forever (Nicolacopoulos & Vassilacopoulos, 2014). After all, the most radical imaginaries—the ones that question society the most—have the biggest potential for progressive systemic change. This inevitably points to the direction of an authentic, never-ending questioning.
Conclusion
The above mentioned examples show how bureaucratic capitalism conditions contemporary social movements and how difficult it is to overcome its power. The bureaucratic capitalist imaginary has been deeply internalised and movements more or less unconsciously adopt its significations. Furthermore, for social change to take place, the people need to be ready to become autonomous and abandon the idea of meaninglessness that bureaucratic capitalist societies have put upon them. There is the need for contemporary social movements to achieve a radical social imaginary in order to achieve true democracy, because if radical change is not brought about in a revolutionary way, it will be done anyway, inevitably, in a bureaucratic way. Moreover, if the system is disturbed but the roots of the system are left intact, then those roots will maintain the same system again, altered in name but not in substance. Yet, maybe there is no need for a radical revolution. It may not be necessary to take power because these interconnected social movements will hopefully inspire other social movements and their significations will be replacing the parts of the system, gradually and inevitably. The ultimate question could be: should we rely on the hope that change will occur anyway and favour phased out reform, or should we proactively push for quick change in a radical, revolutionary manner?
References
Bernburg, J.G., 2016. Economic Crisis and Mass Protest: The Pots and Pans Revolution in Iceland. [e-book] Taylor and Francis. Available through: iBooks
Browne, C., 2014. Between Creative Democracy and Democratic Creativity. In: V. Karalid, ed. 2014. Cornelius Castoriadis and Radical Democracy. Leiden: Brill. Ch.10.
Cameron, B., 2011. Spain in Crisis: 15-M and the Culture of Indignation. [pdf] Available at: <https: //www.academia.edu/9872475/_Spain_in_Crisis_15-M_and_the_Culture_of_Indignation_Intro_to_ special_dossier_of_the_Journal_of_Spanish_Cultural_Studies_> [Accessed 7 November 2018]
Canceran, D.C., 2009. Social Imaginary in Social Change. Philippine Sociological Review, [e-journal] 57, pp.21-36. Available through: JSTOR <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23898342.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents> [Accessed 6 November 2018]
Candón M., J., Montero S., D. and Calle C., A., 2018. Discourse and practices of radical democracy: The 15M movement as a space of mobilisation. Partecipazione e Conflitto, [e-journal] 11(2) pp.571-598. 10.1285/i20356609v11i2p571
Castoriadis, C., 1986. The Imaginary: Creation in the Social-Historical Domain. In: D.A. Curtis, ed. 1997. World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis and the Imagination. Translated from French by D.A. Curtis. California: Standford University Press. Ch.1
Castoriadis, C., 1964. Recommencing the Revolution. In: D.A. Curtis, ed. 1997. The Castoriadis Reader. Translated from French by D.A. Curtis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Ch.4
Castoriadis, C. 1987. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Translated from French by K. Blamey. Cambridge: Polity Press
Engdahl, F.W., 2017. The Dishonest Career of the Remarkable Srda Popovic. [online] Available at: <http://katehon.com/article/dishonest-career-remarkable-srda-popovic> [Accessed 12 November 2018]
England, P., 2015. Iceland’s pots and pans revolution: Lessons from a nation that people power helped to emerge from its 2008 crisis all the stronger. The Independent, [online] 28 June. Available at: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/icelands-pots-and-pans-revolution-lessons-from-a-nation-that-people-power-helped-to-emerge-from-its-10351095.html> [Accessed 8 November 2018]
Joksic, M. and Spoerri, M., 2011. From Resistance to Revolution and Back Again: What Egyptian Youth Can Learn From Otpor When Its Activists Leave Tahrir Square. [online] Available at: <https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/0087> [Accessed 8 November 2018]
Martínez L., M.A. and Domingo S.J., E., 2014. Social and Political Impacts of the 15M Movement in Spain. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/M15_impacts_v3_0_April_2014.pdf>
Mouffe, C., 2012. An Agonistic Approach to the Future of Europe. New Literary History, [e-journal] 43(4) pp.629-640. Available through: JSTOR <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23358660.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab77086cac292c7a8803e96d925389f44> [Accessed 7 November 2018]
Mrvos, D., 2010. The Rise and Disappearance of Otpor: Nonviolent Movement in the Republic of Serbia. MSc. Illinois State University.
Murphy, P., 2014. Bureaucratic Capitalism and the work of Cornelius Castoriadis. In: V. Karalis, ed. 2014. Cornelius Castoriadis and Radical Democracy. Leiden: Brill. Ch.7.
Nenadic, D. and Belcevic, N., 2006. From Social Movement to Political Organisation : The Case of Otpor. [pdf] Available at: <https://civilresistance.info/sites/default/files/Nenad%20Belcevic.pdf> [Accessed 8 November 2018]
Nicolacopoulos, T. and Vassilacopoulos, G., 2014. Radical Democratic Subjectivity: Possibilities and Limits. In: V.Karalid, ed. 2014. Cornelius Castoriadis and Radical Democracy. Leiden: Brill. Ch.13.
Olafsson, J., 2014. A New Response to Crisis? Jon Olafsson on the Case of Iceland. Interviewed by Thomas Hintze. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, [e-journal] 58, pp.95-99. Available through: JSTOR <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24583221.pdf> [Accessed 8 November 2018]
Klooger, J., 2014. Imagining Democracy. In: V. Karalid, ed. 2014. Cornelius Castoriadis and Radical Democracy. Leiden: Brill. Ch.11.
Kurtz, L., 2010. Otpor and the Struggle for Democracy in Serbia. [pdf] Available at: <https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Kurtz-Otpor-Serbia-5.pdf> [Accessed 8 November 2018]
Rosenberg, T., 2011. Revolution U. Foreign Policy, [online] Available at: <https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/02/17/revolution-u-2/> [Accessed 8 November 2018]
Shishade, M., Fominaya, C.F. and Cox, L., 2012. The Season of Revolution: The Arab Spring and Europan Mobilisations. Interface: A Journal For and About Social Movements, [e-journal] 4(1), pp.1-16. Available through: University of Aberdeen website <http://www.interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Interface-4-1-editorial.pdf> [Accessed 7 November 2018]
New Minds Eye 