Geert Lovink on Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:11:11 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Interview with Saskia Sassen on PGOs (for N5M3 TV) |
Interview with Saskia Sassen on PGOs For N5M3 TV, taped in De Balie, Amsterdam, January 18th, 1999 By Geert Lovink GEERT: Saskia, would you agree that there has been a rise in power of these NGOs, these non-governmental organizations, over the last decades? SASKIA: Yes, there is. There is abolutely a rise in power. There is also a rise in power of other kinds of--we could call them non-governmental--entities, like corporations, certain types of markets. This is a very important issue. GEERT: These very specific networks of small organizations--environmental movements, civil rights initiatives--on the one hand, they sort of embody the goodwill and the alternative; but there is another side to them. Maybe unwillingly, they are fullfilling tasks they never wanted to, tasks that governments did before. SASKIA: That is also definitely happening. You see, for instance in parts of Africa, the world of NGOs taking over the governance of certain social spaces. It could be cities, it could be institutions, things that used to be in public bureaucracies. And, in fact, you have some African scholars who will say: What to the outsiders looks like a lack of governance is actually an alternative kind of governance that is happening through all these non-governmental organizations. I think it is extremely important within the world of NGOs to be aware of this distinction. There are many, many different types of projects here. It is not one world. GEERT: So let's talk a little bit about health care, or trade unions, even political parties. Does that encompass the universe of NGOs for you? SASKIA: I don't know. What has been happening is that the term "NGO" has been spreading, so that now anything that is non-governmental suddenly becomes an NGO. I think this is partly a political move: it expands this world of actors. On the other hand, I think it is an interesting political move--potentially, at least. But that is just one point to be made here. The other point is that some NGOs have enormous power, more power than some governments: the World Council of Churches, and all kinds of other organizations. There are NGOs that absolutely reproduce existing power hierarchies, NGOs that struggle at the margins, that don't even know that we call them NGOs. They're just small groups of people. So there are NGOs--maybe like the Soros network--that have a very specific project of installing certain social structures, certain kinds of objectives or projects and so on, in existing national states or countries. So it's very difficult to generalize--that much we know. Among the more marginal NGOs, like those linked with the struggles of 'first nation peoples'--linked, for example, with the struggles of environmentalists (I don't mean the big environmental organizations)--have been able, through the Internet or by other means, to connect across the world and gain strength. As a result, we now have sort of a new kind of NGO politics that consists of multiple local initiatives with a difference. The difference is an awareness that there is a whole range of other local efforts along these lines. There is a sort of global consciousness of sorts. When we talk about the world of the NGO today, I think that we're talking about enormous diversity. It would be a question to discuss strategically whether the world of NGOs is or isn't the way we should be thinking about these questions. Do we want to harness the image of this enormously diverse world, or do we really want to make the distinction. I think different projects will demand different ways to use or make use of this world of NGOs. But really--NGO is and almost bureaucratic term at this point, in the sense that it is one way to categorize. But these entities aren't always so self-conscious or, if they are, aren't always clear on what it means. Another such term is 'the fourth world'--interesting, yes, but what does it mean? GEERT: Or 'third-way' systems, 'civic initiatives.' SASKIA: The 'third sector,' right. GEERT: Another important issue, may would say, is accountability. One of the problems of NGOs--especially if they are linked to large international organizations--is that for people on the ground, and even for governments, they are no longer accountable for what they do. They can move very quickly and in many ways can behave like finance capital. SASKIA: I have three observations, on the spur of the moment. One of them is that the question of accountability needs to be deconstructed: accountable to what and for what? In some cases, the fact that some of these organizations are not accountable is actually better, because it means that a different kind of political project can be enacted--whereas if an organiztion is accountable, it often means being accountable to existing value systems, which in some cases are the very ones best avoided. However, many of the big NGOs are profoundly accountable--by which I mean they are accountable in the kinds of ways and to the kinds of entities one might not want to demand accountability for or to. Another issue--and it's one I'm struggling with--is the need to invent new systems of accountability. This is my concern about a lot of the architecture for governing global finance. There is an architecture, there are certain standards the players adhere to; and there is transparency, the famous term 'transparency,' which implies something that's intrinsically good. But what is it? It is accountability to shareholders and their short-term profit. But do we always want this kind of accountability? No--including from global finance--so we're presented with the challenge of discovering new types of accountability, new ways of thinking the question of accountability--accountability to a larger public good, and so on. So, when I look at this landscape--whether it is the landscape of global finance, the landscape of these NGOs--I think that a primary agenda is to invent new systems for accountability and accountability for different kinds of aims in some of these systems. There's a lot of change happening, there are major discontinuities--and that means that the older systems don't always work. We really have to rethink some of these things. GEERT: And we should not necessarily be accountable to them. SASKIA: Exactly. GEERT: In the Next 5 Minutes conference we have come up with the term 'post-governmental organization': it reflects a bit better the actual structure of these situations and activities. 'Non-governmental' always refers to the government, parties and the relationship towards local and national governments. 'Post-governmental organizations,' on the other hand, have a global aspect and another aspect--of alternative models of organizing, say, another architecture of networks, more decentralized. SASKIA: That sounds like a good term. You'll certainly attract some critics with it--if you use 'post,' there's no way to escape criticism. But it does suggest something that comes 'after' in a broad sense, in other words, after the current, not necessarily in accordance with or defined by the current structure of NGOs. Capturing this discontinuity is important. It may not make it radically different, but it seems open to this difference. I don't know if that's what you're after, but that's my impression. GEERT: Well, it's always tricky, risky, to introduce a term. But, for us, this possibility and this risk is related to developments in the media landscape and in computer networks. SASKIA: You know, in the field of immigration we are now talking about 'post-national citizenship.' I don't think either of these terms, 'post-governmental organization' and 'post-national citizenship,' necessarily implies, that there is no government, that the government is no longer there. The national continues to be operative. But there is also this other form or space within which things can happen. GEERT: Now, ultimately, this NGO/PGO-topic is about the question of organization. How do people these days organize themselves? We know that churches and traditional forms like parties or trade unions are losing their primacy in this regard. Some say that NGOs are the new way. Maybe there are other forms, maybe more invisible forms or more fluid forms. How would you say people should organize themselves these days? SASKIA: Again, we come back to the Internet. With the Internet there is a real option to organize in a more fluid way--and also in a deterritorialized way, or partly deterritorialized way. The possibility of a local organization is no longer predicated on physical proximity or spatial proximity: it's now possible to capture different sites in different parts of the world, while still thinking in terms of local organizations rather than global organizations. There are issues that different localities share no matter where they are, and there are other issues that must be fought on the ground in a particular place. But we shouldn't think about that in literal terms, on the ground literally: this can also be accomplished via local networks and so on. That's why some people are talking less about 'transnational' and more about 'translocal,' the idea that different 'locals' connect. In many ways, what I deal with is more translocal than transnational. We have been using this term 'transnational,' but it's only one form of translocality. The notion of the 'local' is crucial: we need to expand its meaning so that it is not understood as spatial proximity. But that in itself is a subject for debate--some people will disagree with it very fiercely. (Transcribed by Menno Grootveld, edited by Mylene van Noort) --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl