Held at World Social Forum, Tunis, 2013
A Brief Analysis by Dhruv Pande, 17 May, 2013.
(The views reflected here are of the four sessions, out of six, in the Seminar Series)
The Seminar Sessions were classified as the following: 1. Crisis of Civilization: territories, commons and peoples’ resistances; 2. Technologies, knowledge and learnings; 3. Political Bodies: production, reproduction and sexuality; and lastly, was a session making an analysis of all the sessions on Cartographies.
The first session included presentations by activists/academics from different countries of South America (Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia) and Asia (Philippines, Kurdistan). A common concern which resonated was on the identity crisis of the indigenous people in these countries resulting in a meta-global crisis and subsequently, the determination by the leaders of social movements to continue striving for better future, better world and better living. Starting with an academic expert from Peru, who made a connection of the term ‘crisis’ with an entire species, mentioning the action of the species aggravating the ‘crisis’ by the dominance of a global hegemon guiding the ‘geographies’ of power. It is this hegemonic power model which needs to be challenged in order to ensure a more equitable survival of the planet. An Activist from Venezuela made an effective pictorial presentation on 100 years of oil exploitation, and the struggle to recuperate the land of the indigenous population affected therein. Hence, one is in a dire need for a ‘new’ mapping to shape the future according to the locals rather than the interests of the nation-state. A case from Bolivia highlighted a framework of Law wherein change in legal constitutionalism is much required in light of the demands by indigenous and in order to avoid its systematic violation by the Police. The voices from Philippines and Kurdistan presented cases of privatization of water and ecological perspectives of Kurdistan, respectively.
Hence, the first session, expanded the notion of ‘crisis’ by bringing in various aspects to the ‘crisis’ across a vast geography. A general demand raised was against the policies of the domestic State Policies and the ill-effects of neo-liberal capitalism in the form of privatization of basic needs of the local population, thus implementing their ‘hegemonic’ displacement from their own ‘inherent’ lands, by convincing ‘them’ with meager financial resources leading up to ‘their’ more uncertain and insecure future.
However, as for me, there was a considerable presentation of the problematic and resistances and struggles in response, but what I found lacking was a more stable solution to the crisis-at-hand which itself is a challenging task. It seemed like a picture of exploitation by the nation-state in diverse aspects, in conjunction with international political and economic system, but perhaps some presentations on the organization of effective struggles and their sustainability could have addressed the issues beyond just stating the problematic.
The second session, technologies and knowledge, invoked interesting aspects of the use of technology affecting our social relations, as in we are the victims of the use of technologies today. Furthermore, common strategies for a methodology that can be enriched and developed as a substitute for prevalent technologies were stated as examples especially for developing countries where emerging new technologies are indirectly ‘controlling’ and ‘monitoring’ people affecting ‘their’ social exchanges and networking. Hence, from a discussion point of view, this session was still richer in terms of new, innovative methods to bring a change to the prevalent system of technologies, but from a content-related matter, it was weaker than the first session. Beyond a point, it seemed a repetition of the view-points which had already been stated many times previously in the session. Though one could see reflections of critical mapping of technologies, strategic progressive visions, fields of struggle, diverse forms of knowledge (which I could relate to ‘ecology of knowledges’), but in search of alternative to alternatives, there was still much more that could be filled in terms of effective practices or methods of the ‘proposed’ technology. For instance, one question I wish to raise here is — ‘how do we make sure that considering the question of time, the alternative technology itself has to be dynamic-enough in order not to exercise its prevalence if its not in complementarity with the local needs, which themselves might change in due course of time?’
The third session, on political bodies, however, brought together the missing aspects of the first two to a great extent. This is particularly due to the methodology of this session, which was more interactive and not just in the form of a monologue or a Seminar. From the point of view of content and discussion, the session was effective in bringing up conceptual framework of power relations and aspects of bodies as ‘territories of others’, together with different voices as cartographies of resistance. The session was effective especially due to a large part of it organized in the form of different random groups speculating and formulating on use of bodies in its physical form and as a social-political statement in diverse geographical locations, enriching the concept of ‘context’ in cartographies.
The last session of the series, was analytical in itself, making an evaluation of all sessions, the concepts and practices raised, and a general call in terms of ‘at least we have started the process’ of redrawing maps and cartographies taking into question the twin concepts of density and diversity. A lot of stress was made on the participative methodology and the orientation of the discussions. The mapping of State-Police Violence was one of the general concerns making a horizontal relation among different actors and different geographies. Furthermore, what was brought into focus was an attempt to forge coalitions or alliances among diversities which comes as a challenge to any social-scientific practice of social transformations. As for me, the issues were touched upon, but not discussed in depth, perhaps due to lack of time but some of the very important questions raised therein were – ‘What is the factual data that one wants to change?’, ‘What relationships one wants to transform?’, ‘Where is the lacuna in making connections of mapping?’, ‘What is this collaborative production of knowledge that we are working for?’. Hence, with these questions we are led into a process which has started but still a long road to be travelled with immense diversity and multiplicity of equations, questions, practices, and ‘knowledges’.
Photo Credit: Dhruv Pande
Related posts:
