not the motorcycle diaries

There is obvious debate in academic and activist discourse about the Movimento Sem Terra, or MST. In fact, it’s almost like there are several distinct MST stories. The dominant story is of the daring and inspirational MST. This MST is participatory, de-centralised, flexible, creative, transparent, grassroots … focussed on making structural changes in education levels, gender relations, land distribution, wealth distribution, farming practices, property ownership. The others include the MST as dogmatically Leninist or Stalinist in organisation, manipulative of the families on the settlements, or even as just a loose construct that consists more of merchandise and regular media stories than an integrated social movement. I don’t think the debate is exactly polarised, and its only as fierce as any debate over activist practice. However there are strikingly different positions within Brasil and further afield as to what’s going on with this movement.

I wonder how much this debate might play into my use of reflexivity* in theorising activist practice. So far I think it’s safe to say that reflexivity is important to any social movement or protest event with the agenda of justice for people who are being structurally fucked over. But I can see how it is limited by its origins in Western liberal theories of modernization, and that it might be too politically ‘neutral’ to be applicable in my research (as far as anything can be politically neutral, I suppose).

*reflexivity in my research so far = reflection on action that brings about re-constitution … a reflexive social movement is one that reflects on its actions in terms of what it is trying to achieve, and changes its shape in response to this reflection. I’m into applying Lash & Urry’s theory of aesthetic reflexivity to social movements like the MST at the moment, but I am seeing some big gaps. Consequently, The Stack is growing again…