Marginalization and Transnationalizing Movements:
How Does One Relate to the Other?
Pascale Dufour
From June 25th to 27th, 2010, the “Mouvement des Sans Voix” (MSV) (literally, the movement of people without a voice) organized the third edition of the “Fo-rum des Sans” (FSS) (the social fora of the “withouts” or of the “have-nots”) in Bamako, Mali. At the same time, world leaders were meeting in Toronto, Canada, for the G8/20 summit. The MSV was established in 2005 as an initiative of young activists from Mali, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Togo, Benin, and Guinea. Its orig-inal name was Mouvement Alternative de la Jeunesse Africaine. Today, the move-ment is broader and is part of the No-Vox transnational network. The MSV de-fines itself as a movement of struggle and resistance in the defense of human rights.1
The FSS is organized each year by the MSV. Its main aim is to discuss ques-tions relating to marginalized and poor people, and to propose alternatives to ne-oliberal economic policies. According to its website: “The FSS is an anti-capitalist space whose aim is to create and consolidate national and supra-national links of struggles against capitalism, to develop and consolidate solidarities among peo-ples, sine qua non condition of emancipation.”2
The 2010 FSS was also a step towards the preparation of the World Social Fo-rum (WSF) that took place in Dakar, Senegal, in February 2011. Without doubt, the MSV is very critical of the WSF process, and especially of some European or-ganizations, and the MSV wished to make the world gathering in Dakar a “mo-ment of resistance of African peoples.”3 The FSS could be described as a transna-tional event where marginalized people from diverse parts of the world gather to defend fundamental human rights, promote new rights, discuss and exchange prac-tices and analyses about the struggles against all forms of discrimination and dom-ination. One of the particular targets of the FSS is to promote and ensure participa-tion of the “have-nots” (les sans) in internaparticipa-tional gatherings such as the WSF. This event is very interesting from the point of view of the transnationalization of col-lective action, for at least three main reasons:
1 No Vox, Mouvement des Sans Voix, http://afrikka.no-vox.org/spip.php?rubrique11. 2 Primitivi, Mali: Forum des "sans" du 25 au 27 juin 2010 (author’s translation). See
http://www.primitivi.org/spip.php?article356.
3 Mouvement des sans Voix, Le FSM 2011 ou la grande exhibition des réseaux,
Transnationalization is, in this case, different from internationalization because it does not depend on international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, but it is rather linked to the emergence and spread of another global social event: the WSF;
This transnationalizing movement is driven by some of the world’s most marginalized/ underprivileged actors. These activists are quite different from the “rooted cosmopolitan” archetype described by Tarrow (2005): white young men, multilingual, graduate students or professional work-ers. On the contrary, activists from the FSS are part of the “semi-invisi-ble” described by Escobar (2008). They belong to countries (in Africa), that are not generally seen as being at the forefront of modern western history or even of social struggles, and they also represent underprivi-leged people in terms of the world-class struggles, as well as in terms of the world-racial struggles. Of course, it does not mean that these people are not educated or multilingual, but they are, unquestionably, coming from the South, and are mostly young and black. These are not the usual characteristics of activists that we find in transnational social move-ments’ literature.
The FSS is an ongoing transnationalization process; it is not just a big onetime event, with demonstrations or some other direct actions, but rather a process that began in 2005, and that is still alive today, testifying to its continuity.
Thus, starting from this empirical example, we would like to address a more theoretical concern in this chapter: how are the transnationalization and the marginalization processes related? As stressed in the introductory chapter of the book, we use the term marginalized people to refer to people’s weak volume of political resources and subsequently, to their dominated position in a certain do-main of power relations (Mouchard, 2010). From the literature on transnational social movements in general, we know that such processes are extremely costly, difficult to sustain and largely ineffective in terms of direct outputs emanating from the struggles (Bandy and Smith, 2005; McCarthy, 1997: 245). The literature on the transnationalization of marginalized people’s movements also discusses the fragility of the mobilizations of marginalized collective actors on the global scale (Giraud et al., 2005; Dufour, 2010). In particular, the question of alliances with other social actors appears very problematic (Hmed, 2007). In this context, ques-tions arise regarding how (and why) powerless people initiate processes of transnationalization? How and why they participate in processes of transnational-ization and, furthermore, why they continue to do so? Even if they are critics of the overall process, as we have mentioned is the case of the MSV for the World Social Forum, why do they choose to invest energy in these kinds of networks and events?
The main theoretical argument of the chapter is that in order to understand more accurately how marginalized people’s movements and transnationalization processes are embedded, we need to open our understanding of
transnationaliza-tion processes to see what the actors do when they build transnatransnationaliza-tionalizing move-ments. In order to analyze experiences such as the FSS, we propose first to con-sider transnationalization as a social practice of solidarities building, and second, as practices of “translation”.
In the first part of the chapter, we briefly go back to the sparse literature that has examined both social movements’ transnationalization and marginalized peo-ple, to see what kind of explanations they have developed. In the second part, we suggest that, to reach a more comprehensive view of the phenomenon, we should also take into account two elements that have been neglected: the question of transnationalization as a solidarities-building process led by a search for recogni-tion beyond borders, what De Sousa Santos (2005) called the work of “transla-tion”.
Studying transnational social movements from marginalized people’s point of view
Donatella della Porta and Sidney Tarrow (2005: 7) refer to transnational collective action as “the coordinated international campaigns on the part of networks of activists against international actors, other states, or international institutions”. This generally accepted definition has two implications. First it implies that the transnational aspect of collective action is defined by the presence of activists or groups belonging to more than one nation-state (the focus is therefore on the “international” or the “multinational” character of the coalitions). Second, the implication is that the target of the actions is also “international” or “multinational” and that it must possess institutional features (governmental or non-governmental).
As we have shown elsewhere (Dufour, 2010), the works that cross-over the question of marginalized collective actors and the question of transnational social movements can be divided into two parts. For one part of the study, transnationalization of marginalized collective actors could be analyzed with the same tools and theories developped for other social movements. For example, several European studies show how movements use changes in European institutions and dynamics to create new places of protest, at the European level, for their national groups or coalitions. The case of the immigration issue is a good illustation of this process (see Geedes, 2000; Danese, 1998; Monforte, 2010). In most of these studies, transnationalization is seen as a scale shift: movements invest in another institutional level, which is transnational in the case of the European Union (or international if the analysis concerns the way movements invest in the United Nations). In particular, these studies have employed the classic boomerang effect and spiral model (Sikking, 2005: 171) to explain the collective action of the unemployed in France vis-à-vis European institutions and the organization of activists from various European countries into networks. The boomerang effect and spiral model describe a series of actions that occur when activists – who are operating within a domestic opportunity structure that is generally closed, owing to repression or exclusion from the national system of
representation – search for international allies from more open international political opportunity structures in order to exert a pressure on their national government “from above”. The mobilizations of the unemployed in the late 1990s and the emergence of the European marches against unemployment follow this logic, at least in part (Chabanet, 2002). Chabanet (2002) has demonstrated how the mobilizations against unemployment that targeted the European Union (EU) were archetypical of the externalization process described by Imig and Tarrow (2001); the EU offered an additional level of opportunity, a sounding box, compelling national States to respond to demands made at the European level.
In these studies, transnationalization of marginalized people movements is a question of collective actors’ instrumental interests: transnationalization is seen by activists (and mostly leaders of movements) as a tool, a strategy, efficient to reach some external (usually national) gains, valid for the group itself. In that sense, the finality of transnationalization is outside the process of transnationalizing itself. Some groups decide to “go transnational” as they could decide to build upon or to deepen some local alliances. The answer as to how they do that is related to specific sociological mechanisms and political dymanics, as is the case for other social movements strategies.
The other part of the works done on the issue, focus more on the effect that these new, and transnational, spaces of protest have on marginalized collective actors. For example, in the case of the so-called alter-globalist movement:4
By joining the new anti-globalisation movement, these organisations sought to assert their legitimacy to represent the victims of neoliberal globalisation in France (…). For organisations defending marginalized people who struggled to be heard within traditional social mobilisations, the concept of anti-globalizations allowed them to take part in a potentially large-scale movement. (Desbos, 2010: 230) In this context, marginalization and transnationalization are mainly related by the spread of a Gobal Social Justice movement. Struggles against neo-liberal capitalism have offered a radical critique of neo-liberal political actions, and thus, have suggested a common frame for all collective marginalized actors. For example, in the case of Droit au logement (DAL), one of the main networks defending the right to housing for all in France, the links with the alter-globalization movement are presented as being there from the beginning of the Justice Movement from the end of the 1990s. “The emergence of DAL is characteristic of a new type of engagement, independent from traditional political parties. DAL developped a solidarity network with other organisations involved in the defence of the ‘sans’” (Desbos, 2010: 221). This enlargement is directly linked, by the author, to the building of the so-called “alter-globalist” discourse. DAL was a founding partner of ATTAC,5 one of the main alter-globalization organizations in France, and as such, it was directly concerned with the question
4 The term “alter” is a French expression that has come to replace “anti” with respect to the
globalization processes. It implies that activists are not against globalization as such but rather that they wish to promote another, non-capitalist, vision of the world.
of transnationalization from the beginning, even if the relationships between the two networks are not always easy. In that view, the dynamism of marginalized people’s movements in the 1990s and 2000s is embedded in the emergence of the Global Justice Movement and the love-hate relationship that marginalized people’s movements developped with it. The multiple tensions that exist between the two are seen as a concrete source of development.
Here, the answer as to why marginalized people’s movements participate in transnational social movements is more a question of contingency and contextual history; how transnationalization occurs explains why it happens. Transnationalization could be chosen as a strategy by leaders’ movements, but this strategy exists (or could be chosen at the time considered) because of historical contingencies and not only because of actors’ interests. In this chapter, we propose another kind of answer, complementary to the two that have already been proposed in the literature. Instead of searching for interests (what are marginalized collective actors’ interests in transnationalization strategy?), we explore transnationalization as a social practice. How do marginalized collective actors become transnationalized? What is the “daily activist work” that is required for transnationalization to occur and to continue? In the following section, we propose a theoretical answer, one that could lead empirical research on transnational movements and networks of marginalized people.
Transnationalization and social forums for marginalized people: A process of solidarities building and a work of translation
As reported by Dufour et al. (2010), Dennis Young identified as early as 1992 major obstacles to the building of cross-border coalitions: political, cultural, and linguistic diversity, which jeopardizes the very notion of coalition as it makes agreeing on common interests arduous; the physical distance separating activists, who then require significant resources in terms of travel; economic barriers to the movement of people, goods, and information that restrict opportunities to form coalitions; and the specificities of local political contexts that determine, in part, the opportunities for local groups to act at a global level.
In the case we are exploring, – marginalized people’s movements –, we could add to this list all the barriers and obstacles usually mentionned in the literature (lack of non-material resources such as know-how, lack of social integration, etc.). It is improbable that the constrains that exist for these movements locally or nationally vanish at the global scale. On the contrary, we could expect these constrains to play a major role in the transnationalizing process. If we pursue our line of enquiry, when a transnational movement continues through time, it means that marginalized people have succeeded in dealing with all these obstacles (several kinds of diversity, physical distance, economic barriers and local political contexts). In the following pages, we argue that these elements are not only obstacles, but also tools upon which transnational social movements could be built. We focus on two of them: solidarities and diversities.
Building and deepening solidarities
According to the open letter the MSV published in November 2010, the WSF in Dakar (February 2011) was to be an important step in the struggle against the cap-italist system. MSV members went to Dakar because they wanted to turn the event:
into a moment of resistance and permanent struggle of peoples from Africa, until the victory of the human being over capital. We go there to discuss together the long-term struggles, strategies and alternative perspectives to globalization. Broth-ers and sistBroth-ers “without voices” from Africa and elsewhere, you count more than a vast army of women and men imported to Dakar by the power of networks. We should not forget the ferocity of anti-capitalist activists for a worthy and prosperous Africa. (author’s translation)6
As Teune (2010: 3) indicated, transnational exchange is not a natural thing. Social movements’ transnationalizing is always the result of a convergence, beyond national borders, of actors’ differing interests and identities. If some basic sense of shared meaning is necessary to initiate transnationlization,7 or at least a basic sense of collectivity, the work of convergence implies continuous exchanges among activists, discussions, negotiations and mutual learnings. Convergence building is thus a process in which not only solidarities among activists are created and traveled but also deepened (Devin, 2004).
In other words, “the building of solidarities by actors involved in transnationalization processes goes hand in hand with the decisions made, strategies formulated, and specific mechanisms established within their respective organizations, movements or networks” (Dufour et al., 2010: 4). Activists build stronger ties amongst themselves in the course of their mobilizations and actions. More or less conflictual, this process promotes shared understandings of problems and analyses, and sometimes even solutions. For example, building solidarities in the context of an alter-globalization movement translates for activists into a deepening of their shared understanding of injustice at specific moments (mass demonstrations and social fora). As Agrikoliansky, Fillieule and Meyer underlined (2005: 40), “protest events are privileged moments when injustice frames are drawn that structure the critique of globalization” (author’s translation). In this sense, social fora offer a very specific context for transnational solidarities building: during two or three days, activists gather in one place and participate in workshops, conferences, discussions, debates, thoughts, exchanges, etc. Social
6 Mouvement des sans Voix, Le FSM 2011 ou la grande exhibition des réseaux,
http://www.mouvementdessansvoix.com/spip.php?article49.
7As Storm and Häse argue in their chapters in this book, the typical Western notion of
collective action quite generally implies that the establishment of movement starts with (un -problematic individual) shared intentions. The Chinese notion of guanxi means that the de-cision to engage in connections with others (in a group or a movement), could also be the result of collective concerns that exist before the formation of the group (because of com-mon past trajectories, rituality or fixed roles).
fora are “spaces that produce solidarities” (Mésini, 2009: 196) in the very nature of what they are.
Building and deepening solidarities among networks’ activists means also that people will transform their perception of commonality between themselves. This is not only a question of frame connections or of necessity to find an umbrella sufficiently loose and encompassing to connect the multitude of struggles – such as the master frame for the Global Justice Movement: anti-neo-liberalism (della Porta et al., 2006; Jossin, 2010) – it is also a question of transnational collective identity. How could it work?
The work of translation
As Teune (2010) stresses, social movement theorists should evade a “paternalist conception of commonality” and look carefully at a “frame alignment process” (Snow et al., 1986) that occurred in transnational coalitions. Building commonality is not only a question of language (finding the words that will suit all participants), but also experiences and cognitive concepts. It is far too short to explain alignment of frames with instrumental strategies to reach certain (often seen as non-problematic) goals on the basis of a common rationality (Smith, 2002). More and more, research explores dimensions linked with the “cross-national traffic of ideas and practices”, using concepts such as diffusion, translation, reception, learning (Roggeband, 2007: 247). As we have seen, in the case of transnationalizing solidarities, the requirement is very high: not only do ideas and practices need to travel “well”, but some commonality has to be built and deepened through time (Mohanty, 2003).
In the case of social fora experiences, de Sousa Santos has identified the work of “translation” as one of the main concrete practices that sustained the process as well as one of the main challenges to face in the near future. For de Sousa Santos:
Translation is the procedure that allows for mutual intelligibility among the experi-ences of the world, both available and possible, as revealed by the sociology of ab-sences and the sociology of emergences, without jeopardizing their identity and au-tonomy, and without, in other words, reducing them to homogeneous entities. (De Sousa Santos, 2005: 16)
In a context of multi-national belongings, some concrete questions are asked in relation to: multi-languages situations, cultural misunderstandings, diversity of so-cial struggles practices and objectives, diverging priorities, multiplicity of local constrains. For a network to manage and overcome these difficulties, translation is necessary:
The work of translation is a work of epistemological and democratic imagination, aiming to construct new and plural conceptions of social emancipation upon the ru-ins of the automatic social emancipation of the modernist project. (De Sousa Santos, 2005: 21)
In this specific process, “diversity is celebrated, not as a factor of fragmentation and isolationism, but rather as a condition of sharing and solidarity” (De Sousa Santos, 2005: 17). We propose, as a working hypothesis, that in the case of the FSS, translation, as a social practice, is at work. The FSS creates a specific mo-ment and place where such a practice is possible. We can also go further and say that if the FSS continues through times, it is at least partially because this work of translation is done.
The cultural translation we are speaking of involves several steps (these steps are not linear, they overlap, but for the clarity of discussion we present them suc-cessively). The first step is the communication and expression of activists’ voices. Here, the problem of languages is central as Doerr (2009) has shown. Who is able to speak, how and when? What are the consequences of direct translation by non-professionals on the deliberative process? Is the moment of communication inclu-sive or not? The second step relates to exchanges, discussions, sharing and mutual understanding. In the case of marginalized people, it could be the time when they realize their common position of domination in their respective societies, but also their fragile position in the Global Justice Movement. The third step implies a process of re-appropriation of personal and collective histories and recognition of the personal and collective histories of others. As de Sousa Santos underlines (as well as Barthes, 1970; and Sandoval, 2000), this step is crucial: the work of trans-lation would not be fair and complete if recognition of the histories of others (as singular as well as collective histories) is not there. Without recognition, there is no cultural translation, only a colonial process. To belong to a movement (marginalized or not) means that activists are seen by others as sharing some ele-ments of a collective identity.
For example, to belong to women’s movements means to be recognized as a woman by other members of the movements and by public opinion. It is also a way to be able to give some content to what it is to be a woman, which is a way to re-affirm a women’s own identity. In that sense, being part of a movement is a double process in terms of recognition: a way to make his or her own individuality recognized by others (in the networks, groups and at large), and a way to create something collective on the very content of this individuality.
In the case of marginalized people participating in social fora, this question of recognition is crucial. If they are not recognized by other social movements they will not exist in the social forum space as marginalized people and the problem they carry with them, their claims, will not be heard and not even expressed. So, one of the first aims they put forward when they participate in social fora, is to be there to be recognized as a “legitimate collective actor” that can best express the social suffering of part of the world population.8 Recognition, in this perspective, is the process by which “epistemic injustice” is repaired: “the injustice of having some significant area of one’s social experience obscured from collective under-standing owing to persistent and wide-ranging hermeneutical marginalization” (Fricker, 2006: PAGE). As Lazzeri suggests, a fight for recognition is thus a way to overcome the material conditions as the symbolic depreciation an individual or
a group leave with (Lazzeri, 2009: 344). In the FSS, activists accept that they are at the margins of their own society. The fact to be together, as part of the FSS (and the MSV) is a way to recognize others as peers and to be recognized by others as such.
The results of a successful work of translation are thus mutual learning, the em-powerment of the people involved and the emancipation of the (collective and in-dividual) subject. In the “work of translation”, collective and individual positions of domination are put in context: if one is able to understand the dynamics of rela-tionships others (who are peers) live in, s/he will also be able to better understand the social mechanism (especially domination and resistance), in which s/he lives and which defines the shared conditions of marginalized people. By naming what activists of the FSS have in common, participants are also in a process of emanci-pation: they learn how to speak for themselves (rather than “speak by others” as Bourdieu (1982) said), and they create some space of autonomy to exist by them-selves in the context of the alter-globalization field of protest. At the same time, they recognize and identify the similarities of their conditions and positions in their respective societies, and are able to recognize and identify the multiplicity of their situations with all their differences. A successful translation, in this perspec-tive, would be a process in which the existence of the transnational collective is reinforced and at the same time in which all individual, as well as groups differ-ences, could be expressed (and recognized).
Of course, the question of recognition is not new in the literature of social movement studies (see Poletta, 2008). However, the context of social fora is. Therefore, is it possible to build sustained solidarities in a context of multinational belonging? And how is it possible to go beyond national borders in the content of the solidarities and claims that were built? As the literature has shown, transna-tional social movements and networks face specific difficulties and barriers that are even more salient in the case of marginalized collective actors. The concrete gains they can make in transnationalizing, independently of the success or the fail-ure of the movement as a whole, are directly linked with this work of translation.
Conclusion
If we go back to the beginning of the chapter, we have some hypothetical answers to the three intriguing dimensions we highlighted in our case study. Of course, these hypotheses will need empirical validation, which was not the aim of the chapter. We first underlined the fact that the FSS is not a “classical” case of transnationalization. The process that creates the network is not a shift of scale of actions where activists “go international”. We suggest that it could be a building solidarities process, among peer activists from Africa and other part of the world. The proclaimed finality of the network, – to fight the neo-liberal agenda –, is prob-ably not the whole story. Building solidarities beyond borders allows marginalized collective actors to exist at the global scale, as a social movement among other recognized and legitimate social movements. In other words, it could be strategi-cally important for them simply to continue “to be there”.
Secondly, “classic” rooted cosmopolitans do not drive this global network; ac-tivists are mainly part of the “semi-invisible” class of the world. This characteris-tic is probably parcharacteris-ticularly crucial for the question of recognition. Activists from the FSS are at the margins of their respective societies, and also of the “world sys-tems,” and their place inside the alter-globalization field of protest is very fragile. If they want to exist – and to be recognized – as such, if they want to have a voice, they probably need to pursue solidarities building processes beyond national bor-ders.
Third, we mentioned the question of the continuity of the network. If we agree that participation in a movement or a network such as FSS and MSV is a way to reaffirm its belonging to a certain community or collective, we understand much better why people, even if they lack resources, opportunities and even concrete re-sults of their actions, continue to mobilize transnationally. They do so also to “en-sure the conditions of reproduction of their circle of recognition, to en“en-sure the con-tinuity of their identity, so to ensure or to overcome the uncertainty that could change this circle, make it weaker or disappear” (Lazzeri, 2009: 151, author’s translation).
We argue that the concrete practice that allows activists to build and deepen transnational solidarities is translation. With the “work of translation”, activists mutually recognize and understand themselves, as the same and different at the same time (what De Sousa Santos called mutual intelligibility). They develop the tools that could be used for their collective and individual emancipation. The “work of translation” is not the monopoly of marginalized people movements; it concerns all movements and networks which develop and sustain transnational ties. Nevertheless, because of their specific position, in their respective society, the “output” of this work is extremely important for them. It creates the very pos-sibility of their individual and collective existence, for themselves as well as for the movements of others.
Bibliography
Agrikoliansky, Éric, Olivier Fillieule and Nonna Meyer. (2005). L’altermondial-isme en France. La longue histoire d’une nouvelle cause. Paris: Flammarion. Bandy, Joe, and Jackie Smith. (2005). Coalitions across Borders: Transnational
Protest and the Neoliberal Order. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. Barthes, Roland. (1970). Mythologies, Paris: Le Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard.
Chabanet, Didier. (2002). Les marches européennes contre le chômage, la précar-ité et les exclusions. In B. Richard, D. Chabanet et V. Wright, dir (eds.) L’ac-tion collective en Europe. Paris: Presses de sciences po, pp. 461–493.
Chabanet, Didier et Frédéric Royall. (2010). Mobilising against Marginalisation in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Danese, Gaia. (1998). Transnational collective action in Europe: the case of mi-grants in Italy and Spain, Journal of ethnic and Migration Studies, 24, 4: 715-733.
De Sousa Santos. (2005).The future of the World Social Forum: The Work of Translation, Development 48, 2: 15-22.
della Porta, Donatella, Massimillano Andretta, Lorenzo Mosca, Herbert Reiter. (2006). Globalization from Below: Transnational Activists and Protest Net-works. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
della Porta, Donatella, and Sidney Tarrow, eds. (2005). Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Desbos, Clément. (2010). Limits on the Integration of the “sans” within the anti-globalisation Movement: The Case of Droit au logement in ATTAC France (1998 – 2008). In Chabanet, Didier and Frédéric Royall. (2010). Mobilising against Marginalisation in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publish-ing, pp. 211-234.
Devin, Guillaume, ed. (2004). Les solidarités transnationales. Paris: L’Harmattan. Dufour, Pascale, Masson Dominique, and Caouette Dominique. (2010). Transna-tionalizing Women’s Movements: Solidarities beyond Borders. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Dufour, Pascale. (2009). Globalization and the Collective Action of the Socially Excluded in France: At the Heart of the Margins? French Politics, 7, 3-4: 316-341.
Escobar, Arturo. (2008). Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes. Duram and London: Duke University Press.
Fricker, Miranda. (2006). Powerlessness and Social interpretation. Espiteme, 96-108.
Giraud, B., Garcia, G., Mouchard, D. and Yon, K. (2005). La question sociale au Forum social. In É. Agrikoliansky and I. Sommier (eds.) Radiographie du mou-vement altermondialiste. Le second Forum social européen. Paris: La dispute, pp. 187–212.
Hmed, Choukri. (2007). Aux marges de l’altermondialisme: la représentation des classes populaires issues de l’immigration au deuxième forum social européen. In S. Cadiou, S. Dechezelles and A. Roger (eds.) Passer à l’action: les mobili-sations émergentes. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 249–269.
Imig, D. and Tarrow, S. (2001). Mapping the Europeanisation of contention: Evi-dence from a quantitative data analysis. In I. Doug, et S. Tarrow (eds.) Con-tentious Europeans. Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 27–53.
Jossin, Ariane. (2010). How do activists Experience Transnational Protest Events? The case of Young Global Justice Activists from Germany and France. In Te-une, Simon, ed. The transnational Condition. Protest Dynamics in an Entan-gled Europe. London: Berghan Books, pp. 42-66.
Lazzeri, C. (2009). Conflits de reconnaissance et mobilisation collective, Poli-tique et Sociétés, vol.28, 3: 117-160.
McCarthy, John D. (1997). The Globalization of Social Movement Theory. In Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State, ed. Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, 243-59. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Mésini, Béatrice. (2009). Les Sans dans les forums sociaux. Luttes aux confins et lignes de confront. Politique et Sociétés, 28, 1 : 193-228.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. (2003). Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Monforte, Pierre. (2010). Le secteur associatif face aux politiques européennes
d’immigration et d’asile. Quels acteurs pour quels modes d’européanisation?. Politique Européenne, 31 (2) : 119-145.
Mouchard, Daniel. (2010). Les mouvements sociaux, laboratoires de la démocratie. La Vie des Idées. http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Les-mouvements-so-ciaux.html [consulted on November 24, 2010].
Polletta, Francesca. (2008). Culture and Movements. The Annals of the American Academy of political and Social Science, 619: 78-95.
Roggeband, Conny. (2007). Translators and Transformers: International Inspira-tions and exchange in Social movements. Social Movement Studies, 6,3:245-259.
Sandoval, Chela. (2000). Methodology of the Oppressed, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Smith, Jackie, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, eds. (1997). Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Smith, Jackie. (2002). “Bridging Global Divides? Strategic Framing and Solidarity in Transnational Social Movement Organisations”, International Sociology 17(4): 505-528.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden and Robert D. Ben-ford. (1986). Frame Alignement Processes, Micromobilizations and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 4: 464-481.
Teune, Simon. (2010). The Transnational Condition: An Introduction. In Teune, Simon, ed. The transnational Condition. Protest Dynamics in an Entangled Eu-rope. London: Berghan Books, pp. 1-22.
Tarrow, Sidney. (2001). Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in In-ternational Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 1-20.
Tarrow, Sidney. (2005). The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, Dennis R. (1992). Organising Principles for International Advocacy Asso-ciations. Voluntas 3 (1): 1-28.
