Conclusion

In this chapter I have argued that the habitus concept can be used to understand and explain political distinction between anarchist and socialist activists within the BACMF. This makes a significant contribution to social theory and social movement studies. In the first instance it demonstrates the enduring usefulness of Bourdieu's theoretical technologies, in particular how the political habitus is more useful for understanding political participation than the class habitus. In the second, it elucidates the way in which anti-capitalism in Britain is divided according to activist socialization, the embodiment of cultural, social and symbolic capital, and the development of distinct action repertoires. What is more, the habitus used in this way captures how political practice is reproduced, since activists continue their socialization in distinct ideological collectives, in this case anarchist and socialist groups. These groups reinforce and reproduce the ideologies among activists that gave rise to their political practice in the first place.

The evidence I presented suggests that anarchists and socialists were involved in separate networks or organizations. For example, anarchists were involved in Reclaim the Streets, Earth First!, later the Dissent! network and No Borders. Socialist activists tended to join the SWP, Globalise Resistance, Stop the War Campaign or what was the Socialist Alliance. There was no overlap between the anarchist and socialist participation in these groups. They were socialized and gravitated to different groups according to their respective ideologies.

The next chapter considers why and how ideological competition and a conflict emerged between anarchists and socialists, since they were both fighting for symbolic domination of the BACMF.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >