autonomy
A critical theory of hope
Latin American cosmologies of autonomy
The politics of autonomy in Latin America. The art of organizing hopepublished in 2015 by Argentinian scholar Ana Cecilia Dinerstein for the Palgrave series Non-governmental public actionis an engaging book, relevant for researchers interested not only in social movements and critical social theory, but also for those working in the field of organization studies and political economy, and for everyone else interested in alternatives to the dominant socio-economic system that is capitalism.
The struggle for good leadership in social movement organizations: Collective reflection and rules as basis for autonomy
Introduction[*]
The goal of this paper is to analyze characteristics, challenges and leadership practices in social movement organizations (SMO). To explore this, we also discuss tensions that arise by implementing aspired forms of leadership, and how activists deal with these tensions. Broadly, in our study leadership is defined as a process and practice that provides guidance to groups or organizations (Crevani, 2018: 88).
Towards an anarchist cybernetics: Stafford Beer, self-organisation and radical social movements
Introduction
In this paper, I attempt to rehabilitate cybernetics, in some form, as a tradition that has the potential to enrich our understandings of radical or alternative forms of organisation. In doing so, I argue for an anarchist cybernetics: a reading of Stafford Beer’s organisational cybernetics that lends itself to forms of organisation that aim to limit if not completely reject centralised, top-down command and control in favour of participatory and democratic practices.
Roundtable: Free work
Introduction
This panel discussion took place at the ephemera conference on Free Work, in Berlin, May 11, 2011.[1] Three speakers, who each have conducted extensive research on the relation between freedom and work, were invited to briefly present their work and to engage in a discussion about the relation between freedom and contemporary work. The discussion focuses in particular on the alleged freedom of knowledge workers. To what extent is their freedom an imagined freedom?
