CHAPTER 1

Spaces of IntentionalityRace, Class, and Horizontality at the U.S. Social ForumJEFFREY S. JURIS

On July 1, 2007, the last day of the first-ever U.S. Social Forum (USSF)in Atlanta, a prominent indigenous leader from Ecuador began readinga statement from the Third Continental Assembly of Indigenous Peopleduring the People's Movement Assembly (PMA). The woman who had accompaniedhim on stage had taken up most of their allotted two minutes,so his time concluded before he was able to finish, and one of the twomoderators, an African American woman, asked him to step down. Sheabruptly grabbed the microphone when he refused to stop. He continuedfor a short time, but soon left the stage in anger as many in the crowdchanted, "Let him speak, let him speak!" Ten minutes later several dozenindigenous people and their allies marched out of the theater, taking thestage shortly thereafter. The Ecuadoran explained to the audience, "Wehave to unite, organize, and defend ourselves. I did not want to disappear.I am tired of receiving these kinds of insults. In my country they think weare savages, but they say, 'you look so beautiful.' It cannot happen againat the social forums, not to women, not to indigenous people!" A NativeNorth American leader went on to denounce the history of racist oppressionand marginalization of his people, followed by a drumming circlemeant to heal and restore the speaker's dignity. The moderator then returnedto the stage and apologized for the offense, and everyone began tohug as the crowd chanted, "The People, United, Will Never Be Defeated!"

Since the first World Social Forum (WSF) was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil,in January 2001, the social forums have provided a platform for diversemovements, networks, and organizations to share information, developcommon strategies, and build concrete alternatives to neoliberal globalization.Coming on the heels of mass actions in Seattle; Washington, D.C.;Quebec; and Prague, the first WSF allowed global justice activists to articulatepositive visions of what they were fighting for. The forums have continuedto facilitate movement building while also constituting pedagogicalspaces and laboratories for new forms of radical democracy (Fisher andPonniah 2003; Santos 2006). Meanwhile, what began as a singular eventhas since become a sustained process involving forums at local, regional,and global levels. As the forums intersect with diverse social, cultural, andpolitical contexts, new issues and tensions come to the fore, reflecting theimportance of place within the forum process (Conway 2008b).

Conflicts and struggles within and around the forums specificallyreflect key tensions associated with particular organizing processes. Theincident at the USSF described above points to important differences betweenthe U.S. and other forums, particularly the European Social Forum(ESF), with respect to the conception and practice of open space. Unlikethe WSF International Council (IC), which is based on formal membership,the ESF has been coordinated through an open committee composedof anyone who wants to participate. Given this process, conflictshave tended to emerge around openness and horizontality, while importantissues of access and exclusion have remained muted. Since 2003, theUSSF process has addressed another key contradiction in the practice ofopen space: the lack of racial and class diversity. The protest by indigenouspeoples during the USSF was motivated by a deep sense of disrespect,yet also reflected the crucial role of identity, voice, and representationin the U.S. context.

Such differences raise key questions regarding the relationship betweenopenness, inclusiveness, and horizontality. Popularized by grassroots autonomousmovements in Argentina, the term horizontality refers to an increasinglywidespread mode of political organizing characterized by...