Autonomous Movements and Their Media

Characteristics of social movements are shaped by their social and historical background, adapting as the global context shifts. Movements of the current moment are often autonomous and nonhierarchical, decentralize Western perspectives, and value prefigurative politics (in which the means reflect the ends). Leftist political theory has evolved toward these autonomous traits, applying alternatives that are rooted in epistemologies of the Global South and broaden the imagination. These autonomous traits call for a particular approach to movement communication and alternative media projects – in endeavors to speak within the communities, create activist networks, and build the movements.

As social movements decentered economic inequality as a primary focus of struggle in the mid-twentieth century, they became known as ‘new social movements’ (NSM). Day (2005) terms the current wave ‘newest’ social movements, characterizing them as leaning toward anarchistic ¹ values, tactics, and practices. Day uses the term ‘anarchistic’ to speak of traits rather than movements that identify as purely anarchist (p. 20). Doing so allows a view of this third wave to not be tied to the identification or labeling of the movement but to its autonomous qualities. More importantly, autonomous characteristics can be seen not just in the streets during times of unrest, but in ongoing movement-building community projects. Day (2005) emphasizes the nonhierarchical and prefigurative attributes of many Global South and Indigenous movements as historical models of these characteristics.

Rather than seeking a totalizing moment of revolution, today's autonomous projects tend to be more focused on the present moment, thus more ephemeral. Some autonomous endeavors are more overtly political in that they produce alternative and radical knowledge. Others offer mutual aid to communities, demonstrating ways to meet basic needs when the state fails to do so. Small-scale autonomous endeavors within communities offer a more reachable goal than a beeline march toward revolution en masse. Mutual aid projects offer community support, allowing people to build for themselves and see their collective strength while trusting their needs will be prioritized now rather than later.

Given this context of the ‘newest’ movements, the alternative media they create mirror their autonomous values, seeking to produce knowledge outside of the dominant social structure, offering unconventional and imaginative possibilities of existing in and viewing the world. Autonomous media do not subscribe to political theories that envision one rigid route toward solutions (such as Western epistemologies that value one-Truth politics). Instead, these types of media leave space for the values and practices of production to be based on the context of its community.

This research speaks to the field of alternative media by delineating political ideals of autonomous movements as well as leftist critiques. The media projects of this ‘newest’ wave of social movements are created and maintained according to these political principles and epistemologies. These parameters offer a framework by which to examine autonomous media endeavors more thoroughly by understanding the values and goals of autonomous movements.

Social Movement Waves

Social movements began to move away from a political ideology exclusively based on economic inequality, shifting from the 'old left' or 'old social movements’ to ‘new social movements’ (NSMs). NSMs have been dismissed by orthodox-marxists as not legitimate politics due to a focus on single-issue, identity-based oppressions (Day, 2005, p. 69). NSMs took on a politics of prefiguritivism, in which the means should be ethically consistent with the ends (p. 70).

The ‘newest’ social movements, Day (2005) posits, are rooted in the previous two waves ² and practice “contemporary radical activism” (p. 5). This activism involves purposeful efforts to dismantle current structures of domination while building alternative options that are much more radically imaginative than what is offered through any restructuring of liberalism. These newest social movements aim for more radical change than the wins of NSMs but acknowledge the environment in which previous movements were fighting and the necessity of tending to identity-based oppressions to better realize leftist solidarity.

These third wave, autonomous movements attempt to address struggles that are outcomes of neoliberalism (Day, 2005, p. 6). As such, these struggles vary and movements of today eschew a focus on one defining oppression – there is no single enemy and no primary fight (p. 5). These movements seek radical change that is unlikely to be addressed by the state, envisioning transformation without domination (non-hegemonically, without implementing an alternative power structure). This stands in opposition to an approach of replacing the state to implement rigid political doctrine to generate change through domination (counter-hegemony, exchanging the current power structure for another). In doing so, movements of today reject hierarchical leadership structures and call into question the “logic of hegemony” which always envisions some form of domination (Day, 2005, p. 8). This is in stark contrast to marxism, intent on overthrowing the current political state to replace it with a new form of domination (counter-hegemony). Many current movements operate autonomously, without political alignment that will limit their ability to work within their own context and values, leaving space for others to do the same (p. 13). They share a focus on direct action, imagining and building alternatives outside of the logic of hegemony (p. 18). One final characteristic of these newest social movements is what Day calls affinity of affinity, “non-universalizing, non-hierarchical, non-coercive relationships based in mutual aid and shared ethical commitments” (p. 9). Day offers examples such as the Zapatistas, Mohawk Nation, the Aboriginal Provisional Government, and some branches of feminist and queer theory. To this list I would add the Black Power movement of present-day (Davis, 2016) and Black feminist theory (Combahee River Collective, 1977; Hill-Collins, 1990; hooks, 2014). These movements practice decentralized leadership, attentiveness to many forms of oppression, and know that answers to today's problems will not come from old models of political theory. Such radical practices are outside the realm of “(neo)liberal and (post)marxist theoretical traditions, which are dominated by the hegemony of hegemony” (Day, 2005, p. 13). These autonomous characteristics are visible in political projects of many present-day movements as well as their media.

Prefigurativism

Building a unified, cooperative, non-authoritarian society must be built by these same goals (Bookchin, 1998, p. 180). Prefigurative tactics attempt to create present-day versions of existence in which the means are consistent with the ends. Day reminds that “we are never very far from being able to meet our own needs,” pointing to mutual aid in times of natural disaster (2005, p. 36). Instances of communities meeting their own needs abound in the context of the Global South. Rodríguez (2011) highlights many examples of this through community-produced, alternative media that offered support and strength to community members amidst violence and unrest in Colombia.

Prefigurativism requires imagining alternatives and finding ways to create them (even on a small-scale). Prefigurative politics are visible in the forming of ‘affinity groups’ for specific tasks, operating non-hierarchically and approaching decisions through consensus (Day, 2005, p. 35). This contrasts with marxist organizing tactics in which ‘vanguards’ lead the way. The affinity group is not formed simply to win political gains or operate within certain practices, but to experiment with alternatives that can be practiced within the hegemonic confines that exist today (p. 35). A few examples of affinity groups given by Day are Food Not Bombs groups that feed the poor and operate autonomously across the globe, Act Up in response to AIDS, and the radical chapters of the Earth Liberation Front. Day suggests the affinity group as a model to think about operation of non-states (p. 35). Day offers temporary autonomous zones (TAZ) as another example of an alternative to the hegemony of hegemony (2005, p. 35). Developed by Hakim Bey, TAZs are less structured than affinity groups, operating “like an uprising which does not engage directly with the [s]tate, a guerrilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the [s]tate can crush it” (Bey, 1991b, p. 101; as cited by Day, 2005, p. 36). Like affinity groups, TAZs have the potential to create new and lasting ways of existing outside of dominant structures through experiments with alternatives (Day, 2005, p. 36). The final example Day offers for the creation of prefigured alternatives is what he calls “non-branded, non-hegemonic alternatives to the neoliberal project” such as independent media centers (IMC), social centers, pirate radio and television, and zines (p. 38).

Global South Epistemologies Inform Autonomous Movements

Movements of today share characteristics of Global South epistemologies (Day, 2005; de Sousa Santos, 2014), such as non-hierarchical structure, decision-making through consensus, and opposition to dominant structures. de Sousa Santos (2014) emphasizes the necessity of shifting away from focusing exclusively on traditional paradigms of the West. Although there are many forms of oppression globally, the struggle to simply live well arises in response to the same limited ideas (capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, etc) (p. 6). Transformations of the current structures cannot come only from Western epistemologies (p. 4). de Sousa Santos emphasizes contextual understandings: what works for the Global South may not work elsewhere. Western epistemologies need to correct the hyper-focus on paradigms of yesterday, approaches that have failed to address a broad view of the problems (de Sousa Santos, 2014). The Global North can look to epistemologies outside of traditional political theories being put into practice across the globe that take many perspectives into account. Global South epistemologies “squander no knowledges that might help us in our struggle to live well. We mix knowledges and combine them according to logics that are not limited to them” (p. 12). This taking what works and leaving the rest approach creates a “pluriverse” – “of encounters, confrontations, and cross fertilization of knowledges, which confirms the presence of the ecology of knowledges, where intercultural and inter-political translation unfolds in practice” (p. 243).

Anarchist political theory views change as inevitable – the political theories of yesterday are not applicable today, but knowledge can be gained from history to collectively find alternatives. Those with experiential knowledge of the oppressions of today's struggles know best how to approach fighting these battles. This bears repeating – those oppressed and undervalued by dominant structures are usually those who can best address such problems. Studying theory is not a requirement to understanding an anarchist perspective. Knowledges born in the Global South are similarly “intuitive,” because they are “urgent and necessary,” and will not emerge from vanguard intellectuals (de Sousa Santos, 2014, p. 12).

Anarchism in the Context of Leftist Politics

While there are many similarities between anarchism and marxism in that they are radical-leftist political theories, there are differences that limit how much these two perspectives can accomplish together because of differences in end goals and means of achieving those goals. Marxism, in its older versions (and still today, arguably) sees the primary struggle to be class difference and that oppressions based on identity are, at their root, based in economic oppression. Marxists believe that once a totalizing class revolution comes about, power shifts to the working class and inevitably will trickle down to identity-based oppressions through governing rule (what Day [2005] calls the ‘logic of hegemony’). However, while anarchists may have once seen a possibility of revolution (a totalizing moment), more current perspectives of anarchism have embraced the realization that we may not know how the ‘revolution’ will take place, in what form, through what kind of political theory. Anarchism of today attempts to create radical alternatives within the current social and political context, with an historical context in mind.

Rather than awaiting some totalizing revolution, autonomous movements attempt to envision other possibilities, implementing projects that improve upon the present moment by addressing unmet needs. Even if these alternatives are ephemeral and small-scale, they broaden the scope of our collective imagination. Orthodox-marxists, on the other hand, believe there is one approach to upending capitalism, and that any stray from this approach cannot rightfully be called politics (Day, 2005, p. 71, 73; Thompson, 2018). Orthodox-marxists contend that NSMs are not ‘political’ and their efforts actually serve to distract the proletariat from the ‘real politics’ of class-struggle (Jameson, 1991). Traditional marxists see what they term ‘identity politics’ as individualistic, focused on only symbolic gains (Fuchs, 2010, p. 186; Melucci, 1989, p. 5; Pulido, 1998, pp. 7–8; Touraine, 1992). Bagguley calls NSMs “bearers of a new hedonistic culture” focused on “expressive politics” and seeking only “personal freedom” (1992, p. 34).

Since an anarchistic perspective sees change as inevitable, anarchists adapted to (or embraced) NSMs rather than dismissing their struggles, aware that without a move toward equality (even in the limited gains made by NSMs) there would be no unity for any larger fights. Anarchists believe that such changes happen over time, through learning and struggling together and could never be forced through law (the counter-hegemony of marxism). For example, how would one rid themselves of identity biases without self-work and learning? These changes in consciousness certainly cannot be sincerely accomplished through domination. These characteristics of anarchism align with epistemologies of the Global South. de Sousa Santos (2014) asserts that the possibilities of political transformations will not come from one-Truths (offered by Western epistemologies), one political theory of emancipation. Rather, we must cobble together what works within a particular context, based on what is available (de Sousa Santos, 2014, p. 4). Prefigurativism aligns with theories of the Global South by holding that changes in ourselves and our visions of political possibilities start within (de Sousa Santos, 2014, p. 10, 12). By contrast, marxists do not consider practicing prefigurativism as a political act or see it as necessary pre-revolution. Marxists contend that identity inequalities will peter out post-revolution once economic equality (through counter-hegemony/domination) is achieved.

In Marx's most popular text he ignores issues of identity, a product of his time. Most anarchists find much usefulness in Marx's political theory but stop short of seeing it as an all-encompassing doctrine. To Day, Marx's critique of capitalism is still useful despite being dated and missing an analysis of identity almost entirely (2005, p. 9). Simultaneously, Day argues that anarchist theory is equally worthwhile in its critique of state power, while also being limited to its historical moment (p. 9). He highlights elaboration upon these political theories by poststructuralism's analyses of power (capitalism, state, societies of control), itself modernized to address its previous lack of attention to race, colonialism, gender, etc.

One example of this derision of non-class struggles is A.K. Thompson's response to Day's argument of this newest wave of social movements. Thompson calls Day's (2005) book a “fistfight between delusion and the reality principle” (2018, p. 48). Thompson makes the claim that the only ‘real’ politics discussed in Day's book are a handful of direct-action examples about workers striking. Thompson derides Day's analysis of the “deeper, broader and longer-running currents” of activism in the Global South and among Indigenous people and their movements’ traits of affinity rather than hegemony (Day, 2005, p. 4). Thompson calls Day's assessment an idealization in the “mythic longevity” of epistemologies of the Global South (Thompson, 2018, p. 49). Critiquing prefigurativism, Thompson says, “we [have] become a subculture of compulsive beginners… Only a beginning – we are not building, we are prefiguring” (p. 46). He claims prefigurativism suggests the act of activism becomes everything, and nothing worthwhile comes out these empty, symbolic acts (p. 46). Thompson suggests that activists of these ‘newest’ social movements do not have the historical analysis or the theoretical analysis to justify prefigurativism over a more marxist approach. He claims that these newest movements see the failures of past movements and instead of working to improve them they “disengage from the activities of those who have failed and to point, triumphantly, to those few have managed to win some small piece of freedom right here in the present – the crusty punks, the Food Not Bombs kids, and the sleep-and-sun deprived nocturnal creatures that make indymedia.org an object of wonder” (p. 50). It is quite telling that Thompson does not mention Day's other example here, ACT UP. It would be difficult to deride the efforts of a movement that struggled to bring attention to AIDS/HIV as the state ignored their dying community. ACT UP would clearly serve as an example against his critique, highlighting the necessity of such identity struggles.

Thompson sees the prefigurativism of inclusion and non-hierarchy as simply “good table manners” at best (2018, p. 52), “experiments” without the “hard work of analysis” (p. 53). Thompson cites Churchill's derision of some (cherry-picked) prefigurative actions as irrelevant: animal rights work, self-therapeutic techniques such as meditation, sexual liberation, and upending gender through sharing of household labor (Thompson, 2018, p. 54). Although Thompson suggests Churchill might be going a bit too far, conceding that there might be something worthwhile about sharing household labor that it can, “on occasion” allow for women to become more politically engaged (p. 54). Regardless of their slight difference in perspective, both Thompson and Churchill undermine gender equity. It certainly speaks volumes that Thompson cites almost exclusively men and Day uses an array of different perspectives in his analysis of present-day social movements.

Marxists’ dismissal of non-class equality struggles and derision of prefigurativist values of non-hierarchy/inclusion are particularly problematic regarding the importance placed on the ‘revolutionary vanguard.’ Marxists unabashedly uphold themselves as the leaders of their one-Truth, totalizing revolution. They will lead the masses because they, as ‘revolutionaries,’ hold the theoretical knowledge or the organizational strategies of a marxist analysis (note again Thompson's derision of the activists of Day's newest social movements, lacking the theoretical or historical education). Marxists’ commitment to the logic of hegemony allows them to view their approach as precisely what needs to be done and they are the ones who are historically destined to establish this order (Day, 2005, pp. 73–74). Non-hierarchy cannot be factored into their plan. Epistemologies of the South and many of the newest social movements see leadership as fluid, dependent on context, open to evolve, and sometimes even irrelevant (de Sousa Santos, 2014). This understanding of leadership mirrors that of Freire, in which everyone learns and grows together, bringing in their experiences that have given them particular kinds of knowledge (Freire, 1968).

Autonomous Media

As Rodríguez points out, the field of alternative media research was limited in its early years, leading to multiple kinds of media being grouped together without differentiation. Yet interest in this body of research has burgeoned in recent decades, necessitating grappling with more solid definitions (Rodríguez, 2017). Jeppesen et al. (2017) taxonomized alternative communication by process, ideology, and content, identifying ‘autonomous and radical media.’ This category produces and distributes media that mirror end-goal values (Downing, 2001, p. 71), opposes dominant structures, and attempts to support and build connections among radical grassroots projects (p. xi). Other scholars have studied autonomous media through a sociology framework to view these texts as “social practices” that develop in response to the context, experiences, and values of the subaltern groups from which they emerge (Clark-Parsons, 2017, p. 560).

The autonomous nature of the newest wave of movements produces media within the context of certain values, with the intention of disseminating radical knowledge and supporting the community through mutual aid. Out of a need to share alternative epistemologies, ‘subaltern counter publics’ create autonomous media (Fraser, 1992). To Fraser, counter publics’ ability to share alternative knowledge and imaginaries is the core of their liberatory power (p. 123). The subaltern's “bodies and […] lives are the squandered knowledge of the world” (de Sousa Santos, 2014, p. 12). Because Western understandings have been centered and other forms of knowledge devalued, autonomous media aim to decenter dominant epistemologies. Epistemologies of the South acknowledge that all kinds of knowledge hold value, and the sharing of alternate epistemologies through media, even on a small scale, is necessary. “We are bold enough to act under the conviction that, in certain circumstances, it is possible to fight aircraft-carrier ideas with kite-ideas” (de Sousa Santos, 2014, p. 4). Autonomous media is produced to share valuable but previously misspent knowledge – the kind of knowledge that is based in lived experience over dogmatic political theory.

Research of autonomous movements utilizing media garners more attention than smaller, autonomous media projects. Research has documented social movements’ use of new technologies (Rodríguez et al., 2014; Wolfson, 2014) as well as autonomous movement's use of media, such as the Zapatistas (Martinez-Torres, 2001), Occupy (Creech, 2014), Indymedia (Stringer, 2013), 15M (Barbas & Postill, 2017), and #yosoy132 (García & Treré, 2014), among others. Some examples of autonomous media projects will allow me to give context for the kinds of media endeavors that have yet to garner research interest. Digital networks such as Channel Zero, a network of anarchist podcasts, allow for wider reach and support for autonomous media projects like these podcasts. The shows within this network share information, public service announcements, and disseminate radical knowledge by connecting their audience to grassroots leftist projects across the globe. Prisoner-supported newspaper San Francisco Bay View serves as another current example of autonomous media. This longstanding newspaper (founded in 1976) operates non-hierarchically, calls for tearing down the prison system, and lifts the voices of prisoners who author its content. San Francisco Bay View creates an alternative public sphere among the incarcerated and shares alternative knowledge for other prison-abolitionists outside of prison bars. These media projects have yet to be examined. Although these projects warrant closer study, such examinations must occur with autonomous principles in mind.

Autonomous Media and Orthodox-Marxist Critiques

Alternative media has been defined in many ways: through production practices, ownership, critical knowledge production, content, and so on. Fuchs (2010) defines alternative media as ‘critical media’ in that it examines ways to broaden the ontological imagination and build solidarity (p. 173). Fuchs argues that study of alternative media has heavily focused on anarchist media. Fuchs approaches alternative media from an orthodox-marxist perspective, which typically derides political theories and knowledge that do not align with the one-Truth of orthodox-marxism (Bagguley, 1992; Epstein, 2001; Jameson, 1991; Thompson, 2018). Fuchs (2010) critiques the field of alternative media for the focus on anarchist media projects, claiming that it prioritizes and romanticizes small, precarious media endeavors (p. 174) that lack political relevance (p. 177). He offers what he calls a more ‘realistic’ marxist perspective (p. 174), that alternative media need processes that allow for “large-scale political communication” (p. 186), which would require deemphasizing prefigurativism in production practices for the sake of a wider audience reach (p. 180).

Fraser (1992) theorized that multiple public spheres exist to address the issues of the subaltern that are ignored elsewhere, forming subaltern counter publics. As part of his marxist approach to alternative media, Fuchs asserts that multiple counter public spheres cannot meaningfully exist (2010, p. 186). He counters scholars such as Fraser, using the time-honored orthodox-marxist approach that tackling economic oppression will eliminate all other forms of oppression (pp. 181, 186). He argues that multiple public spheres bring the focus small-scale, toward the “fragmentation of struggles” (p. 186). Fuchs claims that unity in diversity is necessary, avoiding a focus on “identity politics” (p. 186). This argument neglects the reality that no counter publics prefer fragmentation, but when all oppressions are grouped within economic struggles, other oppression-related issues are ignored in the name of unity. The very existence of multiple public spheres shows that these other forms of domination must be addressed along the way.

In relation to studying processes of alternative media (such as non-hierarchical structure and self-organized production, typical of autonomous media), Fuchs argues that focusing too heavily on prefigurativism “idealiz[es] the limited possibilities and constraints that alternative media production is facing” and can be “highly repressive (eg, fascist)” (2010, p. 180). Fuchs argues for an emphasis on content and form in his attempt to situate alternative media as critical media. He sees prefiguritive traits as “desirable qualities of alternative media, but not necessary conditions” (p. 180), suggesting naivety in the prefigurativist belief that “an alternative society can already be created within an overall oppressive totality” (p. 180). Certainly alternative media can take many forms and wider and deeper research of alternative media yields a stronger field. Yet Fuchs argues that because alternative media research focused on processes looks mostly to “self-organized small-scale community media that enable citizen participation,” alternative media run the risk of “remain[ing] insignificant” without reaching a mass audience, “unable to have a transformative political potential” (2010, p. 177). These projects, he argues, are vulnerable to disagreements over lack of resources (p. 178) and hold the potential to become “psychological self-help initiatives without political relevance” (p. 189).

With Fuchs’ argument against the political effectiveness of small-scale autonomous media and their prefigurative politics, I put this in conversation with de Sousa Santos who says, “we know Marx, even though Marx may not know us” (2014, p. 2). Fuchs ignores the fact that hierarchies (likely present in large-scale alternative media endeavors) maintain fragmented public spheres. de Sousa Santos points out that epistemologies of the Global South do not subscribe to one-Truth political perspectives, as demonstrated by Fuchs. Instead, epistemologies of the South embrace a ‘pluriverse’ of possibilities that change with the context. Knowledges of the South do not throw out Marx altogether for not knowing them but accept the (many) useful theories of Marx into the pluriverse, leaving out what is not applicable and what is exclusionary. As de Sousa Santos points out, the world is much larger than Western understandings and changes will arise from frameworks outside of these dominant approaches (not dismissing dominant ideas but seeing them as one perspective of many options) (2014, p. 4). This explicitly counters Fuchs’ (2010) argument of the usefulness of small-scale alternative media, as de Sousa Santos speaks of the boldness of utilizing ‘kite-ideas’ (versus ‘aircraft-carrier ideas’) when the context is right (2014, p. 4).

“Unity makes strength, but the best strength is the strength that builds unity. We have neither leaders nor followers” (de Sousa Santos, 2014, p. 16). Eliminating hierarchies, beginning with vanguards that claim solidarity their way, is essential to addressing oppression (p. 241). Those most impacted by oppression must be able to “represent the world in their own terms” (p. 243) in order to rebuild it on those terms. This is the essence of kite-idea media, sharing a pluriverse of knowledges that create solidarity that rings truer than in movements past. Tackling hierarchies requires change, work starting from within individuals with support from the collective. “There is no change without self-change, for the obstacles to life with dignity, or living well, reside in ourselves” (pp. 10, 12).

Framework

The characteristics of these ‘newest’ movements align with epistemologies of the Global South, building upon radical legacies and opening up a ‘pluriverse’ of ways to address oppression in the current moment. These theories of the political evolution of social movements allow researchers to better examine autonomous media through the lens of the project's own values rather than values ascribed by the academic field. The following is a framework for how these philosophical commitments manifest in this type of activist media, giving the researcher a guide as to what to look for in the field.

Decentering Western Perspectives

What does embracing a ‘pluriverse’ of epistemologies look like for these autonomous media projects? How can projects (or their autonomous communities) develop a variety of perspectives? These projects might find alternative approaches by seeking insight, collaborating, or decision-making with the community (or communities) most connected to the project. These approaches require several components of the framework traits: mindfulness to others’ experiences, putting equality into practice, decisions through consensus, learning and brainstorming together, and making involvement accessible (physical accessibility, childcare, etc).

The researcher must be mindful to study the project within its own terms and goals rather than with the researcher's lens and assumptions. This might be achieved through inquiring about the origins and goals for the project. From where do they derive their political theories? How did the project arrive at this approach – who was included in the decisions? How do these approaches serve the project and how do they move on from an approach that no longer works within their context? How does the media endeavor attend to keeping many political perspectives at play? Is the group diverse enough to have many perspectives?

Illustrated in the context of an autonomous movement, Brian Creech's (2014) analysis of the representational discourse of Occupy serves as an example of openness to a pluriverse of perspectives. When Indigenous activists critiqued the movement's silence regarding protesters’ own role in ‘occupying’ previously stolen land, these assessments presented the movement with an opportunity to respond and “accommodate further forms of critique from voices and identities that complicate the notion of the 99% as a collective political subject with unified interests” (p. 472). Researchers of autonomous media might assess how a project seeks varied perspectives and, just as essential, how the project responds when presented with critiques.

Autonomous

Social movements of this ‘newest’ wave operate autonomously without ascribing to any one, set-in-stone political theory or identifying one primary fight to address today's oppression. The autonomous media researcher should avoid assumptions about how the group operates and under what political banner. Instead, it is necessary to dig deeper into practices by listening and working collaboratively with the group. Does the group speak explicitly about their political values, or are these understood? What are the core goals of the media project and do these goals reflect their values? How do these media-makers make sense of their contextual circumstances, respond, and adapt? Collaborative methods such as participatory action research help to uncover answers to these questions. Of use to these kinds of research endeavors, Jeppesen et al. (2017) collaborated with activists to develop a taxonomy of methods to study activist media, including approaches to autonomous media and prefigurative antiauthoritarian feminist participatory action research.

To exemplify the difference of examining a project from its own values rather than the values of the researcher or field, I compare two approaches of studying autonomous collectives. Dunbar-Hester (2020) examined ‘open-technology communities’ that attempt to create technological diversity. Dunbar-Hester takes issue with the project's prefigurative strategy, arguing that systemic issues such as inequality cannot simply be addressed through representation (p. 16). Yet these autonomous open-technology communities were not seeking diversity for the sake of representation, but to make technological knowledge more accessible so it can operate as a liberation tool. Using methods termed “polymorphous engagement” (p. 25), Dunbar-Hester “sought to mirror the distributed nature of this advocacy, conducting participant observation at a number of sites” (2020, p. 25). Perhaps more embeddedness would have allowed the goals of the projects to be made visible rather than speculating why the collectives spend their energies volunteering their time toward prefigurative efforts (p. 19). It is in this political divergence where Dunbar-Hester misses the essence of the groups studied. These open-technology communities are not trying to diversify tech jobs, their goal is simply to spread technological knowledge to those who have not had the privilege to receive it. These groups, grappling with the reality of the current moment, were working within the confines of which they found themselves. Again, Dunbar-Hester's research would have benefitted from a methodological approach that attempted to connect more with the open-technology groups and their goals rather than (seemingly) entering the research with critiques of the groups’ political approach already in hand.

Murillo (2020) exemplifies a methodological approach that considers the project studied from the standpoint of its own values and goals. Murillo used field research in multiple cities along the Pacific Rim to study autonomous hacker collectives, examining their transnational connections and exchange practices. Murillo conducted a three-year, multi-sited ethnographic immersion, engaging in participant observation of everyday tasks and activities of these collectives, conducting interviews, and seeking historical accounts of the lives of the activists studied. Murillo's argues that such collaborative groups “prefigur[e] new technical and political practices” (2020, p. 207) of networking and training. These collectives network locally and transnationally, engaging in technological exchanges (sharing of knowledge) and cultivating political ideals. Murillo's research juxtaposes Dunbar-Hester's in its value of alternative political solutions, understanding the usefulness of a prefigurative approach to structural limitations.

Non-Hierarchical Leadership

In movements of today, leadership is fluid – changing with the context, alternating to limit individual power, and sometimes altogether unwarranted. Leadership might depend on the necessary knowledge within a particular struggle. This might sometimes mean cultivated radical knowledge, at other times experiential knowledge is needed. The researcher might begin by asking questions about the kind of leadership that is practiced. Is the group's stance on leadership and its ideal role within the project explicit? In what context might this stance change? How does the group handle charismatic leadership that is rooted in social hierarchies and habits that have yet to be unlearned? For example, the most outspoken and opinionated often lead inadvertently even when not in a leadership position.

Fraught with the reality of socialization, non-hierarchy is a prefigurative goal, a value for which to strive. How do these media activists grapple with their own internalized oppressive behaviors that uphold dominant values and systems? How are these media activists held accountable within their autonomous media project? Are there ongoing conversations about whether non-hierarchy is effectively being upheld within their group? Looking to the ‘digital vanguards’ of Occupy's social media teams, Gerbaudo proposes that claiming nonhierarchy invites informal leadership that poses a threat to the political project due to a lack of accountability (2012, pp. 165–166). In his study of Indymedia, Wolfson described the reality of non-hierarchy as upholding traditional “tendencies that favor the leadership of white, male, college-educated activists” (2014, p. 8).

Hierarchies are baked into our social interactions, hence the need to address “internal oppression” (Jeppesen, 2010, p. 479). An important element for the researcher to study in terms of non-hierarchy is that it is actively sought, limiting power, and not just a value nod that is rarely attended in a significant way. The researcher should be mindful of this, perhaps looking at potential areas of hierarchy based on race, class, education, and so on. Although non-hierarchy is an ideal that movements of today claim to value, continually attending to it is complex. It requires openness, discussion, and reflection into the ways we might internalize systematic oppression.

Prefigurative Politics

Creating alternative media is an act of prefigurative politics on its own, as a means to share ‘misspent’ or radical knowledge. This section of the framework focuses on prefigurative alternatives to addressing internal oppression and mutual aid. Experimenting with alternative ways of being and knowing is difficult and slow-moving, with seldom a roadmap from which to model. As alterations are made and projects grow, those involved learn as well, which is the purpose of living these ideals in the current moment – now rather than later.

Internal Oppression

Angela Davis’ (2016) collected work about the origins of the Black Power movement links today's systemic oppressions globally. She suggests movements take advantage of these connections, “bringing various social justice struggles together, across national borders” (p. 19). The newest movements form an array of intersectional identities – so prefiguratively attending to oppression from within is essential to unity. Doing so requires attention to bias, and honest reflection of both individuals and groups. Jeppesen et al. point to a gap in the activist media literature (2014, p. 4) regarding how groups attend to ‘internal oppression’ (Jeppesen, 2010, p. 479). The autonomous media researcher studying prefigurative attentiveness to internal oppression might start with assessing how the project has addressed such issues conversationally, materially, or through consciousness-raising.

For example, the impact and threat of sexual violence in leftist organizing can cause emotional harm and destroy trust. Silencing accounts of gendered violence results in activists unwilling to return to political spaces (Downes, 2017). In these circles, “identifying abuse is particularly difficult because it manifests differently and means acknowledging abuse by a person thought to be politically virtuous” (Hanks, 2019, p. 3). In one of very few studies on this topic, Hanks conducted interviews with activists who had taken part in 'accountability processes.' Participants were asked about their experiences in the activist subculture, the accountability process itself, as well as their opinion on the effectiveness of the process. Additionally, Hanks examined leftist communication (zines) related to accountability processes and related topics. Their findings show conflicts with these processes, a range of ‘perpetrator’ responses, and that success of the accountability process was gauged by the interviewee's subsequent perception of their role in activism (p. 9). Studies such as this are initial steps in understanding transformative justice as a route to addressing harmful and ongoing issues in activist circles.

Autonomous media researchers interested in understanding a media project's attentiveness to internal oppression might begin by inquiring about the project's own accountability processes. Have issues of internal oppression been voiced? If a media-maker within the project wanted to air a grievance, how might they go about bringing it to the group's attention? How did the group decide on their processes of accountability? If the group does not have a set plan for accountability processes, why has this not been prioritized? Often accountability processes are an afterthought when creating political sub-groups (such as an alternative media endeavor), leaving groups vulnerable to scrambling to address issues of internal oppression without any formal decision making about how to do so. For groups that have attempted accountability processes in the midst of such a crisis, the researcher might ask if the group sought resources within their activist network and who was involved in deliberation about the process once there was already a grievance presented.

Mutual Aid

Mutual aid has the potential to communicate trust to the community by prefiguratively meeting needs using alternative routes. This might take the form of food or clothing distribution, support groups, crisis assistance, and so on. Information about these projects is often relayed through alternative media. Spade (2020) uncovers potential risks of these projects, such as operating from a ‘charity model’ rather than true mutual aid and offers characteristics that differentiate between charity and cooperative care. For example, a charity organization obtains supplies from grants or philanthropy. A mutual aid project, to operate autonomously and remain untethered by financial control, must get creative in their acquisition of supplies. A charity model also uses hierarchies of worthiness to distribute resources. Researchers can utilize Spade's characteristics to examine projects that emerge from or are disseminated through autonomous media.

As Spade (2020) points out, prefiguratively attending to the needs of the community requires listening and solidarity. Through networks, activist media makers gain information about mutual aid initiatives and disseminate the information via their media. Sometimes the media activists have a hand in creating the mutual aid project. The researcher might inquire with the media activists how they were informed of the mutual aid project or whether they had any involvement in its creation. Do they know the group that is hosting the project and how the project terms were decided? How were decisions of resource distribution made (for example, clothing distribution rather than food)? Did the group hosting the mutual aid project inquire with the community about which resource was most needed? Is the media project attentive to the differentiation of mutual aid versus charity by avoiding coverage of projects that operate from a charity model?

Small-Scale and Ephemeral

Radical media are subversive (Downing, 2001, p. xi) and intentionally never ‘contend’ with mainstream media or prioritize audience reach. Instead, radical, autonomous media intend to reach those already seeking alternatives. To uncover the goals of the alternative media project, the researcher might ask about the group's intended audience. Is the group speaking to those already on the political left or attempting to convert?

Jeppesen et al. respond to Fuchs’ (2010) assessment of autonomous media being financially unstable (2014, p. 3) by pointing to the “anti-capitalist modes of production” typically utilized by autonomous media such as zines, resource and skill sharing, pirating, and so on (Jeppesen, 2010, p. 475). Goals, outcomes, and tactics differ when comparing autonomous media with Fuchs’ (2010) alternative media ideal. Research of autonomous media might inquire how the project remains financially stable. Does the project sustain itself using makeshift, anti-capitalist production techniques? The researcher should be mindful of the sensitivity of this inquiry, as some anti-capitalist techniques hold the potential for activists to render themselves vulnerable (stealing supplies from their job, pirating, etc).

Radical media must find creative avenues for sustainability. Historically, activists utilize events or fairs, hosted by networks of autonomous groups, to disseminate zines, art, and more. Jeppesen et al. describe these as a sort of pop-up infoshop, utilizing activist networks to share radical media (2014, p. 8). Similarly utilizing networks to fortify alternative media projects, Channel Zero (as described previously) is a digital network of radical podcasts. Operating from a network offers these projects a wider reach and a stronger impact in their efforts. One illustration of these podcasts banding together is their creation of shared public service announcements. During the Black Power uprisings of 2020, the network distributed information on preparing for potential arrests (one's own or others’) when participating in protests.

These are just two models of sustainability efforts of autonomous media. The field would benefit from understanding the creative directions with which these projects experiment as well as the anti-capitalist modes of production with which media endeavors engage. As always, when studying these projects, the researcher must be mindful of the contextual goals behind such practices.

Conclusion

This research outlines political parameters of many social movements of today, presenting connections and critiques from different political perspectives. Autonomous movements’ communication and media projects are formed by these political ideals and epistemologies. As such, these characteristics offer a framework by which to study media endeavors of current social movements.

The autonomous traits discussed here, responding to the global context, indicate how movements of today are attempting to embrace what de Sousa Santos terms ‘alternatives to alternatives’ (2014). They do this through practicing prefiguritivism, values of inclusion and equality in the process, and not simply as some far-off promise. Similar to epistemologies of the Global South, autonomous movements build their political communities and their media around what works within their social and historical context and leave behind those parts of political philosophies that do not serve them. These movements build upon their politics with an array of epistemologies, acknowledging that change is inevitable and to reach people it is imperative to be flexible and non-dogmatic. Such autonomous movements ‘make-do’ with what they have, using their often small-scale media to share alternative epistemologies to impact those they are able to reach, without subscribing to one-Truth ideals that tend to exclude many from potential transformations.

Despite criticisms leveled against autonomous practices in both theory and media production, these prefigured alternatives continue to create change in the small ways in which they have the ability. Autonomous media projects attempt to circulate radical discourse under the assumption that any seed planted in which knowledge and imagination can grow, cannot be in vain.