I agree with the points that have been raised: policing was provocative, but
neither that nor the fair point that capitalism is more violent necessarily
justifies counter-violence.
I was down in London for the protests, and find it a pity that a whole range
of imaginative campaigns have been overshadowed by reporting on the frays
late in the day. That is not simply anti-protester sentimet. George
Monbiot, in his excellent articles in the Guardian leading up to the
protests made two very good points. The first was that this emerging
movment is provsionally called 'anti-capitalism' but needs to find some more
positive focus point if it is to push its message home to a wider audience
and not be marginalised. The second was that environmental protest groups
have led violent elements sieze the agenda, and he looked at some examples
of the shift from non-violent to violent protest in only a few years. He
argued this risks derailing the movement, deflecting attention from the real
issues.
It is informative to contrast the anti-capitalist campaigns to the emerging
labour movement of a century ago, which in a short time achieved many
advances for the cause of social justice in Britain. It emerged largely
from the non-comformist churches with their emphasis on working class
revivalism and itinerant preaching. This gave a positive focus -the
conviction of justice (building God's kingdom on earth)- and a vast amount
of experience in articulate debate and citizen organisation. (This was true
even for those who rejected the religion but still had that upbringing.) It
seems to me that both of those elements, or something approximating them,
are needed again.
How can geographers, or the academy in general, contribute to addressing
the concerns Monbiot raised?
Nick Megoran,
postgrad,
Department of Geography, Cambridge.
|