Political Distinction in the British Anti-capitalist Movement

Abstract

This article argues that Bourdieu's theory of practice provides a useful and dynamic framework which may be used to examine the reproduction of political practice. I use the Bourdieusian theoretical model to analyse and interpret data collected from 30 semi-structured interviews with British anti-capitalist activists from a range of anarchist and socialist political organizations and networks. The interviews reveal a clear case of political distinction between anarchists and socialists. The political history, political methods, and ideology of the activists become embodied and routinized over time. This explains why and how there is a durable ideological division which is consistently reproduced over and over again within sections of the British anti-capitalist movement.

Bourdieu and Social Movements

“…It builds on earlier research that claimed the habitus may be applied to understand activists' political biographies and preferred ideological strategy (Ibrahim, 2011). I was not the first to use Bourdieu's concepts for the purpose of social movement analysis, for example, Crossley (2002aCrossley ( , 2003a explored the notion of a radical habitus.…”

“…These include the intersection of class and gender inequality (Adkins and Skeggs, 2004;Huppatz, 2009); culture and class distinction in contemporary British society (Bennett et al, 2009); and social movement practice (Crossley, 2002a(Crossley, , 2002b. It is in this latter area that I seek to make a further contribution, where his concepts have become an important resource (Fligstein and McAdam 2011;Husu, 2013;Ibrahim, 2011Ibrahim, , 2013Samuel, 2012Samuel, , 2013. In particular, I am arguing that the concepts can be used to track political practice within social movements, ideological developments of and tensions within and between social movements.…”

“…I examine how divisions in the BACMF are constituted, reproduced and maintained. This chapter therefore focuses on what I have elsewhere called 'political distinction' between anarchist and socialist anti-capitalist activists (Ibrahim, 2011). In addition, it considers activists who express ambivalence and ambiguity over their ideological affiliation.…”

The Struggle for Symbolic Dominance in the British ‘Anti-Capitalist Movement Field’

“…There has been no attempt to conceptualise the conflict to understand or explain its emergence or origins. I have argued elsewhere that this is an avenue for further research (Ibrahim, 2009(Ibrahim, , 2011. I now wish to provide new empirical evidence that may be conceptualised to show, far from unity and cooperation, that these groups are engaged in ideological struggles for symbolic dominance of the British anti-capitalist movement.…”

Autonomy and Symbolic Capital in an Academic Social Movement: The March 9 Group in Egypt

“…Some researchers employ the concept of 'activist field' (Péchu 2010) or 'field of contention' (Crossley 2003), while others prefer to situate activists and social movement organizations within other fields, such as the broader political field (Mathieu 2007;Ancelovici 2009). For our purposes here, what is important is that these scholars agree that successful activist careers involve the accumulation of capitals that are valued by other activists (Ibrahim 2011). These include specific forms of competence -such as familiarity with political concepts and mastery of the techniques of protest that have been called 'repertoires of collective action' in mainstream social movement theory (Matonti and Poupeau 2004;Mathieu 2007: 134) -as well as forms of symbolic capital (i.e., prestige and the authority that comes with recognition and renown).…”