This co-authored article brings together research into alterglobalization and gay (m)
movements. The first author, Christian Scholl, is a Ph.D-student at the University of
Amsterdam (at the Amsterdam School for Social Science research). His thesis deals
with many aspects of the alterglobalization movement in (mostly) Europe. Duyvendak
is full Professor of Sociology at the same university, advisor of Scholl, specialized in
social movements (in particular the gay movement) and currently visiting scholar at the
GC of CUNY at the department of Sociology.
During our meetings, we both got more and more interested in questions regarding the
public ‘image’ of social movements, based on (perceptions of) their action repertoire.
Moreover, both of us have been working on ‘diffusion’ of action repertoires and we
found ‘freezing’ effects of diffusion, a rather under-researched theme. We decided to
write an article on the two social movements we know best, and to particularly look at
the role of ‘fun’ in (the perception of) both movements – an emotion largely overlooked
in the literature.
We hope to publish (an improved version of) the article in Mobilization or Social
Movement Studies.
1
Abstract:
This article examines the role of having/making fun as an action repertoire for social
movements. We thereby take the exemplary cases of the gay and the alterglobalization
movement in order to map and compare the various functions this repertoire can fulfill.
These case studies, based on several years of qualitative research, offer an in depth view
on the role of emotions for collective action. Whereas the form in which having/making
fun is used differs starkly between these two movements, partly related to the type of
movement they constitute, partly to the way in which interaction with the outside world
evolved, there are striking similarities in the content of this action repertoire. Moreover,
in both cases, we observe a freezing of the possible functions of having/making fun in
the moment of diffusion. The inward functions of fun come to prevail over its tactical
and instrumental considerations.
2
Having/making funi as action repertoire:
The case of the gay and alterglobalization movements
1. Introduction
The imagery surrounding the gay and alterglobalization movements could not be more
different. The former has attracted public attention through its joyful parades; the latter,
through its violence. In one case, the shaved, shiny, and smiling muscleman is the
iconic figure; in the other, it is the black-clad anarchist in front of a burning car.
Social scientists have a duty to interrogate such cliché categorizations. In our case it
is easy: the celebratory happiness of the annual gay pride refers to a historical event
often taken to be the starting point of gay liberation struggles in the Western world
(Armstrong and Crage 2006). On June 27, 1969, riots broke out in New York’s
Greenwich Village after police raided the Stonewall Inn, a meeting place for gays and
transsexuals; the violent clashes lasted for several days. To commemorate the riot as a
constitutive event of the gay movement, hundreds of thousands of people dance through
the streets each year. The history of the alterglobalization movement is likewise
complex: although the burning car and the trashed McDonalds have become iconic, the
first cycle of summit protests in 1998-2001 was premised on the idea of a “Carnival
against Capitalism.” Inspired by the British anti-roads movement of the 1990s, the
approach re-introduced fun and pleasure into the staidness of traditional political
marches: samba bands, puppets, masks, dancing, and entirely new action forms
transformed the demonstration, leading to the emergence of a new action repertoire.
Tony Blair’s metonymical reference to the summit protestors as the “Travelling
3
Anarchist Circus” (Graeber 2007: 388) captures the creativity that has inspired a
transnational mass movement.
Whereas the use of violence by social movements has been studied extensively, the
role of having/making fun within action repertoires remains surprisingly underexamined. Why do these action repertoires emerge? How do they function? What role
do they play, in particular within the movements we are studying here? What happens
when these action repertoires are diffused through time and space? (Chabot and
Duyvendak 2002)
This study examines the gay and alterglobalization movements because of the role
having/making fun play in both, and because of the differences between the movements.
The gay movement is an exemplary “new social movement” (Kriesi, Koopmans,
Duyvendak and Giugni 1995); the alterglobalization movement an expression of a new
cycle of transnational activism (Tarrow 2005). Whereas the gay movement largely
abides by the logic of identity and aims at “recognition,” the alterglobalization
movement goes beyond single-issue activism and aims to abolish the structural
inequalities of neo-liberal capitalism. By analyzing the role that fun plays in the action
repertoires of both movements, we aim to contribute to a broader understanding of the
premises of collective action repertoires within liberal democracies.
We contend that the role of fun within action repertoires has been insufficiently
examined. Most scholars have overlooked the uses of fun - both instrumentally, as a
means to become visible, and iconically, as an end in itself that re-affirms collective
identities. In the gay and alterglobalization movements, fun is initially used for
achieving visibility and generating sympathy. But through diffusion, displacement and
4
frequent repetition, having/making fun becomes more internally directed, nurturing the
movements’ collective identities and at times setting them in stone.
We first situate our understanding of action repertoires and forms within the broader
social movement literature. We then attempt to construct a useful understanding of
“fun” by reviewing the literature on the role of fun within contentious collective action.
This is followed by the case studies on the action repertories of the gay and
alterglobalization movements. Here we analyze the emergence of these repertoires, how
they function, and what happens when they are diffused. We then contrast the
functioning of having/making fun within the gay and alterglobalization movements,
before concluding with suggestions for further research.
Repertoires and forms of action
Protest has been defined as unconventional action where indirect channels of influence
are opened through the activity of collective actors (della Porta and Diani 2006: 191).
This definition makes it clear that how collective actors act is an important factor in the
success of their actions. To analyze the various ways in which social movements
interact with their opponents, scholars have introduced the term repertoires of action.
According to Charles Tilly (1986: 4), a repertoire of action comprises the whole set of
means a group has for making claims of different types on different individuals.
However, we propose that this definition is not broad enough for the purpose of our
case studies. Not all social movements or groups within them want to make explicit
claims. There is ample historical evidence of groups developing innovative repertoires
in order to (re-)appropriate what they consider to be common and public goods (Wright
2002), to intervene directly in the course of events or in the face of unpopular policies
5
(Epstein 1993), or to create alternative forms of living together (Poldervaart 1993,
2005a, 2005b). All these ways of acting cannot be subsumed accurately under the idea
of “claim-making.” What all these practices have in common, however, is that they are
visible manifestations of the contentious ideas of social movements. We therefore
suggest broadening Tilly’s definition to understand repertoires of action as the whole
set of means a group has available in order to be(come) visible - which may be related
to interests, demands, values, emotions and/or identities.
Another important contribution to the analysis of action repertories has been made by
della Porta and Diani (2006: 171), who proposed a distinction between various forms of
protest according to the logic, or modus operandi, that activists assign to them. Their
proposition takes into account activists’ tactical considerations when choosing certain
action forms. Della Porta and Diani distinguish three logics: (1) the logic of numbers,
behind such action forms as marches, petitions, or net strikes; (2) the logic of damage,
behind violent action and non-violent disruptions such as strikes and boycotts; and (3)
the logic of bearing witness, which aims to demonstrate commitment and can be seen in
civil disobedience and theatrical happenings. Della Porta and Diani stress that an action
form can embody several of these logics at the same time.
All three logics rely on inserting a disruptive moment into routine affairs. Sydney
Tarrow (1998: 96) makes this clear when he shows how action repertoires constantly
have to negotiate between convention and violence in order to calibrate this point of
disruption. The difficulty with action forms that fail to transgress is that they rapidly
become conventional. For disruption to take place, public order has to be at least
somewhat threatened.ii Governments, then, have an interest in conventionalizing
repertoires through mediation, a mechanism that has been described as the negotiated
6
management model of control by della Porta and Reiter (1998). New action forms thus
emerge from within a dialectic between movement action and authorities’ reaction
(Tarrow 1998: 102). They also depend on a movement’s ability to manipulate and
transform previous repertoires and popular symbols. This brings us to a final point on
the possible functions of action repertoires.
Movement actors are not free in their choice of action forms: they have to rely on
symbols and codes available from previous cycles of contention or which are part of
popular culture, and have to transform them in such ways that they remain recognizable
- thus creating a base for participation as well as contentious potential. While movement
actors often think about action forms instrumentally, repertoires have expressive
dimensions that help build collective identities and submerged networks (Epstein 1993;
Melucci 1989). This is important not only for attracting support and broad participation;
it enables the diffusion of the movement’s message through the media. Action
repertoires thus have instrumental and expressive functions that can be directed
internally as well as externally. In communicating to the media, there is a further
dilemma: while violence is increasingly discredited as a strategy for social movements
(Tarrow 1998: 96), it remains the easiest way to attract media attention. But while a
burning car guarantees media coverage, it will invariably obscure the substantive
message (Rochon 1998: 102).
This brief overview should have made clear that action repertoires have the daunting
task of performing several functions by addressing several publics at the same time:
decision-makers, the media, the police, (potential) allies and movement participants.
The dilemmas of such complex operations in part explain the necessity for movements
to be creative in inventing new action forms and repertoires.
7
The role of fun in contentious collective action
The danger of ascribing political humor only to contentious actors, and not to
authorities, is that it becomes a kind of compensation theory. As Verkaaik observes:
“Humor thus becomes a major characteristic of particular subcultures where fun serves
as a kind of compensation for a lack of power or influence” (1999: 18). Fun, however, is
also used by more powerful contentious actors as well as by political authorities.
Bourdieu (1984) correctly notes that political humor is a characteristic of the over- and
under-privileged alike. However, as the gay movement in particular will show, fun can
indeed be a powerful resource for acting contentiously when other resources are
lacking.
Though few sociologists have paid much attention to the role of fun in particular, or
to that of emotions more generally, the work of French sociologist Michel Maffesoli
deserves mention. Maffesoli correctly points to sociologists’ neglect of what he calls the
Dionysian aspects of life (1985: 196), the joy (and sadness) of everyday life, la vie
quotidienne. Though Maffesoli’s sociology is shrouded in jargon, his advice to venture
beyond macro-analyses and to include the emotional side of human action in one’s
research remains apt. More recently, scholars of collective action have indeed begun to
pay attention to emotions - an “emotional turn” in collective action research presented
as a response to the structuralist explanations of the political process approach
(Goodwin, Jasper and Poletta 2001; Ost 2004). Following the recognition of the
importance of historical mechanisms in explaining collective action (McAdam, Tilly
and Tarrow 2001), the role of morality and emotions enjoy a new place in the
sociological work on social movements (Aminzade and McAdam 2001; Goodwin and
8
Pfaff 2001; Chabot and Duyvendak 2002). However, the late Tilly, one of the leading
scholars in this field, as well as many others following him, have largely focused on
explaining the occurrence of anger (Ost 2004) - but not of fun.
Humour and Social Protest edited by Marjolein ‘t Hart and Dennis Bos (2008) is
the first attempt to systematically map the role of fun in protest movements. Although
based on a historical methodology, the volume’s reliance on the premises of social
movement scholarship structures its case studies around five approaches widespread in
this field: humor as a resource for mobilization; humor as a communication strategy;
humor as a tactical and emotional weapon; humor as part of collective identity
construction; and humor as a response to political opportunities. While our article aims
to elaborate on the insights presented in this volume, we prefer the broader notion of
“having/making fun” to “humor” in order to avoid the narrow focus on humor as
“making jokes” - the prevailing operationalization in the volume’s contributions. In this
way, we also challenge ‘t Hart and Bos’ assertion that “humor in itself never changes
circumstances” (2008: 7). As the cases of the gay and alterglobalization movements will
demonstrate, the action repertoires of having/making fun can significantly impact upon
the circumstances in which movements articulate themselves.
Another contribution informing our analysis of having/making fun comes from
the field of literature studies, where Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of the carnivalesque has
been crucial in understanding popular forms of having/making fun. In his work on
Rabelais and the culture of the Renaissance (1984), Bakhtin reveals the carnivalesque as
the intervening counterpart to institutional experience. For Bakhtin, participants in a
carnival do not merely constitute a crowd, but a social whole where hierarchies
momentarily collapse. People cease to be themselves and dissolve in the collectivity;
9
due to a unique sense of space and time, a heightened awareness of one’s sensual,
material, and bodily unity emerges. The social mechanisms at work during a carnival, as
detected by Bakhtin, strikingly resemble the ways in which having/making fun is used
in protest events. Bakhtin introduced his book with a quote from Alexander Herzen: “It
would be extremely interesting to write the history of laughter.” While this remains
beyond the ambitions of this article, we do venture the beginnings of a history of
laughter as part and parcel of contentious action repertoires.
While forms of fun and mockery can be found throughout the history of protest, all
recent having/making fun repertoires in the Western world have been highly influenced
by Situationism.iii The Situationist International - a mainly French artistic movement
premised on the idea of abolishing art - was prominent in the imagery around the 1968
students’ revolt. In his seminal Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord, one of its leading
members, criticized the use of spectacle in modern consumerist societies, contrasting it
to the re-discovery of the subversive potential of situations. The “homo ludens”iv (as
opposed to the rational “homo economicus”) is a recurring figure in situationist
literature, which encourages human beings to rediscover the pleasure of engaging with
their unmediated surroundings. This often resulted in actions that were, albeit taken
seriously by the activists, extremely grotesque.
2. Having/making fun in the action repertoire of alterglobalization movements v
Alterglobalization movements’ disruption of WTO, FTAA, G8, IMF and World Bank
summits attracted worldwide attention in the late 1990s. Alongside mass convergences
where these summits took place, decentralized actions took place simultaneously around
the globe. From 1998, activists mobilized for “global days of action” under the slogan
10
“carnival against capitalism” (Notes from Nowhere 2003), a slogan coined by the
British “Reclaim the Streets” movement, known for its ability to combine direct action
methods with the subculture of rave parties (McKay 1998). In Reclaim the Streets
parties, tens of thousands of people turned streets into temporarily liberated spaces for
dancing, joking, and playing. The idea of introducing joyful elements into political
activism, as well as the specific form of Reclaim the Streets parties, was adopted by
activists during the early global summit protests.
The carnival of alterglobalization movements can be seen as a participatory answer
to the pacifying effects of the society of the spectacle (Jordan in McKay 1998: 151). It
tries to create, at least temporarily, a space of equality where everyday conventions and
hierarchies are reversed. A carnival against capitalism is a joyful form of resistance:
people are not supposed to watch from the sidelines. This clearly resonates with
Bakhtin’s ideas about the role of the medieval carnival in creating participatory spaces.
Alterglobalization movements use the concept of a carnival on the streets to stage
interventions by (often successfully) blockading access to summits. In della Porta and
Diani’s (2006: 117) terms, the movement manages to combine the logic of numbers, the
logic of damage, and the logic of bearing witness in one protest event. A variety of new
action forms have emerged, often explicitly referring to the idea of the carnival, where
the use of fun for contentious collective action can clearly be seen. Below we present
three examples to analyze different functions of fun within alterglobalization
movements: the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (CIRCA), Pink & Silver, and
the Tute Bianche (White Overalls).
CIRCA emerged in the UK and was especially active during protests against the G8
in Scotland in 2005 and in Germany in 2007. In both cases, between 200 and 300
11
activists were trained in basic clowning techniques, dressed in army clothes and clown
wigs, and had their faces made up. The clown army is composed of small groups
(gaggles) that can operate autonomously during actions.
Pink & Silver emerged as early as the protests against the 2000 IMF and World Bank
meeting in Prague. It normally involves a bloc dressed in glamorous pink and silver
clothes, chanting and performing cheerleading steps accompanied by a samba band. The
action form has been used in every summit protest since Prague, with participants
ranging from dozens to thousands.
The White Overalls have inaugurated an action form that has spurred an entire
movement in Italy. The white overalls symbolically contrast the experience of
precarious workers at the heart of the neoliberal “flexible” economy with that of bluecollar factory workers in the Fordist economy, highlighting the invisibility of
marginalized subjects in neoliberal capitalism. Their tactic consists of active civil
disobedience: padding their bodies with rubber and foam and using shields of inner
tubes or Plexiglas to push through police lines, graphically illustrating the unequal
power of the opposing forces. In 2000, several thousand protestors participated in the
White Overall bloc during protests against the IMF and the World Bank. In Genoa in
2001, as many as 10,000 participated in the march to the red zone surrounding the G8
meetings.
These action forms normally involve a minority of summit protestors but are highly
visible for spectators and the media alike. Although originating under concrete
circumstances in specific countries, they have diffused throughout Europe and the
world. In what follows, we highlight four distinct functions of fun in alterglobalization
movements’ repertoires of action: having/making fun for mocking authority;
12
having/making fun as grotesque confrontation; having/making fun for confusing
binaries; and having/making fun as a PR strategy.
a) Having/making fun for mocking authority
On the first day of the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, the plan was to
blockade the streets to hinder the delegations from reaching the conference hotel.
CIRCA took to one of the streets leading to Gleneagles. Within a few minutes riot
police arrived. After removing the material lying on the street, they began pushing the
clowns away from the road. This was more difficult than expected. The clowns kept
jumping around, playing with each other and the officers, asking stupid questions, lying
on the road, etc. As one of the clowns explained in a high-pitched voice: “We are a
movement, that’s why we keep on moving.” Meanwhile some clowns followed
individual police officers, mimicking their gestures. The 150 riot cops were clearly
overtaxed by these 50 clowns. Some, however, had to smile.
The authorities are represented on the streets during summit protests by the police,
riot police, and on special occasions, the army - an important factor for tactical
considerations in relation to action forms. The three action forms attempt in their own
ways to transform the fierce atmosphere that frequently accompanies confrontation with
the authorities. Here mocking the authorities has proven an empowering and effective
strategy, especially when criticizing humourless establishments, as Simon Teune points
out in the case of the 1960s “Spaßguerilla” in Germany (Teune 2008: 131-132).
The case of the clown army demonstrates this clearly. The tools for mocking the
police are many. The ancient figure of the clown itself is exploited tactically: a clown,
by definition, is somehow stupid. Applied tactically, stupidity can be a powerful tool for
13
direct action and disruption, as the case of the road blockade demonstrates. CIRCA also
uses the technique of imitating the authorities. This can be seen in the army uniforms
the clowns wear, normally decorated with (preferably pink) attributes. Clown gaggles
frequently use police lines to stand in front of. They imitate police formations by
forming similar formations, as well as the gestures of individual officers. Whether the
police find this funny or annoying, there is little they can do about it; surrounded by
bystanders sympathetic to the clowns, it would look bad to arrest or beat them up. Since
the clown army is funny, the police in the end appear ridiculous. The CIRCA website
states: “We are clowns because inside everyone is a lawless clown trying to escape, and
because nothing undermines authority like holding it up to ridicule”
(www.clownarmy.org).
Pink & Silver is an action form that confuses the anticipated lines of confrontation by
mixing street militancy with fun as mockery. Pink & Silver groups refer to this way of
having/making fun as “tactical frivolity.” While “tactical frivolity” stands for many
elements within Pink & Silver’s tactics (see www.rhythmsofresistance.co.uk/?lid=116),
it certainly aims to confuse police expectations of activist behavior. As much as it is a
clear statement against the “macho militancy” of activists
(www.antenna.nl/organicchaos/PinkSilver/PSindex.html), it is also a clear counterpoint
to the machismo of (militarized) police forces. Having/making fun here becomes the
explicit measure of effective politics. As one Pink & Silver website states: “Essentially,
if you’re not happy, you’re doing the wrong thing”
(www.rhythmsofresistance.co.uk/?lid=116). During a march against the G8 summit in
Evian in 2003, a Pink & Silver bloc accompanied by a noisy samba band was stopped
by the police. Cheerleaders approached the police line, dancing and showering pink
14
confetti on the police until they could hardly see, decorating their shields with pink
hearts.
b) Having/making fun for confusing binaries
Pink & Silver and CIRCA’s mocking of authority plays with binary oppositions, not
only in the imagination of political authorities but that of Europe’s radical left as well.
The binaries are turned upside down, exaggerated, and combining in unexpected ways.
One of the binaries Pink & Silver plays with is the opposition between “fluffy” and
“spiky” tactics: pink is considered “fluffy” while silver stands for militancy. Pink &
Silver wants both. The use of pink in militant political action is further exaggerated by
the wearing of skirts, which points to another binary Pink & Silver activists try to
subvert by having/making fun: the gender dichotomy between what is considered male
and female. Appropriating a “girly” outfit for radical political action questions dominant
ideas about femininities; it also creates a context for activists to play with their gender
positions by mimetically over-stretching their social meanings.vi Moreover, both Pink &
Silver and CIRCA confuse the binary opposition between “us” and “them” by not
approaching the police aggressively, which makes it difficult for the police to portray
and treat them as “violent” protestors. While both action forms introduce extra
difficulties for the police, they are not directed against them as an “enemy.”
The Tute Bianche also use having/making fun to confuse binary oppositions.
Referring to the Zapatistas and their redefinition of revolution as daily process
(Holloway 1998), they reject the dichotomy between revolution and reformism,
vanguard and movement. Other binaries the Tute Bianche challenge are the ones
between violence and non-violence, and legality and illegality; their aim is to build a
15
new consensus about what is considered legal and illegal by creating images of conflict
where the violent ones are the police (www.nodo50.org/invisibles/praga.htm). Exalting
symbolic clashes with police lines as joyful exposure of their bodies, the Tute Bianche
not only try to transmit the image of resistance as a joyful experience, but also show that
it is the police who are violent: “They are saying you’re violent? You upset the debate
on violence and non-violence by proposing tactics that cannot be pidgeon-holed”
(www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/genova/busload.htm). Finally, the Tute Bianche
play with the opposition between visibility and invisibility, referring to the Zapatista
uprising: “We mask our faces in order to be visible.” The Tute Bianche wear white
overalls to make those subjects rendered invisible in neoliberal capitalism visible again.
c) Having/making fun to create grotesque confrontations
Another important function of having/making fun in alterglobalization protest is the
creation of grotesque confrontations with the established order. This is clearly the case
with the Tute Bianche’s tactics. While it may initially appear as a militarily organized
clash, the appearance of the white overalls transforms the picture: hundreds of people
dressed like the Michelin tire man running towards police lines to get clubbed. They add
a further note of sarcasm by chanting slogans like “Stiamo arrivando, bastardi, stiamo
arrivando” (here we come, bastards, here we come) on the melody of a well-known pop
song (www.wumingfoundation.com/english/giap/giapdigest11.html). Since the Tute
Bianche do not wish to follow the anticipated lines of a clash with the police, they
create grotesque moments of confrontation that lay bare the asymmetrical power of
police and protestors and reveal the violent character of policing dissent. The protestors
thereby ridicule their own militancy as well. The Tute Bianche stated in a 2001
16
declaration: “The people who wear the white overalls are consciously ridiculous, and
that’s the point. When they cease to be funny, the movement will need another tool”
(www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/genova/busload.htm). This attitude has
crystallized in a salute frequently used by the Tute Bianche before clashing with police
lines: a provocatively raised little finger, inviting them to “come on and break it.”
A different way of creating grotesque confrontations is seen in Pink & Silver actions,
where tactical frivolity means confronting police lines with cheerleading chants and
dance steps. Some Pink & Silver activists have called it “confrontation without macho
militancy.” That the police are unlikely to be prepared for such “fun guerrillas”
(www.nadir.org/nadir/kampagnen/camp02/produced/2002/07/36.shtml) became clear
during an international protest against migration policies in Germany in 2001, when the
police reprimanded the Pink & Silver bloc to “demonstrate in an orderly manner.”
In CIRCA’s case, the moment of confrontation is completely dissolved. The clowns
always say “yes” to situations and do not try to push through police lines, either by
dancing or as a masquerade of padded bodies. Nevertheless, the surprising effect of a
marching clown army has at times hampered the police’s ability to block CIRCA
activists from crossing a line. In most cases, however, CIRCA removes the possibility
of confrontation by affirming the situation, reversing the roles, and turning power
relations upside down. CIRCA confronts power by playing with it. This became clear
when CIRCA came across a group of police officers on a bridge in Scotland in 2005.
The clowns convinced the police to play Giants, Wizzards and Goblins. After each side
had chosen, the grinning clowns and police lined up facing one another. After the
countdown, it appeared that both sides had made the same choice. According to the
initial agreement, the clowns ran towards the police officers to hug them.
17
d) Having/making fun as a PR strategy
Having/making fun also functions as a PR strategy for alterglobalization movements.
During the protests against the G8 summit in Germany in 2007, the many pictures of
CIRCA served as an important counterweight to the anticipated pictures of riotous
confrontation. Alongside creating attractive moments for the media, CIRCA made
alterglobalization movements appear more clever than the police. The function of Pink
& Silver was similar in previous summits. Their appearance consciously tackles the
image of “dangerous anarchists” routinely diffused by the mainstream press.
The media stereotype tackled by the Tute Bianche is different. In their reports they
refer to previous experiences of getting trapped in clashes staged by the police. While
activists were unable to win such military-style confrontations, it also gave the media
the opportunity to paint the activists as the violent ones.
For years our practice of self-defense has been instrumentalized by the media. Every time the
police charged a legitimate and peaceful march or demonstration, it was always the fault of
‘the autonomists’. The papers would carry headlines like ‘violence returns to the streets’, ‘the
years of lead are back’, or ‘urban guerrilla warfare again’. We realized that the
communication of events often modifies things more than the events themselves. We decided
to send strong images and signals that left no doubts as to intentions. So we invented,
rummaging through ancient history, systems of protective apparel, like Plexiglas shields used
tortoise-style, foam rubber ‘armor’, and inner-tube cordons to ward off police batons. All
things that were visible and clearly for defensive purposes only. We wanted people to
understand on which side lay reason, and who had started the violence
(www.geocities.com/swervedc/yabasta.html).vii
3. Having/making fun in the action repertoire of gay movements
18
The fact that homosexual men are labeled ‘gays’ - both in public discourse and by
themselves - immediately reveals their alleged gayness. Gays are supposed to be funny:
in a permanent state of joy, at least in public. It should therefore come as no surprise
that having/making fun is an important part of the action repertoire of gay movements.
Here we will mostly deal with gay men (not because we buy into the stereotype of sad
lesbians, but because their action repertoires deserve a study of their own.)
As we will see, there are many reasons for gayness among homosexuals, including
bittersweet ones. We first examine some characteristics of the gay movement in general,
in particular those related to gay identity and coming out. We subsequently examine
three roles of having/making fun in gay movements’ action repertoires as they have
developed over time. Compared to our analysis of alterglobalization movements, this
section is necessarily less detailed as we have to cover a longer time period.
According to the political process approach, a movement’s action repertoire is largely
determined by the threats and opportunities it faces. However, for movements that
mobilize around discriminated identities, the existential nature of their participants’
involvement can restrict their range of action. Participants are personally involved in the
conflict; in confrontations with the authorities they have much more to lose than their
chains (Gamson 1989). The sporadic nature of confrontation between gay activists and
political and moral authorities does not mean oppression and discrimination do not exist.
We will sketch three phases. In the first phase, a time of widespread enmity towards
gays, the movement and its leaders had to operate extremely carefully; greater possibilities
within action repertoires emerged only as individual participants became personally less
vulnerable through emancipation. In a second phase of decreasing discrimination,
having/making fun obtained a different meaning than in more repressive times. The third
19
phase was characterized by the rise of Aids, which suddenly made having/making fun
appear outdated. Yet a cheerful action repertoire continued even into this last phase.
Phase 1: Having/making fun for being loved and accepted
The gay movement, which so often appears light-hearted, demands much from its
participants. Joy does not spring from some cheerful state of mind that gays have by
nature. Indeed, joy in the early gay movement (in the 1950s in many Western countries)
was often tied in a complex way to the vulnerability and unhappiness of its members.
If one wished to improve the situation of one’s group, it required coming out. But
individuals risked much by doing so: work, friends, and reputation. When public and
visible action emerged in the 1950s and 60s, there was much discussion over desirable
strategy (Adam, Duyvendak and Krouwel 1999). Many were reluctant to “needlessly”
confront political and religious authorities and feared police control and provoking public
debate, with all of its repercussions. Instead they preferred to maintain a low profile and
advocated cautious, friendly and even funny forms of action (D’Emilio 1983).
The idea of displaying one’s gay identity to the outside world was far from self-evident
in the early 60s, certainly to those who had lived through the preceding decades. That
representations of homosexuality in these early days of gay activism often had a playful
and cheerful character must be understood in this context. A part of the public accepted
expressions of homosexuality on the condition that they satisfied a particular image. Here
we mean the supposed queerness of gay men, appreciated for their ability to be funny and
campy.
The above-mentioned compensation theory applies to the first phase of the gay
movement: joy in the 1950s and 60s compensated for a lack of power; it was a weapon
20
of the weak. In della Porta and Diani’s terms, since radical or large-scale action on behalf
of gays did not exist, activists had to invent a new repertoire to bear witness.
The strategy of appealing to the public through cheerfulness was not meant to
emphasize gay difference. In this first phase of the movement, gays wanted to be as
“normal” as possible. The desire to assimilate was dominant; a part of the gay movement
initially saw their “deviation” as a kind of minor handicap analogous to left-handedness something which one could do nothing about, but which should not bother others. As far as
there were relevant differences, one tried to convince the majority that these were positive.
One recurring argument was that creative artists and gifted individuals through the ages
had often been homosexual. Who could imagine a cultural world without gays? Gayness
became a trump to convince the intolerant majority that gays posed no threat.
Phase 2: Having/making fun for marking differences and establishing boundaries
Recent history has shown that gay and lesbian movements are hardly gentle by nature or
definition. This was apparent in a handful of confrontations that achieved a prominent
place in collective memory, including the afore-mentioned 1969 Stonewall riots. In this
second phase, the homosexual minority grew more militant and proud of its difference
(gay pride). We have seen this reversal in other social movements where identity plays an
important role, such as the civil rights movements that proclaimed “black is beautiful.”
Alongside and stimulated by other social movements, homosexuals in the late 60s and
early 70s proclaimed they were not sinful or pitiful, but were glad to be different.
Masculine homosexuals embodied this new attitude literally: through the radiating of
beauty and frenzied joy, gay men showed that their relationships and sex lives were
superior to the impoverished relations and sexual repertoires of heterosexuals. The strategy
21
of gay pride promoted not only individual and collective coming out, but a specific
profiling of gay identity. As homosexuality was not readily apparent in the body, it had to
be made manifest - requiring trained, attractive bodies and permanently cheerful faces.
While the logic of witnessing was pronounced in the first phase of the movement, in
the second phase - and certainly on Gay Pride Days - it was increasingly accompanied
by the logic of numbers. The new consciousness, now also expressed outside Gay Pride
Days, fuelled the demand for their own world, their own place.
San Francisco’s Castro district is a good example of such a place. In the postwar
period, San Francisco was increasingly cast as a “wide-open town,” the city’s old
frontier reputation finding contemporary embodiment in its bohemian and queer
quarters. Especially in the 50s and 60s, San Francisco’s reputation grew as a home for
those pursuing nonconformist sexual lifestyles (Boyd in Beeman 1997: 88-9). In this the
media played an important role, creating an image of San Francisco as a Mecca for gay
men and lesbians and as the centre of the gay world, thereby perpetuating gay life as a
geographically fixed phenomenon (Meeker 2006: 190-191). Books played a similar
role. Apart from assisting gays and lesbians in imagining communal identity, writers
“pointed people toward what might imaginatively be thought of as a gay homeland”
(Meeker 2006: 67). Although we cannot provide a detailed history of the Castro here
(see Armstrong 2002; Leyland 2002; Stryker and Van Biskurk 1996), for the purposes
of our discussion it suffices to state that as the Castro emerged as a gay community in
the 60s, many gay men expressed a pronounced sense of neighborhood pride and joy.
The neighborhood was central to many activities, including the annual Gay Parade in
June, the Castro Fair, Halloween, and other public events that showcased gay life. Many
gay men experienced settling in the Castro as an escape from “hell.” Though they often
22
felt little choice in moving there, many did not experience the Castro as a ghetto but as a
place to be free, to expose their true selves. The public visibility of homosexual life
marked the quintessence of the Castro as a non-conformist place to live and work. Since
hiding one’s sexuality was what almost all gay men had done before coming here, to
“come out” and to be able to expose themselves in public - to each other as well as to
the homophobic outside world - became the cornerstone of a newly acquired identity.
“Being oneself” was not something to be lived individually or to be confined to the
private and intimate sphere of the home. Gay men were able, most of them for the first
time in their lives, to make home amidst a public of like-minded people and to show it
to others in a very open way: this was indeed a gay Mecca (Elwood 2000; Johnston and
Valentine 1995: 100).
Though constantly displaying pride in one’s lifestyle was tiring, gay districts such as the
Castro and their parties and parades showed that being gay was far from pitiful. The
expression of joy not only mirrored the pride that had been won, but also showcased the
subculture to the outside world. Joy in public was thus not only a reaction to decades of
discrimination; it was part of what bound gays together. While the action repertoire of
cheerful militancy indeed developed in interaction with the repressive outside world, its
form and content derived from the inner world of the subculture (Duyvendak 1995).
Phase 3: The party has to go on: don’t be sad, be gay
The Aids epidemic led to a temporary radicalization of the gay movement, particularly
where political authorities were indifferent or repressive (the United States, England,
France; see Pollak 1988; Duyvendak 1996). At the same time, joy did not disappear,
neither from the movement nor from the subculture. For example, even World Aids Day
23
remained an occasion for some gays to go wild. This at times led to painful situations,
as on December 1, 2005 when the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, spoke to a partying
crowd about the high numbers of Aids victims and those living with HIV. The frenzied
hall responded with a rousing cheer for each number….
How should we understand the new role of having/making fun? Aids has had an
enormous impact on the lives of millions of individual homosexualsviii and on gay
subcultures and movements alike. That joy did not disappear from the action repertoire
has, we argue, internal and external reasons, much as in the first and second phases. In
the face of illness and the loss of loved ones, the subculture proved itself to be
enormously resilient; the accumulated self-awareness and gay pride of the 70s were
mobilized to keep trust in the future. It was indeed no longer the carefree gayness of the
years of gay liberation, but a mature gayness that radiated power and pride, the pride of
a group determined not to become marginal and invisible again.
While public demonstrations in the 80s and 90s spoke of sorrow and mourning, they
almost always returned to joy. To appeal to potential allies and the public,
homosexuality was given the (familiar) cheerful face, which most gays preferred to
confrontation (for instance in the form of Act Up). In della Porta and Diani’s terms,
disruption remained for many gays a risky and (at best) temporary tactic; in comparison,
bearing witness and going into the streets in large numbers seemed more effective.
Joy as a prominent part of the action repertoire, even in the third phase, was not only
the outcome of power relations with the outside world. It was also the result of the gay
subculture in which emotions such as sexual attraction, lust, and love remained
dominant. Desire - the motor of the subculture - colored conflicts of interest within the
movement, even in the days of illness and death.
24
After the second phase, many gays were no longer ashamed of who they were; that
Aids had hit them particularly hard was in their eyes bad luck, but no reason for shame
or to go back into the closet. Though it became more difficult to be proud of the
lifestyle associated with homosexuality - its varied, non-monogamous character led to
health risks (to put it mildly) - homosexual desire itself remained untainted. For that,
emancipation in many countries had come too far.
This combination of internal and external factors gave gay demonstrations a cheerful
face in the third phase, balancing the need to show to the rest of the world a proud face
(among other things of the gay community’s response to Aids) and the desire to be
accepted. The reasons for joy from the first and second phases now joined together: joy
to please, and joy to provoke. That joy in the days of Aids sometimes had a forced
character is difficult to deny - it was joy in spite of hardship, joy in face of adversity.
4. Comparing fun in the action repertoires of both movements
In examining the role of having/making fun within the alterglobalization and gay
movements, we conclude that the reasons for the importance of fun diverge in many
ways. We begin by looking at differences between the two movements, before turning
to some telling similarities. Both similarities and differences demonstrate the central
role of identity in the action repertoires of having/making fun.
Differences
In the gay movement, the internal role of having/making fun has proven fundamental.
In the early, repressive days, fun - in the form of camp - was compensation for the
distrust and discrimination emanating from a hostile world. This compensatory behavior
25
was at first not so much directed at the outside world, but to fellow gay men in the
subculture. With the political openings of the 60s, the campy, (self-)mocking tradition
proved fertile ground for the development of a particular gay action repertoire. But this
outward-oriented manifestation of joy remained tied to the inner world of the gay
subculture where joyful social and sexual gathering played their respective roles.
During the three phases we have discussed, the role of having/making fun was
constitutive of the subculture, even - or perhaps even more so - in the dark days of Aids.
In our view, there is an important difference here with alterglobalization movements.
We do not deny the importance of particular codes and routines that have developed
within the subculture of alterglobalization protest. As shown by earlier research
(Duyvendak, Koopmans, Van der Heijden and Wijmans 1992; Kriesi et al. 1995),
radical (such as alterglobalization) movements and identity (such as gay) movements
share strong ties among their participants, albeit for different reasons. But in the
subculture - or rather, counterculture (Koopmans 1995) - of alterglobalization
movements, no single sentiment dominates: fun and self-mocking play a relative modest
role among all kinds of sentiments, ranging from anger and rage to pleasure and, indeed,
fun. This difference between the two movements is mirrored in their action repertoires.
Whereas gay movements have so far generally opted for a rather moderate repertoire
with elements of fun, camp, and mocking (Duyvendak and Giugni 1995),
having/making fun is just one element within the broader repertoire of alterglobalization
movements. The successful use of fun by alterglobalization movements may partly
result from it not being the only strategy, but being imbedded in a wider repertoire of
civil disobedience and direct action. In contrast to this diversity of tactics, gay
movements’ action repertoires remain rather limited.
26
The limited action repertoire of gay movements is best understood in relation to the
vulnerability of their participants, and to the three logics outlined by della Porta and
Diani. To begin with vulnerability, gay identity is not freely chosen; certainly many
gays do not experience their sexual preference as a choice. In this sense, there is no exit
option as it exists for participants of other movements. We hereby do not imply that
participants of alterglobalization or any other movements are less committed. We do
claim, however, that in these latter movements participants can choose to engage and
identify, and thus to de-identify and exit. Participants in these movements do not have
to take political attacks “personally” - they are not existential threats as they are for gay
men who feel attacked in their core identity. This is one reason why gay contentious
action is generally quite modest, nice, and funny: except in rare situations, there is no
space for a more confrontational, disruptive and damaging style.
Turning to della Porta and Diani’s two other logics, we see that within gay
movements bearing witness plays by far the most important role. Recently, gay (and
lesbian) demonstrations have been able to attract more and more participants, though it
remains improbable that they will attract the numbers the alterglobalization movement
is capable of mobilising. Where the gay movement’s limited action repertoire is mostly
based on funny and friendly forms of bearing witness, alterglobalization movements
embody all three logics: that of numbers, bearing witness, and damage. We also see that
the use of fun within alterglobalization protest is much more instrumental; with the
movements’ penchant for direct action, fun becomes part of tactical street interventions.
Alterglobalization movements rely much less than gay movements on communicating a
friendly picture of their struggle.
27
As we proposed earlier, action repertoires include the whole set of means a group has
available in order to be(come) visible. The cases of the gay and alterglobalization
movements show that having/making fun can function very differently in rendering
visible various interests, demands, values, emotions and identities.
Similarities
There are, however, some striking similarities as well. These are related to the content
of having/making fun within the respective action repertoires. As discussed earlier, a
social movement’s action repertoire, to be effective, should be at least somewhat
disruptive. One explanation for the power of having/making fun - of both authorities
and bystanders - is the unpredictable nature of many funny events. The corollary of this
is the difficulty of remaining original, particularly if the movement wants to do more
than just bear witness (and even then). Funny actions are difficult to sustain in the long
run, as both alterglobalization and gay movements have found out. Predictability is a
problem not only in being less disruptive. There is the fact intrinsic to fun that
something funny is less funny the next time. Moreover, repetition is death for action
repertoires trying to be unpredictable by having/making fun.
This becomes clear when we look at what has happened to the gay action repertoire:
the ever-smiling faces and the always-shining bodies not only became predictable but
eventually quite boring as well. Gay activists seem to be frozen in their cheerful
identities. Since the outside world is expecting just another funny parade, there seems
no way out, given that the gay movement has to please and amuse. Whereas Lundberg
claims that “the quality that singles out the Pride parade as a political event is the
absolute focus on joy, desire, laughter, and pleasure for its own sake” (2008: 186, italics
28
in original), we propose that the rather forced joyfulness is best seen as an effect of the
interaction between the gay movement and the outside world.
This freezing of identities, however, not only affects the gay movement. Within
alterglobalization movements, the funny parts of the action repertoire run more or less
the same risk of becoming “identified”: participants become funny and nothing more the instrumental function of having/making fun vanishes and the expressive function
comes to prevail. This risk, however, is not as great as for the gay movement, given the
broader range of functions of having/making fun within alterglobalization movements,
and the will and possibility to experiment with new action forms.
When we examine the diffusion of having/making fun, we come across the same
mechanisms of “identity freezing.” We begin with alterglobalization movements.
Although diffusion worked differently for the Tute Bianche, Pink & Silver, and CIRCA,
similar patterns can be observed. One trend affecting all three cases was a severe
circumscribing of the functions of having/making fun. Diffusion and repetition had the
effect of rendering having/making fun a matter of predictable identity rather than a
tactical resource.
The Tute Bianche recognized this problem and decided to use the tactic of selfprotection and active civil disobedience without the white overalls during the G8
protests in Genoa (Francesca Ruocco at: www.globale-sozialerechte.org/downloads/Reader-G8.pdf). After Genoa, Italian groups did not employ the
tactic for some time, though White Overall groups persisted or were later founded in
other European countries. Many groups, however, focused solely on the tactic’s
confrontational aspect, often without taking over the functions of having/making fun.
The tactic in many countries thus gained the reputation of being aggressive,ix with the
29
appearance of white overalls signaling an impending clash between police and “violent”
protesters. Such actions often lost their capacity to confuse binaries and to make the
confrontation grotesque.
The Pink & Silver tactic was diffused quite successfully throughout Europe and is
still used regularly during summit protests and in local struggles. However, especially in
the case of fixed local Pink & Silver groups, the having/making fun aspect has been
reduced to cheering up marches with samba music; the practice of cross-dressing and
radical cheerleading and the idea of tactical frivolity has frequently been abandoned.
This is partly due to the Pink & Silver outfit becoming predictable for the police and
therefore tactically ineffective. In many cases, however, activists only adopted a small
part of the tactical considerations informing Pink & Silver; everyone likes music during
marches and political actions, but not all understand the power of tactical frivolity.
During the 2007 G8 protests in Germany, the concept of the street party returned in the
form of the “Hedonist International”, a network that mobilized under the slogan “Bass
against G8” (www.hedonist-international.org). While having fun is still at the centre of
their political practice, one may wonder if having/making fun still works in this
hedonistic form of resistance. While police are now familiar with people dancing
through the streets and having fun as a form of political protest, it remains unclear how
the Hedonist International makes fun of the police. Having/making fun seems to have
become just having fun again, a hedonistic reduction of a new action repertoire.
Rebel clowning, the youngest of the three tactics, is still diffusing; it is thus too early
to render a final judgment on its evolution. What can be said, based on the experience of
several gaggles set up acrosss Europe over the past two years, is that there is a tendency
for the disruptive element of the clown to be eclipsed by its foolish appearance. This
30
foreshadows the danger faced by the White Overalls - of becoming a fixed identity
rather than becoming visible through having/making fun.
When we look at the diffusion of having/making fun within gay movements, we see
the same mechanism of diminishing effectiveness and selective imitation (Chabot and
Duyvendak 2002). As in the case of alterglobalization movements, the diffusion of
subcultural funny codes facilitated the development of international solidarity and
sustained the idea of being part of a worldwide movement (Adam, Duyvendak and
Krouwel 1999). At the same time, it was one hegemonic depiction of one type of
homosexuality that spread from the West. Here homosexuality was a question of pride
in one’s identity, one which would facilitate coming out. It was, moreover, a loaded
identity: the cheerful, muscular, smiling, and forever young man - an image of the
prototypical gay man that would conquer the world.
5. Conclusion
Our discussion of having/making fun within the action repertoires of gay and
alterglobalization movements has shown that they are not simply tools for claimmaking, but a way to render visible demands, interests, values, emotions and identities.
Having/making fun fulfils a variety of functions, bound to the historical and
geographical contexts of their respective movements and their moments of diffusion.
The differences in the action repertoires can be explained by the form the movements
have taken. Whereas the gay movement opted mainly for the logic of bearing witness,
the alterglobalization movement combines this with the logic of damage and numbers.
These differences can partly be explained by the types of movements we are dealing
with. The identity-based gay movement is more vulnerable to personal repression and
31
relies on the communication of positive and cheerful images, while the counter-cultural
alterglobalization movement is more interested in advancing a systemic critique of
neoliberal globalization. On the other hand, similarities in the use of having/making fun
result from the content of their action repertoires. We observed in both movements that
as soon as forms of having/making fun are diffused, the content becomes frozen in the
exhibition of identity - the inward functions of fun come to prevail over its tactical and
instrumental considerations.
Both differences and similarities corroborate our proposition that a better
understanding of contentious collective action needs to incorporate a “history of
laughter” to make sense of the role of emotions in relation to action forms. Often
mentioned at the margins, social movement scholars rarely analyze how various action
forms really work. We still lack sufficient descriptive accounts of action forms. This
may have to do with the dominance of political sociology in social movement studies
and the resulting dearth of ethnographic accounts of movement practice. While angry
and/or violent events can be counted by quantitative research based on claim-making
(Koopmans, Statham, Giugni and Passy 2005), funny actions often advance no claims;
they instead qualify - or disqualify - dominant discourses and mainstream behavior. We
thus propose to investigate the meaning of this type of contentious action through
engaged qualitative research. Not only fun, but emotions in general, remain to be
analyzed in terms of their functioning within collective action repertoires.
32
References
Adam, Barry, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Andre Krouwel, eds. 1999. The Global
Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics: National Imprints of a Worldwide
Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Aminzade, Ronald R., Jack A. Goldstone, Doug McAdam, Elizabeth J. Perry, William
H. Sewell Jr., Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Silence and Voice in the
Study of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, Elizabeth A. 2002. Forging Gay Identities: Organizing Sexuality in San
Francisco, 1950-1994. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., and Suzanna M. Crage. 2006. "Movements and Memory: The
Making of the Stonewall Myth." American Sociological Review 71: 724-751.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Rabelais and his World. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Beemyn, Brett. 1997. Creating a Place for Ourselves: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Community Histories. New York and London: Routledge.
Chabot, Sean, and Jan Willem Duyvendak. 2002. "Globalization and Transnational
Diffusion between Social Movements: Reconceptualizing the Dissemination of
the Gandhian Repertoire and the 'Coming Out' Routine." Theory and Society 31:
697-740.
Cuninghame, Patrick G. 2008 "'A Laughter that will Bury You All': Irony as Protest and
Language as Struggle in the Italian 1977 Movement." Pp. 153-168 in Humour
33
and Social Protest, Marjolein 't Hart and Dennis Bos, eds. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
della Porta, Donatella, and Mario Diani. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction.
Oxford/Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
della Porta, Donatella, and Herbert Reiter. 1998. Policing Protest: The Control of Mass
Demonstrations in Western Democracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
D'Emilio, John. 1983. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a
Homosexual Minority in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Epstein, Barbara. 1993. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct
Action in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Duyvendak, Jan Willem. 1994. De verzuiling van de homobeweging. Amsterdam: SUA.
______. 1995. "Gay Subcultures between Movements and Markets." Pp. 165-180 in
New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Hanspeter
Kriesi, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni, eds.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
______. 1996. "The Depoliticization of the Dutch Gay Identity, or Why Dutch Gays
Aren't Queer." Pp. 421-438 in Queer Theory/Sociology, Steven Seidman, ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duyvendak, Jan Willem, Ruud Koopmans, Hein-Anton van der Heijden, and Luuk
Wijmans, eds. 1992. Tussen verbeelding en macht. 25 jaar nieuwe sociale
bewegingen in Nederland. Amsterdam: SUA.
34
Duyvendak, Jan Willem, and Marco Giugni. 1995. "Social Movement Types and Policy
Domains." Pp. 82-110 in New Social Movements in Western Europe: A
Comparative Analysis, Hanspeter Kriesi, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem
Duyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni, eds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Elwood, Sarah A. 2000. "Lesbian Living Spaces: Multiple Meanings of Home." Journal
of Lesbian Studies 4: 11-27.
Epstein, Barbara. 1993. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct
Action in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fominaya, Christina Flesher. 2008. "The Role of Humour in the Process of Collective
Identity Formation in Autonomous Social Movement Groups in Contemporary
Madrid." Pp. 243-258 in Humour and Social Protest, Marjolein 't Hart and
Dennis Bos, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, Josh. 1989. "Silence, Death, and the Invisible Enemy: Aids Activism and Social
Movement Newness." Social Problems 36: 351-367.
Goodwin, Jeff, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta. 2001. Passionate Politics:
Emotions and Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Graeber, David. 2007. "On the Phenomenology of Giant Puppets: Broken Windows,
Imaginary Jars of Urine, and the Cosmological Role of the Police in American
Culture." Pp. 375-418 in Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and
Desire, David Graeber, ed. Oakland/Edinburgh: AK Press.
Hart, Marjolein 't, and Dennis Bos, eds. 2008. Humour and Social Protest. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
35
Holloway, John, and Eloina Pelaez. 1998. Zapatista: Reinventing Revolution in Mexico.
London: Pluto Press.
Huizinga, Johan. 1938. Homo Ludens. Proeve eener bepaling van het spel-element der
cultuur. Amsterdam: Pantheon.
Johnston, Lynda, and Gill Valentine. 1995. "Wherever I Lay My Girlfriend, that’s My
Home: The Performance and Surveillance of Lesbian Identities in Domestic
Environments." Pp. 99-113 in Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities,
David Bell and Gill Valentine, eds. London: Routledge.
Kenney, Padraic. 2002. A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Koopmans, Ruud. 1995. Democracy from Below: New Social Movements and the
Political System in West Germany. Boulder: Westview.
Koopmans, Ruud, Paul Statham, Marco Giugni, and Florence Passy, eds. 2005.
Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni, eds.
1995. New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Leyland, Winston, ed. 2002. Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism. San
Francisco: Leyland Publications.
Lundberg, Anna. 2008. "Queering Laughter in the Stockholm Pride Parade." Pp. 169188 in Humour and Social Protest, Marjolein 't Hart and Dennis Bos, eds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36
Maffesoli, Michel. 1985. L'ombre de Dionysos: Contribution a une sociologie de
l'orgie. Paris: Meridiens.
McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKay, George. 1998. DiY Culture: Party and Protest in Nineties Britain. London:
Verso.
Meeker, Martin. 2006. Contacts Desired: Gay and Lesbian Communications and
Community, 1940s-1970s. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual
Needs in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Notes from Nowhere. 2003. We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anticapitalism. London/New York: Verso Books.
Ost, David. 2004. "Politics as the Mobilization of Anger: Emotions in Movements and
Power." European Journal of Social Theory 7: 229-244.
Pas, Niek. 2003. Imaazje: De verbeelding van Provo (1965-1967). Amsterdam:
Wereldbibliotheek.
Poldervaart, Saskia. 1993. Tegen conventioneel fatsoen en zekerheid: Het uitdagend
feminisme van de utopisch socialisten. Amsterdam: Sara/Van Gennep.
______. 2005a. "Politisering van het dagelijkse leven. De sociale politiek van de
andersglobaliseringsbeweging." Sociologie 1: 160-183.
______. 2005b. "Niet-bestuurlijke vormen van politiek. Ofwel: Hoe het persoonlijke
politek is geworden in de kraak, queer en andersglobaliseringsbeweging."
Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies 3: 58-73.
Pollak, Michael. 1988. Les homosexuels et le sida. Paris: Meridiens.
37
Rochon, Thomas. 1998. Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stryker, Susan, and Jan van Buskirk. 1996. Gay by the Bay: A History of Queer Culture
in the San Francisco Bay Area. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Tarrow, Sidney G. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious
Politics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
______. 2005. "The Dualities of Transnational Contention: 'Two Activist Solitudes' or a
New World Altogether?" Mobilization 10: 53-72.
Teune, Simon. 2008. "Humour as a Gureilla Tactic: The West German Student
Movement's Mockery of the Establishment." Pp. 115-132 in Humour and Social
Protest, Marjolein 't Hart and Dennis Bos, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1986. The Contentious French: Four Centuries of Popular Struggle.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verkaaik, Oskar. 1999. Inside the Citadel: Fun, Violence, and Religious Nationalism in
Hyderabad, Pakistan, Ph.D. dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Wright, Steve. 2002. Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian
Autonomist Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
Endnotes
i
In introducing the expression “having/making fun,” we acknowledge that having fun and making fun are
not entirely the same thing. But in practice they often overlap and become indistinguishable. By using the
term, we want to point to the intrinsic interconnections between fun, pleasure, joy, humor and mockery.
38
ii
Tilly makes another important observation for analyzing action repertoires by identifying different types
of repertoires in various historical periods. Before the rise of the nation-state, the action repertoire of
contenders was local, parochial, and particular. The modern repertoire, by contrast, is modular,
cosmopolitan, and autonomous (Tilly 1986: 391-2). The modern repertoire comprises forms of
intervention that can be adapted in various contexts, for example the barricade or the march. The
diffusion of repertoires, however, does not mean that they function in the same way and result in similar
disruptive effects.
iii
References to situationism can also frequently be found in the discourse of the alterglobalization
movement (see, for example, Notes from Nowhere 2003: 181; Graeber 2007).
The term “homo ludens”, coined by Johan Huizinga (1938), was transposed by the Dutch Provo
iv
movement into the idea of “ludieke acties” (playful actions) and today belongs to the standard repertoire
of many Dutch movements. The 1960s Provo movement in the Netherlands was highly influenced by
situationist ideas and developed its public interventions around the idea of the “happening” - the creation
of absurd situations where people could free themselves from everyday conventions (Pas 2003). The
Provo movement functioned in a similar way to the medieval court jester; its interventions aimed to put a
mirror to the prudish Dutch society of the time. The Dutch Provos inspired similar movements in other
countries, including the Spaßguerilla in Germany (Teune 2008), the Metropolitan Indians in Italy
(Cuninghame 2008) and oppostional movements in Central Europe in the 1980s (Kenney 2002).
v
Since social movements are diverse and dispersed phenomena - certainly “the” alterglobalization
movement - we hereafter refer to it in the plural. The term “alterglobalization” is preferred to “antiglobalization” because these movements largely criticize the dominant economic form of globalization by
proposing a globalization of solidarity and justice from below.
vi
Flesher Fominaya (2008) points out that humor is also a way for left-wing activists to challenge the
seriousness assumed by the authorities. Pink & Silver functions here in a similar way to the joking she
describes among the autonomous social movement groups in Madrid.
vii
However, in several summit protests where this tactic was applied, the media did not capture this
purposeful defensiveness and portrayed the White Overalls as violent.
viii
ix
And on heterosexuals as well, though this falls outside the scope of the present article.
See for example the Dutch experience: http://indymedia.nl/img/2005/06/28858.jpg.
39