The Prefigurative Turn: The Time and Place of Social Movement Practice

Abstract

Maeckelbergh argues that experimentation with alternative political structures within social movements as a form of prefigurative politics is too often understood as separate from ‘other’ forms of politics. Those who reproduce the dichotomy argue that ‘other’ forms of politics are more strategic, instrumental and effective than prefiguration, which by comparison, becomes astrategic and ineffective. Drawing on the examples from the post-2011 wave of uprisings, with a focus on a general strike in Spain, Maeckelbergh argues that it is not possible to separate out ‘prefiguration’ from ‘other’ forms of political activity. The false dichotomy between prefiguration and ‘instrumental’ action is closely tied to powerful declarations about when a movement has succeeded or failed. The success/failure paradigm, however, is problematic when considering prefigurative politics because it raises the question of when such an assessment can rightly be made. The temporality of social change implied in prefiguration does not allow for easy success/failure declarations and the question of when we assess these movements therefore becomes a central concern with powerful consequences.