Marianne Maeckelbergh LEARNING FROM CONFLICT:INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO DEMOCRATIC DECISION MAKING IN THE ALTERGLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT Abstract This article explores the role of conﬂict in fostering equality within the decision-making processes of the alterglobalization movement. I argue that movement actors treat conﬂict as constructive because it helps create “diversity.” Movement actors transform con- ﬂict from adversarial to constructive through a con- tinuous process of decentralizing power referred to as “horizontality.” This decentralization of power is achieved through network-based decision-making structures that reject unity through agreement in favor of connections between diﬀerences. Drawing on over 8 years of ethnographic research into movement decision-making practices, I argue that these move- ment practices show that although diversity leads to conﬂict, adversarial conﬂict is not caused by this ﬂow of diversity; adversarial conﬂict arises only when these ﬂows are blocked. Movement practices demonstrate that conﬂict can be productive if it is given space for expression. [alterglobalization movement, conﬂict, democracy, decision making, diversity, networks] Abbreviations BOC Brazilian Organizing Committee ESF European Social Forum G8 Group of Eight. The G8 summit is a meeting between the leaders of the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, and since 1997 also Russia. GLA Greater London Authority IGC Indian General Council IMF International Monetary Fund WB World Bank WSF World Social Forum WTO World Trade Organization INTRODUCTION Just a month before the new millennium began, a mysterious force entered the political playing ﬁeld, and although they have yet to win the game, they have already fundamentally altered the rules of engagement in global politics. This social move- ment, referred to here as the alterglobalization movement, is known primarily for their confronta- tions with multilateral organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank/International Monetary Fund (WB/IMF), and the Group of 8/Group of 20 (G8/G20). This social movement’s coming out party was during the WTO in Seattle in 1999 where the alterglobal- ization movement helped derail the WTO negotia- tions, in both the short term and, it would seem over a decade later, the long term. I refer to this group as the “alterglobalization movement,” but this is not a neutral choice. After having been dubbed the “anti-globalization” movement by the media, movement actors have adopted various heavily debated labels. Outside of the English language the movement tends to be satisﬁed with terms like mouvement altermondialist, altermondial- ismus, movimientos alterglobalizaci  on, and I there- fore adopt this term here. 1 Movement actors in all languages, however, also refer to the alterglobalization movement as the “movement of movements” because it is so diverse. This article focuses only on the “global” disembedded level where these many movements come together: the moments when people and ideas travel across the world to converge for a social forum or against a multilateral organization. An important tension emerges between the artiﬁcial analytical distinction between global movements and local movements within this move- ment of movements. The people who are a part of the spaces and moments described here are active in social movements, political projects, non- governmental organizations, and community struggles for autonomy. In fact, their involvement Transforming Anthropology, Vol. 21, Number 1, pp. 27–40, ISSN 1051-0559, electronic ISSN 1548-7466. © 2013 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/traa.12001. 27