Friday, February 21, 2003

This might be of interest to folks who are studying "elite networks":

Call for Papers

Annual Meeting of the Business History Conference
In Conjunction with the Académie François Bourdon


18-20 June 2004, Le Creusot, France

On 18-20 June 2004, the Business History Conference (BHC) will host its
annual meeting in Le Creusot, France.

The BHC is the leading scholarly organization in the United States for the
study of business history. Le Creusot is a major center for the study of
France's industrial heritage, and the home of the Académie François
Bourdon. The Académie is an independent research institute that maintains
an archive with many collections on topics in European business
history. The Académie also maintains several buildings that were once part
of the Schneider Works, long a leading manufacturer of steel, armaments,
and metal products. The conference will take place at the Académie, as
well as at a nearby château. Le Creusot is located 250 kilometers
southeast of Paris, and is a gateway to the culturally rich Burgundy
region. It is easily reached from Paris by high-speed train.

Conference Theme

The theme of the conference is "networks." In the past few years,
networks of various kinds have engaged the attention of business
historians. Students of the so-called network industries in
communications, transportation, energy, and finance have moved beyond the
firm and the industry to make networks a focus of inquiry. Other kinds of
networks--rooted in geography, professional ties, mutual self-interest, or
shared values (such as religious affiliation or educational
background)--have figured prominently in recent work on innovation,
industrial regions, trade associations, cartels, and enterprises run by
women and minorities.

The program committee welcomes proposals that explore business networks,
broadly construed. The committee is particularly interested in scholarship
that is grounded in research in business archives, trade journals, oral
histories, or other primary sources. Among the questions that presenters
might wish to consider are the following:
· How and to what extent can a focus on networks illuminate central
themes in business history?

· How and to what extent can a focus on networks complement the
traditional preoccupation of business historians with firms and industries?

· How and to what extent can the study of networks build bridges
between business history and other areas of inquiry?

· How and to what extent can the study of networks alter our
understanding of the boundaries between business and society?

Note: In keeping with a longstanding tradition of the BHC, the program
committee will also entertain submissions on topics that are NOT directly
related to the conference theme.


Each year, the Business History Conference awards the Herman E. Krooss
Prize to an outstanding dissertation in business history completed in the
past three years. The Krooss Prize Committee welcomes submissions from
recent Ph.D.'s (2001-4) in history, business administration, the history of
science and technology, economics, law, and related fields. If you would
like to participate in this competition (and present at the conference),
please indicate this in a cover letter, and include a one-page vitae and
one-page dissertation abstract.

The Business History Conference also awards the K. Austin Kerr Prize for
the best first paper presented by a Ph.D. candidate or recent Ph.D.
(2001-4). If you wish to participate in this competition, please indicate
this in your paper proposal. Proposals accepted for the dissertation
session are not eligible for the Kerr Prize.

Submission Procedures

Potential presenters may submit proposals either for individual papers or
for entire panels. Individual paper proposals should include a one-page
abstract and a one-page curriculum vitae. The abstract should summarize
the argument of the paper, the sources on which it is based, and its
relationship to existing scholarship. Each panel proposal should include a
cover letter stating the rationale for the session, a one-page abstract and
vitae for each proposed paper (up to three), and list of suggested chairs
and commentators.

Graduate students who would like to have their dissertations discussed in
an informal yet informed dissertation-in-progress workshop should indicate
this in a cover letter, and include a one-page vitae and one-page
dissertation abstract.

The deadline for the receipt of all proposals is 1 October 2003. All
presenters are expected to submit abstracts of their papers for posting on
the Business History Conference's web site. In addition, presenters are
encouraged to post electronic versions of their papers prior to the
meeting. Graduate students whose papers are accepted for inclusion in the
program are eligible for travel grants to help defray the cost of their

The program committee consists of Richard R. John (chair), University of
Illinois at Chicago; Patrick Fridenson, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en
Sciences Sociales, Paris; JoAnne Yates, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; Reggie Blaszczyk, Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia;
and Philippe Mioche, University of Aix-Marseille I.

The chair of the Krooss Prize Committee is Andrew Godley, University of
Reading, United Kingdom. The chair of the Kerr Prize Committee is Janet
Greenlees, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.

Please send all proposals to Roger Horowitz, secretary-treasurer, Business
History Conference, P. O. Box 3630, Wilmington, DE 19807,
USA. Phone: (302) 658-2400; fax: (302) 655-3188; email

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

Minnesota Big Questions for discussion
1.Harvey argues that local movements need to ¡°transcend particularities ¡° to emerge as ¡°a more global if not universal¡± alternative political force. Escobar sees the particularities of local movements that are ¡°linked to place and their defense¡± as potential challenges to capitalism and eurocenteric modernities. Compare and contrast Escobar and Harvey¡¯s political visions. Do they differ from each other ? Are they incommensurable ?

2.When movements are translated to beyond themselves into institutional spaces of government or business are they always blunted and made less responsive to the actual needs of non elites, activists ? How is Harvey using the idea of translation as opposed to cooptation, to open new possibilities for grassroots movements ?

Clarification questions/Minor discussion questions:
1. Are local and particular synonymous ? (Likewise are universal and global ? What is the difference ?)
2. How do Thaler and Escobar conceptualize agency ? Are they different ?
3. Can Escobar¡¯s conception of place defense work in an urban context ? How commensurable is this with Thaler ?
4. Miller and Martin use Lefebvre and Habermas with Escobar. How compatible is this with Escobar ?
5.What is Escobar¡¯s understanding of a network ?

Helga, I completely agree with your critique of my questions. Even before I got your comments I revised my response and took out much of my ranting and cheap shots. After reading your comment I realize even more how off the mark my questions were and how much they didn't reflect my actual feelings about these readings. I absolutely do respect these theorists and these readings, my wish was only to see more of the local. My apologies, John.
Dear John Champe,
We have not done this before on the blogger, but I feel that I needed to respond to your first comment/question. I think that your comment about "armchair theorists" is a cheap shot. If you would know more about the research (especially Escobar's detailed ethnographic work) and activism of some of these authors you would hardly come to this conclusion. Instead of raving and ranting, I suggest it is more productive to reflect on our reactions to these readings, and think about how these are rooted in our own positionality, and the situatedness of our own knowledge.

Harvey explains the reflexive process whereby ideas and strategies from local movements are universalized and made abstract, and then these abstractions turn around and affect or create local movements (or physical places like housing projects). But no matter how abstract an idea, it always is spoken and heard in certain local places, even if that place is the US Senate. We may say these ideas move in larger “spaces” (media, politics, …), but since all ideas are performed somewhere, is the global nothing more than a generalization of many locals? If all globalization is produced in a local place (e.g. board rooms or Washington D.C. policy meetings), then like these readings urge, shouldn’t we look more at the intimate relationships between specific places for answers?
Madison questions--the top four are the main questions followed by the individual questions:

1. Radical place-based politics vs. militant particularism—can place-based movements achieve progressive change? Is scale-jumping necessary? Do networks need local bases? How are distinct place-based identities reconciled in larger-scale movements? Do we have anything to add to this (ongoing) discussion?

2. The articles are silent on the issues of what constitutes success for particular groups in particular places. What is success? Who defines it (within the movements, and among outsiders)? For example, how do movements deal with the transition from “outsiders” to “insiders” (co-optation vs. mainstream legitimacy)? How do they negotiate decisions about process vs. action? And so on...

3. What are critical sites (time and space) for the mobilization of successful (see above) social movements? Reading Miller, we see there are uneven geographies of resources and political opportunity structures that any ‘global’ social movement must confront. Can these groups transfer “success” in resource-rich places to less ideal sites for mobilization? How?

4. Is there a meaningful (theoretically or otherwise) difference between resistance and social movements? Does this, for example, have any implications for how subjects are politicized?

The complete questions:

Jesse Norris

1. How might one read Harvey's skeptical account of militant particularism against Escobar's dream of a radical politics founded on the defense of place? Do these perspectives complement each other? Contradict each other? Or both?

2. How well does Escobar's theorization of place-defensive politics as the potential foundation for a coherent alternative politics describe radical movements in the North? Might place-defensive politics be appropriate for some, like peasants and indigenous people, while others craft a politics founded on a repudiation or rejection of a particular place? Surbuban alienation, inner-city decay desperation, anti-imperial sentiment within the heart of empire, and other such phenomenon, all would seem to point not to defense of lifeworlds, but rather to a demand that particular places be transformed, to become places worth defending- often along the lines of a "return to the local."

Fleenor's questions and comments--ok, a polemic.

1. Are there 'geographies' of right-wing, neoliberal mobilizations? Somehow, the left in the US has been co-opted--and I use that word generously. Government no longer represents the poor, most mainstream unions barely represent the workers--if they did then there would be no hesitation to go to Mexico and elsewhere to organize at grand scales while putting meaning into the "International" part of their names. Consumers have made Wal Mart and Home Depot what they are today; they also have made a very few computer and entertainment corporations very rich. Even something so tragic as AIDS in Africa will never get its full due until prescription drug prices come under control here in the states. Individual self-interest still is the name of the gam. In short, the mainstream has been redefined and the same mainstream went along with everything Capital has had to offer. I submit that the American Left went comatose December 7, 1941, shouted its patriotism during WWII, made a futile effort in 1948's presidential campaign; an anemic effort with Adlai Stevenson against Eisenhower; made some headway with organizing Vietnam War resistance; gave us great slogans such as "Ban the Bomb", lent its support to the Civil Rights Movement (and the resulting legislation is under severe attack today); recovered enough to give us an effective environmental movement and legislation for Clean Air, Water, Endangered Species, and the EPA (under Nixon!!!!), did much to encourage a women's rights movement but was too weak to get a simple Equal Rights Amendment passed; did some nice things against Apartheid, and then let itself be thrown out of the mainstream into the fringe back in the 1970s. The left has remained comatose since Jimmy Carter. One wonders if we ought to be studying social movements on the right; they have been remarkably successful. Instead we look at the left and, perhaps, a squatter situation that only delayed the inevitable instead of making a lasting change.

2. If, and as Harvey asserts and which I fervently believe, Capitalsim demands change as a condition of its own survival, then one should not be surprised that Capital is the dominant process oriented ideology of our time. It seems that the left must always react to Capitalisms demands for change rather than anticipating the changes and ACTING accordingly. Then again, the recent left has not exactly had a great track record of "imagining and building something called 'community'. The left is somehow capable of specialized mobilization despite its own fractured natures and entanglements of competing 'ideologies.' My question is: Can the American Left ever be organized into a cohesive force? Or will it remain antagonistic to a great many people? CAn an effective Left ever go beyond the Local. Can an effective left ever get out of the Streets? Or do we need to look for new ideologies or reinterpretations of old. Let's face it, I've sat in too many meetings where one's ideology was more important than committment to a social cause or candidate. In the 80s and early 90s, did this campus really need four groups speaking for Socialism according to Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Trotsky and their variations? Perhaps an extreme example but one which actually happened and they hated each other. No wonder the gap has been filled by right wing groups and neoliberals.

Tom Hove

Are poststructuralist critiques of universality, and of the traditional notion of the subject, all that helpful to social movement theories? Once we give others credit for taking claims of universality with a grain of salt, might it not be useful to disregard the psychological complexities regarding identity, and the phenomenological complexities regarding place, that some of this week's readings referred to?

For example, rational choice theory works according to a simplified notion of the rational subject. But there are good theoretical reasons why rational-choice social theorists leave the complexities of identity and motivation for psychologists and others to wrestle with.

Also, several theorists in this week's readings try to beat up on Habermas for his purportedly space-less and prescriptive notions of universality. First of all, are these people even READING Habermas? Second, why does Harvey end up insisting on the political advantages of a universalist notion of the good?

Dawn Biehler

1. On p 201, Harvey brings up the words "situatedness" and "positionality" with reference to the limitations on our ability to imagine other worlds or social relations. But Donna Haraway (not to name drop, but just to call up a body of thought that our seminar has largely neglected) resolves that these qualities form the heart of the only objectivity possible in the production of knowledge, so long as we recognize ourselves as situated. Miller (p 16) in fact suggests that situatedness is the best opportunity for truly understanding the importance of spatial context in social movements. Does this concept in fact open room for compromise among "identity" groups in social movements? And can we also use situatedness as a way to emphasize agency amid structure because situated actors must understand their situatedness and how structure acts contingently upon it?

2. Blah, blah, blah ... In passing, Miller refers to geographers' preference for the term "resistance" rather than "social movements." To some extent, is the idea of a social movement like Foucaultian discipline upon a body of action that "resistance" describes better? Or should we be looking at politicization itself, which I think of as belonging to the "framing" idea Miller discusses? By this I mean that action may not be what we think it is, and that individuals who have become politicized go through a framing process. Part of this, I think, is coming to identify with others similarly oppressed, and here is where all of our questions about class-based action and identity come into play.

Anna Smith

Harvey says, "in bringing persons together into patterns of social and political solidarities, there are as many traps and pitfalls as open paths to change" (203). With reference to both the readings and other specific examples, can we collectively come up with a list of pitfalls and paths to change?

Max Grinnell

The local and particularistic nature of the types of social services that many community organizations/agencies provide is intimately familiar to many of us that have worked in these settings, something that Lustiger-Thaler and Eric Shragge point out quite rightly. I guess my question would be what types of agencies/organization are most conducive to effective lobbying for social justice, etc? I think that Harvey was right when he mentioned that the strong American penchant for private-property, landowner’s rights, etc does in fact create a de facto type of spatially restrictive practices, but what about those issues that stretch across boundaries?

In the Mayer piece she talks at length about the co-optation of different urban social movements into the mainstream political framework and so on. One legendary example of this in our backyard (well, sort of) is the increasingly close relationship of The Woodlawn Organization and the University of Chicago, in terms of shared community redevelopment goals (very, very similar to the situation described in the Mayer article). My questions is this: Is this co-optation necessarily such a dreadful thing in terms of the organization’s mission? Obviously, such a movement/group may lose a considerable of its “edge”, but can’t this also (in part) achieve some of their goals in the meantime? This is something I have grappled with, so I would like to know what everyone else thinks about this idea.


a) To what extent local movements are basically reactions to global-?external? forces? What about those movements asking for transformation inside of the communities themselves? How those movements contribute to redefine the politics of place? I?m thinking about those movements who attempt to transform the way in which organizations mediate between individuals and general politics (in Harvey?s terms), such as gender movements, democratization demands, among others.

b) Escobar suggests (following others) that the incorporation of identities in the politics of place requires a new notion of public sphere, where constituencies act politically on the basis of their own practices and identities. While in principle I agree, it is not clear to me how political consensus can emerge, especially when it is seems that ?standard? political structures are not able to represent [and handle] that diversity. Networks can generate some consensus among movements that already share some interests, but what is their capacity to generate it in a broader scale?


There seems to be at least a partial consensus within academic circles that social movements over the past 20 or so years have fallen on difficult times; where political protest and the relative power of civil society have dimished in the face of an amorphous neoliberal hegemony. Most of the articles for this week mirror this problematic. Thaler and Shragge write of the "diminishing returns regarding protest activities" which leads to the me to the question of whether or not this inefficacy of protests, strikes, and civil negotiation is a result of a mental change within civil society (i.e. these activities have become normalized thus unimportant) or rather that the structural paths to social and political change have evolved whereas the insurgent strategies have remained the same. Furthermore, is this degredation of plausible social change equally seen in both N.A. as well as Europe? The case from Germany would seem to answer yes, however my time in Europe would leave me to believe (generalizing here of course) that there are distinctly different levels of both belief in, and acceptance of, open protest and strikes between the two continents. Is there some sort of "french connection" here? I am curious if the 2 Europeans in the class (Jamie has previously informed me that the British are only half-European) agree with this generalized difference and could elaborate on possible reasons if they do.

Monday, February 17, 2003

1) Harvey argues, like Merrifield last week, argues that local movements must find some universality in order to succeed. How would Harvey characterize Mayer, and Lustiger-Thaler and Shrage discussion of the process through which grassroots movements are incorporated (coopted) by local governments? Is this a form of translation or is too much lost?

2) I found the Escobar article a lot to digest. I am wondering if how other people responded to his suggestion that place can be explored and
politicized using a blend of political economy and phenomenological (or
interpretive) approaches. I found it difficult to follow the ways I
which he was deploying this "cross-fertilization

I see two interesting conversations taking place here both somewhat confrontationalist. Harvey and Escobar and Harvey and Thaler and Shrage.

1.Escobar seems to bring together a range of theoretical perspectives together to argue for place based politics: most significantly Massey, Heidegger. First, I am interested in talking a little for my own clarity on what exactly Heidegger does for Escobar that Massey herself cannot. Second it will help me gain clarity if we can talk about how Harvey might respond to this union.

2. According to Harvey, "urban social movements are predominantly sociopolitical reflections if not overt constructs of some broader politics or even biological imperatives." Is it possible that in an attempt to explain what he understands to be the failure of militant particularisms to articulate themselves effectively Harvey is slipping into a sort of organicism here ? I cannot make up my mind because the gesture towards a 'broader' is unclear to me. Does it stand for a hierarchy of scale ? or multiple articulations ?

In any case, I find Thaler and Shrage more persuasive from the point of view of activism. While Harvey seems to merely gesture toward a door, Thaler and Shrage seem intent on opening and and walking out on the older notion of progressive politics. Is that a correct reading ?

I would like to spend some time looking at (or trying to understand) Escobar's definition of a network. He never explicitly states how he is using it, but then introduces it in his analysis of the case study. He describes them as self-organizing, non-linear, and non-hierarchical meshworks. What does it mean to say that "the meaning of the politics of place can be found at the intersection of the scaling effects of networks and the strategies of the emergent identities"?.

Martin seems to suggest that the discipline in general holds class-based forms of resistance to
be more "legitimate" than New Social Movements that are issue-oriented (and largely comprised of
the middle class). Is this an accurate characterization?
1. We had a bit of an argument in class last week over Fainstein's call to focus "less on the protection of
the most deprived and more on broad benefits" (38 ). One student asserted that this isn't an ideal, but a
practical approach for achieving results. Is Fainstein advocating Resource Mobility Theory (Miller, 19),and if so, does this change how we perceive her suggestion?

2. I found the parallels in the Lustiger-Thaler and Mayer articles interesting: Lustiger-Thaler states
that when social movements become part of a political institution, they shift their focus from protest to service (237). What were formerly "members" become "clients", and instead of "mobilizing" them, the
social movement is "serving" them (238). The movement's dependence on government funding tends to
neutralize it (241). Similarly, Mayer writes of German movement groups: "The public acknowledgement,
funding, and upgrading of their labor led to an erosion of their original orientation to social change but led
as well to a stabilization of local movement sectors, the strengthening of their infrastructure, and to making them, finally, a normal and permanent feature of German politics" (161).
It seems that Lustiger-Thaler and Mayer agree on the analysis of the issue, but come up with very
different opinions. I side with Mayer, the optimist, as she gives some examples of actions which seem to me quite successful: As for the "common denominator" we are all searching for, which will unite fractured social movements, she tells us that the Greens have found one in "ecology" (157). Even more intriguing and hopeful is the fact that "many municipalities 'discovered' the problem-solving potential and
innovative capacities of local movement milieus" (150). Here the local government turned to
activists, rather than neoliberal entrepeneurs, for help. What were the political conditions that made this
possible (simply high unemployment, welfare dependency and fiscal austerity?), and how could it come about today? Or do people see this shift in the more negative light of Lustiger-Thaler, and equate such a shift with neoliberalism itself?
Question number 1.

Harvey states that "the contemporary 'radical' critique of universalism is sadly misplaced. It should focus instead on the specific institutions of power that translate between particularity and universality rather than attack universality per se." He mentions that such institutions favor certain particula rities, and promote specific kinds of universals. Harvey admits the moment a particularity moves to a universal it also moves from a concrete to an abstract. This act of abstraction is a violence, and possible destructive and immobilizing force in which inflexible mediating institutions come to dominate over particularities in the name of some universal principle.
His solution is to negotiate between the security of fixed institutions and the need to be open and flexible in relation to new socio-spatial possibilities on the other. Grassroots movements would help facilitate this, help keep the universal in tune with the particular.
To me, he doesn't seem to make the case that seeking a totalizing universal, could possibly not be totalizing (and all of the dominating and marginalizing tendencies which go along with it). Then would it even be a universal? He also suggests that the trajectory of the universal would change with the help of grass roots movements. This Is another dication that he isn't actually speaking of a universal. If
anyone could make this more clear to me I would appreciate it. I understand the need to have a larger, global or universal aim to local movements so they do not become regressively exclusionary and fragmentize, but it seems a third path must be possible.
Question number 2 is less complex, but one which
sticks in my mind as I read Escobars article. I realize the subaltern was a code word Gamsci used in the Modern Prince and the Prison Notebooks to describe the roletariat, and avoid his prison censors. But, does it mean more than Simply the proletariat? When one chooses to use the term 'subaltern' rather than proletariat, what are they trying to differentiate? Merely that they are a disciple of Gramsci, or to use it as Gramsci did?

1) Escobar makes the apt observation that the local/global divide is unhelpful and thus a focus on "glocalities" provides an alternative. He then proceeds to argue that to fully implement this
concept, one "has to move to the terrain of culture" (165). Is culture the answer to his adept observation? How can culture eliminate many of the problems with past binaries such as local/global, space/place?

2)Lustiger-Thaler and Shragge interestingly observe that a 'politics divided' have created urban left parties without actors (242). They ask the question then if progressive politics can accept actors that are situationally political rather then fixed agents. I found this observation curious because it raises the question of subjectivity in regards to a post-modern(?) political activism in a globalized era. Is there a third
space, as they ask, for this kind of situational actor? Haven't there always been 'situationally political actors' throughout social movement history? What is problematic about this categorization and is
it useful to rethink the need for a fixed subjectivity in left politics?

1) Both Harvey (2001) and Escobar (2001) emphasize the need to theorize how local social movements become broader politically and geographically. But while Harvey argues that local movements need to "transcend particularities" to emerge as a "more global if not universal" alternative political force, Escobar sees the particularities of local movements that are "linked to place and their defense" as potential "challenges to capitalism and Eurocentered modernities". These two
contrasting views, in my opinion, are linked to the different epistemological approaches Harvey and Escobar identify with (dialectics vis-a-vis difference). How do they differ? And are they inconmesurable?

2) Harvey (2001), Mayer (1993), and Lustiger-Thaler and Shrage (1998) discuss how urban social movements have changed over the last several decades. One troubling phenomena (for me at least) has been the cooptation of grassroots movements by local and national governments. While I recognize that greater participation in government has given voice to these movements, at the same time they have lost their radical edge (e.g., squatting in West Germany, the urban left in Montreal). How is this phenomenon linked to neoliberalization?

1) How would (or not) these authors distinguish urban social movements from other place-based social movements? How, if at all, would urban political contexts (e.g., those described by Lustiger-Thaler
and Shragge and by Mayer) demand modifications to Escobar’s theorization of the “defense of
place”? Does Harvey’s conception of the “environment defined by urbanization” as “the central milieu” of human adaptation provide sufficient justification for a claim that urban social movements are
qualitatively different from other place-based social movements (p. 204)?

2) How might we compare and contrast Miller and Martin’s use of Lefebvre (abstract space and social space) and Habermas (system and lifeworld) with Escobar’s discussions of the trend toward “bringing together phenomenology and political economy” (Escobar p. 149)? How compatible is Miller and Martin’s theoretical orientation with that of Escobar?

KRISTIN Lustiger-Thaler and Shragge characterize the "new
urban practices" they describe as "arbitrary" (p. 241). I don't think this label is quite fair, but it seems to resonate with Harvey's argument that militant particularisms must become internally coherent and
then "embedded in or metamorphosed into a broader politics" (p. 190). How does Escobar's
approach to "localization" raise questions abo ut Harvey's and Lustiger-Thaler's approaches to social movements? How much are these authors' perspectives on notions of the particular/general and local/global shaped by the very (particular) groups they are looking at (i.e. Escobar on a progressive groups opposing globalization, whereas Harvey refers to a multitude of non-progressive groups and movements)?

Mayer's (1993) and Lustiger-Thaler and Shragge's (1998) pieces seem to make a similar point -that many progressive issues have been taken up by established parties (in Germany and Montreal, at least), and simultaneously social movement activism has become fragmented. Yet they have radically different senses of possibility (M optimistic, LT and S bemoaning a lack of fixed actors). Why? Their different cases? Their different theoretical approaches (what is LT and S's approach?)?
1)I sensed that the case study pieces (Lustiger-Thaler and Shragge; Mayer) and the theoretical pieces (Miler and Martin; Escobar; Harvey) did not match up well with one another.

2)Scale and locality were important issues for Harvey and Escobar. How well did the case studies handle issues of scale in their discussion of social movements?

3)How well did this week’s articles handle the question of agency?

4)Are all grassroots movements/community organizations doomed to be co-opted by neoliberal forces?