Contentious KnowledgeContentious Knowledge

Science, Social Science and Social Movements Science, Social Science and Social Movements

Contentious Knowledge Team

Ronald Herring (Government) Kenneth M. Roberts (Government) Maria Cook (ILR - International & Comparative Labor) Jason Frank (Government) Durba Ghosh (History)Rebecca Givan (ILR - Collective Bargaining) Stephen Hilgartner (Science and Technology Studies)Tom Medvetz (UC San Diego - Sociology)Kyoko Sato (Harvard – Sociology)Sarah A. Soule(Stanford - Graduate School of Business) Susan Spronk (University of Ottawa – International Development and Global Studies)Janice Thies (Crop and Soil Sciences)

2006-09 Contentious Knowledge Team Members

Our Starting Point

SCIENCESOCIAL

SCIENCE

AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

POLICY

Presentation Overview

Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes

Our Starting Point

SCIENCESOCIAL

SCIENCE

AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

POLICY

ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS

KNOWLEDGE MAKING PROCESS

Knowledge and Policy Making

Considered

Counter-A

K Trajecto

ry

Policy Making ProcessPolicy Making Process

Policy A

BC

D

Policy X

AK Trajectory

Policy Y

COUNTER

CLAIMS

AK CLAIMS

Institutional

Outcome

Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes

Knowledge-Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

Politics of Knowledge Making

Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes

Knowledge-Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

Knowledge-Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes

KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS(e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change)

AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE

COUNTER-CLAIMS TO

AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE

Social Movement

s

Knowledge-Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

AK Policy TrajectoryCou

nter

-AK

Polic

y Tr

aj.

KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS(e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change)

AK CLAIMSCOUNTER-AK

CLAIMS

Knowledge-Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

AK Policy TrajectoryCou

nter

-AK

Polic

y Tr

aj.

KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS(e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change)

AK CLAIMSCOUNTER-AK

CLAIMS

Knowledge-Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

AK Policy TrajectoryCou

nter

-AK

Polic

y Tr

aj.

KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS(e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change)

AK CLAIMSCOUNTER-AK

CLAIMS

Knowledge-Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

AK Policy TrajectoryCou

nter

-AK

Polic

y Tr

aj.

KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS(e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change)

AK CLAIMSCOUNTER-AK

CLAIMS

Knowledge Making Process

Interest

Groups

Social Movement

s

Scientists

Business

Groups

Think Tanks

AK Policy TrajectoryCou

nter

-AK

Polic

y Tr

aj.

KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS(e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change)

AK CLAIMSCOUNTER-AK

CLAIMS

ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS

Considered

Counter-A

K Policy Tra

j.

Policy Making ProcessPolicy Making Process

Policy A

BC

D

Policy X

AK Trajectory

Policy Y

COUNTER

CLAIMS

AK CLAIMS

Institutional

Outcome

ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS

ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS

KNOWLEDGE MAKING PROCESS

Knowledge and Policy Making

Considered

Counter-A

K Policy Tra

j.

Policy Making ProcessPolicy Making Process

Policy A

BC

D

Policy X

AK Trajectory

Policy Y

COUNTER

CLAIMS

AK CLAIMS

Institutional

Outcome

Think Tanks

Social Movements

Workshop on Contentious Knowledge & the Diffusion of Social Protest

November 9-10, 2007 423 ILR Conference Center, Cornell University

The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Frames, and Political Effects. Rebecca Kolins Givan, Kenneth Roberts and Sarah Soule, Eds.

Forthcoming, Cambridge University Press.

Social Movements

Table of Contents Part I: Diffusion and the Framing of Contentious Politics  Part II: Mechanisms of Diffusion Part III: Diffusion, Scale Shift, and Organizational Change  

The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Frames

Biotechnology

Puzzle: A Persistent Global Cognitive Rift on Biotechnology

With the widespread adoption of GMO seeds, a major transition has occurred in the structure and history of settled agriculture since its inception 10,000 years ago. … This destructive pattern – invariably resulting in famine – is replicated in country after country leading to the Worldwide demise of the peasant economy. - Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, May 2, 2008

Global Famine Moralists of the world - unite!

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/05/global_famine.html

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2007:Industrial and Developing Countries (Million Hectares)

Total

Industrial

Developing

Source: Adapted from James, 2008

Global Diffusion of Transgenic Crops, by Area: 1996-2007

Reciprocal Diffusion of GMO-Free Zones (Europe)

European Regions to Sign a "GMO-free Resolution" by political unit, 2007 & 2009

2007 2009 % Change

Region¹ 167 196 14.8

Provinces, Prefectures & Departments 53 93 43.0

Local Governments 4,278 4,567 6.3

Individuals 27,100 30,370 10.8

Source: www.gmo-free-regions.org. Accessed April 2009

¹ As defined by the Asembly of European Regions (AER)  

GMO-free Zones: Europe 2007

GMO-free Zones: Europe 2009

A Contentious-Knowledge Take on the Dialectical Diffusion Puzzle

Steep technology diffusion curve explicable Material-interest-based market ties among

agriculturalists Permeable state-surveillance and control =>

stealth seeds globally Effective ideational opposition less self-

evident Cartagena Protocol [2000/2003] on bio-safety

enables choke points in every nation Epistemic brokers mediate authoritative

knowledge TANs supply authoritative risk narratives/data NGOs supply confirming risk narratives/data

Epistemic Brokers as Hinges between Networks: The Case of Bt Cotton in India

Monsanto’s Terminator Gene; MNC Patents

Canadian website [RAFI]

Transnational Advocacy NetworkAffiliated NGO Networks

Epistemic BrokersCSA, DDS, Navdanya

Bt Cotton DisastersDead Sheep, Suicides

Prince Charles: “I blame GMcrops for farmer suicides in India” October 2008

Local NGO Projects/Mvts[CROPS Jangaon]

Truth Claims

Truth Claims

M 1:25 - 4:25 pm Myron Taylor Hall Seminar Room

4 creditsProfessors: Ron Herring and Janice Thies

rjh5@cornell.edu; jet25@cornell.edu

The Washington Consensus and Social Protest in Latin America

What Was the Washington Consensus?

Package of free market reforms— trade liberalization, privatization, liberalization of capital and labor markets, etc.

Policy response to the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980’s

Market Reform in Latin Market Reform in Latin AmericaAmerica

What Made it Authoritative Knowledge?

Grounded in neoclassical economic theory (especially the monetarist orthodoxy of the Chicago school)

Strong support (and pressure) from U.S. government and international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank, private banks, etc.)

Policy design and implementation by Latin American “technocrats” (experts with post-graduate training in neoclassical economics in the U.S.), often under the purview of the IMF

Social Sciences as Source of Authoritative Knowledge Highly contested or inconclusive

empirical claims

“Bundling” of empirical claims in larger bodies of knowledge with normative or ideological underpinnings

Markets are the most efficient mechanism to allocate scarce assets and resources

State intervention distorts market signals and creates economic inefficiency

Central Empirical Claims of Neoclassical Economics

“Not only have individual financial institutions become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient.” — Alan Greenspan in 2004

“This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades. The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year. . . Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”

Alan Greenspan, 2008, testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

Washington Consensus

Social and Political Backlash to Washington Consensus

Revival of social mobilization and protest (overthrow of pro-market governments in Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia)

Election of new leftist presidents in 10 countries representing 2/3 of Latin America’s population

Types of Counter-Claims

Direct counter-claims-- challenge central empirical claims

(for example, questioning the ability of the economic model to generate growth and financial stability)

“Unpacking” counter-claims-- Disaggregate authoritative claims,

shift the level of analysis (e.g., emphasis on social group or sectoral effects rather than aggregate outcomes– for example, the effects of privatization on workers or municipal water supplies)

Types of Counter-Claims

Orthogonal counter-claims-- reframe the issue agenda (i.e., shift

to a different set of issues)Examples: Social inequality/injustice frame (distribution of costs

and benefits) Local/national autonomy frame (control over natural

resources) Democracy/popular sovereignty frame (opposition to

technocratic policymaking)

Types of Counter-Claims

Critique of neoliberal globalization as “master counter-frame” incorporating all the above, allowing broad-based social and political coalitions

Master Counter-Frame

Less rooted in productive relations and class-based collective action

Greater orientation toward consumption and social services, ethnic identities, and territorial organization

Opposition Coalitions: New Social Bases

Decline of centralized, hierarchical party and union organizations

Pluralization of social actors New associational networks– loose

linkages between NGO’s, community organizations, indigenous movements, etc.

Opposition Coalitions: New Organizational Brokers

Social Protests in Bolivia

The Framing of Counter-Claims

Group or sectoral economic interests (labor, etc.) Macro-level performance failures (limited growth, financial

instability) Social inequality/injustice frame (distribution of costs and

benefits) Local/national autonomy frame (control over natural

resources) Democracy/popular sovereignty frame (opposition to

technocratic policymaking)

Critique of neoliberal globalization as “master frame” incorporating all the above, allowing broad-based social and political coalitions

Concluding Notes: