The Revolution is not for SALE
ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall.
What informs this body of work is in the wake of an unprecedented success of a movement that was able to galvanize students politically affiliated and those that are not to a common cause and such a project was specifically #TuksFeesMustFall a resultant concept or trend if you may, from the broader national movement #FeesMustFall. Such a movement’s name is #UPrising, a lot is in a name especially when you conceive of the student body at the University of Pretoria affectionately referred to as Tuks. From the ashes that happened to be the fragments that held students back in terms of a convergence of voices was the reality we had been confronted with and like a phoenix UP rose from this grey area. From race, political affiliation, class and gender is but a few of the spoken of fragments. Although what the movement managed to achieve is history in the making given the institutional space in which their exploits unfolded, criticisms are present in light of the manifestations of the week that has passed. These criticisms are not afforded to discourage, but they are put forth in order for meaningful engagement and the aversion of elementary errors that have the potential to derail the movement or the worst case scenario put its members in danger were manifest especially on/from the 22nd of the month of October. The theories of social movements and resource mobilization will inform the argumentative edifice and criticisms to follow.
Resource Mobilization is a major sociological theory in the study of social movements. This emerged in the 70s but has been in existence since the days of the father of mobilization that asked a very elaborative and infamous question ‘what is to be done?’ Vladimir Lenin. Resource mobilization stresses the ability of a movement’s members to (1) acquire resources and to (2) mobilize people towards accomplishing the movement’s goals. This is contrary to the traditional theory of collective behavior that views social movements are deviant and irrational. Conversely, resource mobilization sees them as rational social institutions that are key actors in the terrain of contentious politics. According to resource mobilization theory, at the core a social movement organization works towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure. The last two factors namely, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure are pivotal to any social movement. Had #UPrising elected to act outside alliances with the respective political organizations on the campus there would be no need to refine organizational structure. But the movement chose to go into an alliance, thus it was obligatory that power and influence to be shared, as to avoid a concentration of power to one group. The differences might have been caucused in private but their ramifications were evident to a tuned eye coupled with intellect. Put simply, working towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media does not warrant ownership of the revolution. Social movements and student movements’ alike need all of the above resources to be effective, as deviance and grievances alone do not bring about social change.
This theory is one that assumes that individuals are rational, (not always, as a tendency of being affective is also a strong possibility) individuals weigh the costs and benefits of movement participation and act only if benefits outweigh costs and this does not however exempt the so-called funders that decide to find a cause. To what ends do the means of funding a revolution entail? What is to be done that student movements do not fall prey to capital tendencies? What conditions and terms did the movement give to the funders? Or does there lay a possibility that the funder dictates to the movement because of the resource in question? These questions are informed by the dynamics of capital’s capability to reconfigure itself and be embedded in social relations. Our funders are capitalists we should at least agree. In the contemporary configuration of capitalism the exchange is no longer one that subscribes to a cash exchange alone. This needs to be looked at by movements as to avoid co-option to capitalist interests in how they go about reaching their goals.
Student movements are goal-oriented, but organization is more important than resources. Organization means the interactions and relations between social movement organizations. In the Tuks context the power dynamic that saw the concentration of power fall to one party and subsequent allegations of sabotage by others are as a result of the reluctance to share power and ideas. Again, it is not only about power but an acknowledgement that parties to the alliance need to take into cognizance that as individual entities they possess both capabilities and limits. A case in point here is that time and again political organizations in the University of Pretoria have attempted to mobilize students but their efforts are often thwarted by the directive that in mobilizing students the end-goal is to align them to a political ideology, to form part of a constituency. What UPrising managed to achieve is to mobilize students inter-sectionally, this mobilization cut-across race, gender, political affiliation, different societal class positions, students-staff dynamic and levels of education (undergraduate and postgraduate). But what this movement lacked was the strategic acumen that is deployed in contentious politics, a terrain that political societies relish and are flamboyant in enganging. This highlights the gaps in limits and capabilities in all parties concerned, a call that warrants complementary convergence of the two. Efficiency of the organizational infrastructure is a key resource in itself.
Resource mobilization theory can be divided into two camps. McCarthy and Zald are the originators and major advocates of the classical entrepreneurial (economic) version of the theory while Tilly and McAdam are proponents of the political version of resource mobilization. The former argues that grievances are not sufficient to explain creation of social movements. Instead access to and control over resources is the crucial factor. The grand law of economics supply and demand seems to give a thorough explanation of the ebb flow of resources to and from the movements, and that individual actions (or lack thereof) is accounted for by rational choice theory. This should not however operate in isolation of the latter; the political model focuses on the political struggle instead of economic factors. This division also implies the organic complementary pairing of the two.
What unfolded on the 22nd of October 2015 was rather unfortunate, but we should appreciate it nonetheless as lessons were drawn from it. From #OccupyBurnett to a possible takeover by unknown agents a phenomenon that could have been averted had there been a synergy from all alliance partners. Suspicion among the alliance partners became pronounced and the ends of people’s fingers aimed at their counterparts. It is imperative that I flag the existence of a contemporary capitalist class that thrives when groups they are part of are fragmented. Student movements need to stay vigilant and be on the look-out of capitalistic agendas that may potentially derail the movement and dispirit the masses. We need to take ownership as students of our student movements and let whatever alumni participate only on an advisory capacity. In owning such a movement let us seek our own financial backing and refrain from accepting funds from funders that are willful in such a way that they want a seat at the table.
We have to concede that the power dynamics that unfolded because of a preoccupation with platforms and a concentration of power by one group against the others was a gamble with the safety and lives of students as collateral. However, this was an operational exercise an equivalent of building a car as we simultaneously drive it. We have gone the distance and we have learnt. By ‘we’ I mean the entire student body of the University of Pretoria. The fees have indeed fallen, but they are not flat on the ground as I’m of the belief that they are on their knees. Them falling will be the day we realize free quality education in our lifetime. This was just a small victory of a long gruesome war against the dominant mode of production which is the capitalistic logic. We still need to surmount battles such as transformation and academic exclusions in our institutions amongst others. Reflection upon this victory is necessary and this is by no means a rule book on what is to be done when a movement is in motion. Rather these are pointers on what we duly need to consider as a movement in concert with other movements. We were strategically outplayed however by university management; in that the suspension of academic activities that subsequently meant that support services had to be halted meant that we were thwarted an opportunity to mobilize cleaners in our broader struggle. What I mean by this I have written and articulated in another paper of which I will make available.
The words of a student leader by the name Junior Ackotia hit home when he said to a group of students ‘no-one has ownership of the revolution, because should this be the case, then we have a problem on our hands’.
We have come, we have seen and given the goal we set to achieve we have definitely conquered. But we could do much better if we reiterate this: #ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall. The Revolution is not for SALE! To non-political affiliated groups realize your limits in the terrain of contentious politics and to student political organizations in the terrain of intersectional struggles and mobilization realize your limits and may both converge as we continue to make history in our lifetime.
Amandla!!!
By Tebogo Winston Mogoru
Like Steven
Friedman highlights correctly: “Political documents, like politicians, do not
serve us best when they are worshiped rather than critically analyzed”. 