Against the belly of the beast! : an analysis of the transformative capacity of Blockupy’s March 2015 protests in Frankfurt am Main

(1)

‘Against the belly of the beast!’

An analysis of the transformative capacity of Blockupy’s March

2015 protests in Frankfurt am Main

Master thesis Political Science (International Relations) Michelle J. Nitschmann

Student number: 10862900 June 26th, 2015

Supervisor: Dr. Sjoerdje van Heerden

(2)

1

Writing this thesis has been a great adventure and challenge alike which could not have happened without the support, encouragement, and input of a number of people whom I would like to thank at this point. First of all, I would like to thank all the involved actors, organisations, and interview respondents who contributed to my research. I am sincerely grateful for all our discussions, your time, and your support. Further, I wish to extend a special thanks to my thesis supervisor Dr. Sjoerdje van Heerden, for her continuous encouragement, support, and guidance throughout this project, as well as my second reader Dr. Hein-Anton van der Heijden, for agreeing to spend the last weeks of this academic year with my thesis. Further, I would like to thank the library team of the University of

Amsterdam, who helped me countless times when I was lost in the search for a book. A heartfelt thank you also to Katharina who has not failed me when my eyes did and tirelessly read my draft chapters. Further, I would also like to thank Alkan who accompanied me during the protests, who endured teargas, barricades and little sleep to help and encourage me

throughout the fieldwork. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their love, encouragement, and continuing support throughout all stages of my education. I am eternally thankful for having been able to embark on this journey and reach for my dreams.

(4)

3

1. Introduction

On March 18th_{, approximately 20,000 people took to the streets and squares of the German}

city of Frankfurt am Main to protest “louder and stronger than ever” against the austerity policy of the European Union and the opening of the new European Central Bank (ECB) buildings (Frankfurter Rundschau, 18.03.2015). Feeling motivated and empowered by the recent Greek elections in which a left government was elected, Frankfurt’s activists protested to both demonstrate solidarity with the new government and express resistance against the “crisis regime” of the Troika’s austerity policy (Blockupy, 2015f). The latter has been

accused of promoting a form of “authoritarian governance” in which democratic participation would be disregarded and creating a “precarious model of very limited social rights, a model of control and competition” created (ibid.). Thus, proclaiming that “our time to act has come!” and “First we took Athens, now Frankfurt!”, a Europe-wide network of activists named ‘Blockupy’ called upon people from all over Europe to stand in solidarity against the headquarter of the ECB in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, figuratively standing for the “belly of the beast” (ibid.).

Whether it is the European anti-nuclear power movement, the current protests against the G7 summit in Germany, or the environmentalist movement, understanding more about the power of protests for movements itself is not only important in a socio-political context. Interest and identities have been observed to be an endogenous characteristic of social

movements (Della Porta, 2012, p.256). Both do not only contribute to the initial development of forms of action but are also in turn caused by the latter. Consequently, rather than just being a critical reaction to certain conditions, protest can also function as a catalyst for the emergence of actors, ideas, or even new movements in the first place. Thus, especially in an age of a historically low voter participation the last elections for the European Parliament but also in a national context in Germany, the location of this case study, some might argue that protests constitute an even more important form of political participation (EurActiv, 2014; Bundeswahlleiter, 2015). Yet, protests and other direct forms of action and criticism are often displayed and seen as a public nuisance. As di Cicco (2010) points out, a certain ‘protest paradigm’ commonly dominates news coverage of protests and their actors (p.136). Hence, one can often observe a tendency of news coverage media to emphasize protesters’ “unusual appearances”, dramatic events and images, as well as to stress the presence of apparent

“extremists” at the protests (ibid.). Furthermore, such coverage tends to disparage protests and participants by indicating alleged disunity among activists, and refers to a purportedly

(5)

4

Cicco suggests, under the influence of a “public nuisance paradigm" of protest coverage in recent decades, protests have frequently been dismissed as an “irritation, a hindrance […] interfere[ing] with daily life” caused by a supposed “lack of patriotism and efficacy inherent in this strategy of political engagement” (2010, p.136). Against this background and in order to respond in a proportionate and adequate way, it is vital for authorities to gain information concerning protests‘ capacity of involving actors, movements and even societies as a whole.

Considering the academic take on protests, social movement studies have traditionally examined conflict as a dynamic component in societies (Della Porta, 2012; Tilly & Tarrow, 2007). Besides, during the preliminary research phase, the author found that considerations of the transformative capacity of events constitute a rather neglected temporal perspective in social movement and protest research. Notwithstanding Sewell’s eventful temporality research in 1996, studies in the field have rarely included analytic insights on the causal importance and potential effects of such forms of contentious events. Moreover, irrespective of these action form’s relevance for social movements, respective literature mainly included protests as aggregated collective action. Further, studies exploring protests as a dependent variable dominate the field. Against this background, this study explores Donatella della Porta’s concept of “eventful protest” (2012) in regard to Blockupy’s March 18th protests in Frankfurt am Main. As Della Porta points out, even though protests are used daily by a wide variety of actors, they still constitute an event form that “tends to produce effect” (p.274). Following her argument, these effects appear to be more pronounced and observable in

protests that involve long processes of preparation, in which different actors work together, an emphasis is put on communication, and an especially intense emotional aspect can be

assessed (p.275).

In this regard, Sewell’s concept of eventful temporality (1996) becomes meaningful. He states that eventful temporality “recognizes the power of events in history”, referring to events as a “relatively rare subclass of happenings that significantly transform structure”.

Furthermore, Sewell considers an eventful conception of temporality to be “one that takes into account the transformation of structures by events” (Sewell, 1996, p.262). Hence, protests would be particularly “eventful” when they create relational, cognitive, and emotional effects on participants and further actors (Della Porta, 2012, p.260). Especially long-lasting

transnational campaigns would seem particularly apt to create relational processes (p.260, 275). While Della Porta already looked at the cases of the European Marches, the Social Forums of the global justice movements, and a campaign against a construction project in Val

(6)

5

di Susa, Italy, she concludes that a further reflection on protests’ eventfulness is needed to expand on the findings of her studies. Against this background, this study examines whether her assumptions can be affirmed in regard to Blockupy’s March 18th 2015 protest, taken as an example of a transnational campaign, against the opening of the new European Central Bank building in Frankfurt am Main. It thus explores to what extent Blockupy’s March 18th 2015 protest can be considered an eventful protest as described by Della Porta. In this regard, this study also considers the ability of protest to possibly even strengthen or weaken a movement, by looking at the occurrence of protest itself. That makes the absence/presence/the kind of presence of protest, in the given case street protests and large marches, the independent variable and the movement’s strength the dependent variable.

In order to analyse the role and importance of protest events on respective movements themselves, it was necessary to choose an entrance as well as vantage point to explore the posed research subject. Against this background, the author consciously selected Blockupy and its March 18th 2015 protest against the opening of the ECB’s new headquarters in Frankfurt am Main and the Troika’s austerity policy as the centre of this project. Thus, all information displayed and considered in the following analysis have been gathered in a Blockupy-specific study. The latter case study is particularly suitable to test Della Porta’s assumptions for a number of reasons. Besides practical details allowing the author to conduct research without the consultation of a translator, thereby avoiding possible sources of

distortion, the choice to focus on Blockupy’s March 18th_{protest promised to present a highly}

interesting research case. While there is currently great academic interest in right-wing protests and movements in Germany (Koopmans and Olzac, 2004; Berbuir, Lewandowsky & Siri, 2015; Daphi, Kocyba, Neuber, Roose, Rucht, Scholl, Sommer, Stuppert & Zajak, 2015) and the wider European sphere (Caiani and Kröll, 2014; Rydgren, 2005), choosing a left-wing movement as a study focus awakened the researcher’s curiosity. The events of March 18th 2015 further constitute a nationally based campaign involving a transnational dimension in terms of access to knowledge, resources, support, legitimation or political alliances with activist organisations of other countries. Moreover, Blockupy’s protests in the last years already attracted not only a considerable number of participants but also great media attention resulting in an extended public discussion of the matter in the protests’ aftermath. Restricted by the scope and timeframe of this project, the conducted research is not entirely longitudinal in nature but starts its explorations with the immediate effects of the protests at March 18th and continues the observation by analyzing the gradual impacts which occurred in the aftermath of the event until the beginning of June 2015.

(7)

6

In order to analyse the posed research question, this paper starts by establishing a relevant theoretical framework by briefly introducing the academic field of social movement and contentious politics studies. In this regard, an emphasis is put on transnational social movements and protests given the nature of the studied event. This paper then proceeds to examine the concept of temporality in the study of social movements, particularly shedding light on arather neglected temporal perspective – transformative events – as established by Sewell (1996). The latter provides the background for Della Porta’s (2012) concept of ‘eventful protests’ which functions as inspirational basis of this study. Consequently, this paper continues by introducing Della Porta’s arguments and findings. According to her study, protests have the potential to create relational, cognitive, and affective impacts on the

movement itself. The third point of this paper examines the Blockupy movement itself as well as delineates its transnational actions against the opening of the ECB’s new headquarter in Frankfurt am Main. Against this background, a methodological section points out reasons for selecting the given case, the research design, as well as outlines the methods employed in this study for collecting and analysing data. As it was the author’s aim to arrive at a

comprehensive analysis, a triangular research design has been made use of. Hence, two different categories of semi-structured qualitative interviews (short and condenses interviews at the protests and extensive in-depth follow-up interviews after the protests), have been complemented by the means of participant observation, as well as an assessment of secondary data (including organisational documents, newspaper articles, and social media resonance). Turning to the analysis of the gathered information, the fifth point of this paper looks at how Blockupy’s March 18th_{protests have created relational mechanisms which “bring about}

protest networks”; cognitive mechanisms with “protest as an arena of debate”; and emotional mechanisms “through the development of feelings of solidarity “in action” (Della Porta, 2012, p.260). This analysis is then embedded in a wider perspective, also considering the socio-political aftermath of the event. A final conclusion summarises and discusses this study’s findings, as well as assesses the results in regard to its social and academic dimension.

2. Theoretical framework

In order to explore to what extent the March 18th 2015 Blockupy protest displays a

transformative factor for the movement itself, a short introduction to a number of relevant concepts and arguments in the field of social movement research is of substantial importance.

(8)

7

In the following, a short introduction to social movements and contentious politics will be built upon by a separate overview of transnational movements. Afterwards, a section on the element of temporality in the study of social movements, as well as another one specifically looking at eventful protests in the study of social movements establish a suitable framework for conducting and analysing this study’s research case.

Before continuing with the abovementioned, it is helpful to first briefly consider two aspects vital for the further analysis of protests - representative democratic systems and the concept of the public sphere. In representative democracies, government is intended to be “in the hands of the people” (Manin, 1997, p.236). Citizens elect their officials through

standardised voting procedures to ensure their equal representation in an accountable way. According to Manin (1997), today’s representative systems not only involve a democratic but also an oligarchic dimension linked through a balance between the two. While representatives are to a certain degree potentially independent from popular rule once elected, freedom of public opinion, as well as reelections provide for a constant reminder of representatives’ role and create a democratic counterweight (p.237). Furthermore, elections inevitably also

generate elites; yet, the choice what constitutes an elite and who will belong to it remains with the citizens (p.238). In this regard, the participation of citizens constitutes an essential feature of democracy, providing legitimacy to the elected representatives. As Della Porta et al. (2006) point out, traditional forms of political participation through party memberships have

decreased in the last years, increasingly giving room to the role of social movements as “arenas of public debate on political issues and of construction of collective identities” (p.196).

In this regard, the Habermasian notion of the ‘public sphere’ might be helpful in considering the protest’s importance. According to Habermas (1964), the term describes “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (p.49). It effectively “mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion” (p.50). Hence, state and public sphere confront one another as opponents. The author does not necessarily agree with this argument and Habermas’s theory of the public sphere as a critically neutral space was later criticised for assuming a rather idealised democratic condition. Nevertheless, his theory’s contribution to the field of socio-political science should not be neglected. The notion of the public sphere is still relevant in evaluating the vital role of such a cultural venue in which “representations and opinions of society are formed, de-formed, and re-formed to provide the ideational materials that

(9)

8

construct the basis upon which politics and policies operate” (Castells, 2008, p.80). As Habermas criticises, the process of making proceedings public traditionally intends to subject discussions to public reason; yet, discussions appear to increasingly serve only the policies of special interests and a ruling elite (p.55). While Habermas’s argument is primarily concerned with a critical reflection of the bourgeoisie, his ideas might also be translated to the given case considering Blockupy’s struggle against a capitalist upper-class and their aim to achieve democracy ‘from below’ (Blockupy, 2015b). Against this background, one might reflect on social movements’ actions and protests as powerful instruments within their agenda of

addressing the democratic void, not the least due to their crucial position in the public sphere.

2a. Social movements and contentious politics

According to two pioneers in the field of social movement and contention studies, Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow, social movements are commonly defined as “a sustained campaign of claim making, using repeated performances that advertise the claim, based on

organizations, networks, traditions, and solidarities that sustain these activities” (2007, p.8). The civil rights movement, the American and European anti-nuclear power movement or the environmentalist movement - cases in which people take their criticism and concerns to the streets calling for change and trying to exert power is undeniably no new development. Yet, from the 1960s onwards, a group of ‘new’ social movements has emerged which differs from traditional ‘old’ respective forms such as labour, religious or nationalist movements (Van der Heijden, 2010, p.19). Rooted in the fundamental structural transformations of the post-World War I era, these new social movements have provided for the creation of new forms of political participation in modern democracies (Kitschelt, 1986, p. 57). As Offe (1985)

clarifies, while traditional ‘old’ paradigms influenced by liberal theory assumed that all action can generally be classified as either “private” or “public”, these new movements can be positioned in an intermediate location (p.826). These new types stress a form that is neither private, meaning “being of no legitimate concern to others”, nor public, as in “being

recognized as the legitimate object of official political institutions and actors” (ibid.). Rather, they would involve “collectively relevant results and side effects of either private or

institutional-political actors”; yet the latter could not be held “responsible or made responsive by available legal or institutional means” (ibid.).

Nowadays, social movements are often seen in quite a critical light, not simply because of their vision or demand for change, but rather due to the form they take. Contentious forms of

(10)

9

collective action fundamentally differ from ‘day-to-day’ claim-making and representation of interest claims because they “bring ordinary people into confrontation with opponents, elites, or authorities” (Tarrow, 1998, p.4). Therefore, contentious actions exert a considerable degree of power because they profoundly challenge authorities of power, create solidarities, as well as give a voice to and meaning within certain parts of the population, and situations (ibid.) Protests have proven to be many movements’ main repertoire of contentious action or even “modus operandi” (Della Porta, 2008, p.28). There are numerous definitions of protest itself, differing in their interrelation to alternative and related concepts, shifting in their unit of reference or context, to name a few of those often disputed characteristics. This study’s attention will be focused on protest as an objective phenomenon, a “complexly constituted creature” composed of several dimensions (Lofland, 1985, p.2, 4, 263). As Lofland points out in his definition of protests (1985), the later generally refers to “(1) dissent or objection; (2) that is relatively extreme in the context; (3) strongly felt; (4) directed to some person or institution with power over one; (5) in a solemn and formal fashion; (6) that is done publicly; (7) and is based on a sense of injustice” (p.2). In this regard, contentious collective action may be considered an inherent feature of social movements since it often appears to be the main resource that makers of claims possess against the addressed. Yet, this does not imply that contention is a movement’s only action; rather movements “build organizations, elaborate ideologies, and socialize and mobilize constituencies, and their members engage in self-development and the construction of collective identities” (Tarrow, 1994, p.3).

Traditionally, contention has often been defined in a rather broad way to occur “when ordinary people, often in league with more influential citizens, join forces in confrontations with elites, authorities, and opponents” (Tarrow, 1994, p.2). A recent revision by McAdam, Tilly, and Tarrow (2001) seems to offer a more refined perspective. They state that

contentious politics can be characterised as an “episodic, public, collective interaction among makers of claims and their objects when (a) at least one government is a claimant, an object of claims, or a party to the claims and (b) the claims would, if realized, affect the interests of at least one of the claimants” (2001, p. 5). Hereby the term “episodic” does not refer to regular and continuously scheduled events such as elections, parliamentary votes, or organisational meetings. Even though the latter examples may well serve as a trigger for contentious politics, they do not classify as episodic in the given definition. Furthermore, the authors emphasise that the use of the term “public” excludes any claim-making taking place entirely within well-bounded organisations (ibid.). Contentious collective action can be considered an irreducible and common feature that all social movements, protests, and revolutions share (Tarrow, 1994,

(11)

10

p.3). As such forms of collective action may occur in various different forms, the question arises whether all politics is contentious then. This is certainly not the case. McAdam et al.’s (2001) definition stresses the episodic rather than the continuous element. Accordingly, contentious collective action occurs generally in public, comprises interaction between makers of claims and others, includes a recognition by the latter as bearing on their interests, as well as involves the government as either mediator, target, or claimant (p.5). Thus, given its focus on an episodic public action, this definition is highly suitable in helping to explore the posed research question.

2b. Transnational social movements and protests

While social movement literature has traditionally focused on contentious politics within mostly national contexts, a number of recent studies has expanded in scope to an examination of cross border mobilisations (Pianta, Marchetti & Zola, 2009; McAdam, Tilly & Tarrow, 2001; Della Porta & Diani, 2006). As Tarrow (1998) clarifies, transnational social movements generally concern “sustained contentious interactions with opponents – national or

non-national – by connected networks of challengers organised across non-national boundaries” (p.184). In this regard, the challengers can equally stem from domestic social networks while at the same time being linked to one another “more than episodically” through a shared view of the world, or through informal or organisational ties (ibid.). In essence, transnational movements did not enter the political arena until after the 1970s with the rise of the first substantial movements denouncing environmental and human rights abuses (Rootes, 2004, Smith, 2004). Quite strikingly, one can examine a correlation between the issues that caused the most transnational activity and those that gained widespread support among national groups in Western democracies (Smith, 2004, p.320f). For instance, in regard to

environmental movements, respective transnational movements only emerged after the 1970s in line with the development of strong national movements. This rather new emphasis on transnational movements and networks might also be explained by the facilitation of transnational mobilisation in recent decades. Generally, the increasing emergence of

transnational collective action can be attributed to a number of socio-political changes – the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the subsequent growth of non-state actions, the creation and expansion of electronic communications; the ability to economically travel internationally, the increasing power of transnational corporations and international institutions; the signing of

(12)

11

international economic treaties, and the appearance of international events like global summits (Van der Heijden, 2010, p.28).

Although processes of global integration have significantly changed the nature and form of political struggles, transnational developments can essentially be considered “a

continuation of previous forms of contention between power holders and challengers” essentially “resembl[ing] their national and local predecessors” (Smith, 2004, p.320; Tilly 1984). As Kriesi (2004) points out, while Europeans increasingly begin to identify that their claims can often be located in the EU’s institutional policies and integrated market, the configuration of political actors and the context of interaction remain in essence determined by national factors. Nonetheless, national groups have realised the potential of achieving their strategic goals through an expansion of their efforts and activity to the transnational level. Internationalisation has encouraged this in particular by promoting the existence of global conferences and supporting international agencies that provide these movements with much needed resources (Smith, 2004, p.320). Especially the use of the Internet, Social Media and their ability to exchange information, and to create and maintain relations and social

networks, has become a quickly diffusing cultural resource for movement activities in general (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004, p.126). Within the context of mobilisations facing

supranational institutions, there is usually a crucial co-ordinating role played by

organisational forms based on large networks and campaigns especially in the mobilisation on global economic and political issues (Pianta, Marchetti, Zola, 2009, p.16). As soon as

networks are established, networks commonly “breed” networks in turn (Keck & Sikkink, 1999, p.93). Due to the increasingly transnational repertoire of actions inherent to networking, it has become easier for people across borders to take part in joint social efforts. This effect can also be explained by activists’ often established experience in the development of earlier campaigns. For many activists, participation in transnational networks has evolved into an important element of the collective identity of the network.

Furthermore, domestic mobilisation can significantly benefit from transnational linkages through the “boomerang effect” (Keck & Sikkink, 1999, p.93). In order to affect the

behaviour of states effectively, transnational networks often link activists from the global South with the global North respectively. Hereby, trans- and international networks can be involved for support in cases of a severed relationship between state and domestic actors. Such linkages to powerful allies from abroad can amplify the demands, efficiently exerting substantial pressure on states. The “boomerang” pattern of influence is a distinctive feature of

(13)

12

transnational networks. While this pattern can primarily be observed in human rights issues as for instance in the “bring home our girls” campaign, it is also likely to affect environmental protection, local rights and political participation campaigns. Yet, the strategic involvement of transnational help is politically sensitive, potentially leading to accusations of foreign

interference in domestic affairs (ibid.). In the European case of Blockupy, the

abovementioned issues transcend the national level, which is often coordinated among all parties involved. Yet, Blockupy’s criticism targets not only certain EU policies and competences but also the role countries such as Germany play within the policy-making context.

2c. Temporality in the study of social movements

It is rather striking that an apparent majority of studies in the field of social movements fails to include the conception of time. Most survey research on movement activists or “framing” processes neglect the concept of temporality entirely, or limit its study to the two most dominant temporal rhythms in the study of social movements – long-term change processes and protest cycles. Sociological theories from the early nineteenth century until the 1930s – including Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and Sorokin – adopted a pioneering role in the study of the former concerned with the essentially invisible social trends that gave rise to what were viewed as “profound and generally progressive transformations in the nature of societies” (McAdam & Sewell, 2001, p.90). While early accounts of temporality within classical collective behaviour studies were rather limited to the idea of a short-run generation of strain followed by protests, Tilly, Tilly, and Tilly (1975) fundamentally transformed the field by identifying the origins of contentious action in long-term change processes which on the one hand functioned as destabilising force in present power relations, and on the other hand facilitated the emergence of new mobilisation grounds for groups. In this regard, Tarrow introduced the idea of protest cycles being “a phase of heightened conflict and contention across the social system’’ (1994, p.153). Koopmans crucially expanded on Tarrow by arguing that the terminology of a cycle is misleading as it indicates a recurring sequence of a specific phenomenon. Rather, the notion of a wave would aptly refer to the “strong increase and subsequent decrease in the level of contention” (2004, p.22).

The dominance of social movement studies addressing temporal rhythms, is certainly not a problem in itself. In fact the consideration of long-term change processes which determine the prospects and socio-structural grounds for mobilisation, and the medium-term temporal

(14)

13

dynamics that form the development and appearance of a protest cycle/wave, could be considered essential in understanding the emergence and development of social movements (McAdam & Sewell, 2001). It is rather the lack of consideration for other temporalities that results in an often incomplete and deterministic account of contentious politics. Against this background, a third and rather neglected temporal perspective – transformative events – as taken up by Sewell’s concept of eventful temporality (1996) becomes especially meaningful, as it provides the basis of Della Porta’s “eventful protest” concept (2012). That is, eventful temporality “recognises the power of events in history”, referring to events as a “relatively rare subclass of happenings that significantly transform structure”, as well as considering an eventful conception of temporality as “one that takes into account the transformation of structures by events” (Sewell, 1996, p.262). In this regard, events are argued to “transform structures largely by constituting and empowering new groups of actors or by re-empowering existing groups in new ways” (ibid., p.271).

It is in this regard that Della Porta developed her concept of “eventful protest”, sharing the emphasis on the internal dynamics and transformative capacity of protest. However, she considers a wider scope of events transformative than Sewell does (2012, p.258). Della Porta assumes that protests have relational, cognitive, and affective impacts on the movement itself and that some means of action or campaigns are characterised by an especially high degree of eventfulness. Hence, events could be considered in their ability to function as venues within which “new tactics are experimented with, signals about the possibility of collective action are sent (Morris 2000), feelings of solidarity are created, organizational network are

consolidated, and sometimes public outrage at repression develops (Hess and Martin 2006)” (ibid., p.259). Accordingly, Della Porta’s analysis distinguishes relational mechanisms which “bring about protest networks”; cognitive mechanisms with “protest as an arena of debate”; and emotional mechanisms “through the development of feelings of solidarity “in action” (p.260). In order to arrive at a suitable framework within which this study can be placed, the following section shortly outlines Della Porta’s findings and arguments.

2d. Eventful protests in the study of social movements

To begin with, protests can be eventful in having relational impacts on the movement

involved. As could be observed in the European marches targeting EU summits in Amsterdam (1997), Cologne (1999), and Nice (2000), protests provide an opportunity for formal and informal networks to grow “in action”. In the case of the counter-summits in particular, an

(15)

14

increasing number of social movement organisations, which function as “networking networks” of activists, could be examined developing specific campaigns on EU related issues (Della Porta, 2012, p.261). In this regard, it is especially the interactions that occur during the long-lasting preparations of such protests that crucially contribute to the mobilisation and networking of the involved actors. Thus, in the given cases, successful networking led to a gradual increase in participating organisations, as well as their diversity by country of origin and main focus of concern (ibid.). Moreover, protest and the related networking which naturally developed in action, helped to forge links between actors who had once been disconnected – a process Della Porta terms “contamination in action” (p.262). Accordingly, Della Porta establishes a connection to Bourdieu’s concept of relational capital in arguing that protest creates social capital (ibid.).

These processes of “networking in action” are not just instrumentally vital in contributing to a growth in influence of the participating organisations and actors, but also in promoting the further creation of umbrella organizations that aim at facilitating mobilisation and producing inclusive norms. Hence, the “logic of the network as an instrument for the

coordination of activity” enables the involvement and active participation of various political actors who particularly in the early stages of emerging networks often only persist through a focus on specific and concrete goals (Della Porta, 2012, p.262). Furthermore, during the preparation of these campaigns, existing relations intensify and new personal and collective identities emerge (p.263). In this regard, protests also reveal a cognitive dimension – as Della Porta’s study on the counter-summits illustrates. During the marches, social ties emerged mainly due to a facilitation of knowledge exchanges, as relations and social interactions induced cognitive changes (ibid.).

Another vital way in which protests promote the formation of networks is by providing an exchange of personal experiences of hardship, thereby evoking a sense of fellowship. Besides, during events of direct action, the often observable sharing of food and entertainment creates new mutual experiences which help develop reciprocal knowledge, “trust in action” and again foster a feeling of solidarity and camaraderie among the actors (p.264). As a result, networks formed during the counter summit marches for instance, were preserved even after the event had ended. Especially transnational networks provide for an interesting case as the

recognition of resemblances and similarities across borders enables the potential creation of transnational identities (Della Porta, 2012, p.264). As Tarrow and McAdam point out (2004), the scale-shift process in which activism moves from the local or national to the

(16)

15

transnational level commonly involves a transposition of frames, networks, and collective action without undergoing a liquidation (p.121ff). Along with the development of reciprocal trust and understanding between individual actors at the protests, one can also examine an effect on the interconnectedness between involved organizations. As a consequence of newly forged overlapping memberships, there is often increased dialogue between the various groups and new multi-issue claims are adopted (Della Porta, 2012, p.264).

In addition, the role of emotions is a rather crucial one in contributing to the emergence of relational ties during protests. As Della Porta assessed in her study (2012), notwithstanding the often predominant language of anger present at a protest, it is not seldom that activists perceive a certain “playfulness” of the event (p.264). Even when they felt emotions of rather negative origin, participants experienced an “episode of collective existence and solidarity” at the protests – an experience which effectively facilitates the emergence of social ties and promotes the development of shared objectives, “as knowledge allows them to overcome prejudice” (ibid.). In this sense, the act of marching together allows activists to reach a social position within the movement, as well as develop linguistic and technical skills.

As a second feature, protests can be eventful in having cognitive impacts on the

movement. Della Porta outlines this capacity by taking the case of the Social Forums as an example of the cognitive processes that develop within protest events as “arenas of

encounter” and “spaces for exchanges of knowledge and ideas” (p.266). The Social Forums originate in the global justice movement and function primarily as an “open meeting place” and an “ideas Fair for exchanging information, ideas and experiences horizontally” (ibid.). By producing these “free spaces”, protests have the capacity to crucially affect participants’ daily life by providing for socialization and solidarity (ibid.). Hereby, the grounds are prepared for emotionally intense discussions and interactions, places in which socio-political alternatives can be considered and creativity flourishes. As Della Porta points out (2012), these “political laboratories that produce interaction and communication” offer an opportunity for reciprocal identification, thereby in turn creating a “resource of mutual solidarity and reciprocal trust” instead of only using resources for collective action (p.273f.)

In this regard, Social Forums offer an abundance of different activities intended to increase involvement, as well as to provide for a greater mutual understanding. The latter is mainly achieved through the Forum’s role in creating knowledge by providing a space in which interactions between the various different groups and organisations can develop free from any instant concerns for decision of tactics and actions (Della Porta, 2012, p.267).

(17)

16

Hence, stemming from a fundamental understanding of an openness towards “the others” as a positive value, one can examine a process of “networking through debating” within the context of ideological speeches, or assemblies during protest campaigns. In this respect, Social Forums can be seen as an example of an increasing trend of emerging forms of action that emphasize plurality and inclusion (Della Porta and Mosca, 2007). Exchanges during Social Forums are usually less ideological than informative, aimed at the construction of an alternative specialized knowledge – “if technical information has a legitimizing effect on the elaboration and implementation of public policies (Lewanski, 2004), technical

counterknowledge is considered a fundamental resource for those who protest”; knowledge can also transform the form and content of the protest (actors tend to adopt a specialist language) – “in the course of mobilization, activists appropriate, transform, and transmit technical knowledge”

A third way in which protests can have an impact on the movement itself is through their capacity to create “solidarity in action” – protests can create affection and foster communities (Della Porta, 2012, p.268). As Della Porta illustrates by using the example of a campaign against the construction of a high-speed railway in the Italian Alps, direct actions can have a strong symbolic value and can lead people to identify with the cause. It is especially the creation of strong emotions during these events that strengthen participants’ motivations and promote the development of social ties and a feeling of belonging. Not only does direct action serve as an instrument to raise awareness of the concerned topic, it also triggers subversive counteremotions with facilitate the emergence of collective identities. An example of the latter can be found in outsiders showing sympathy with the protesters as a reaction to police violence (ibid., p.271).

Emotions play a vital and fundamental role in events of direct action in a number of different ways. On the one hand, protests can cause a mobilisation of “good emotions” such as feelings of hope, or pride in the movement’s achievements in activists (p.269). On the other hand, direct action can also produce emotions that can have potentially dangerous effects on the movement’s dynamics such as fear, or shame. The occurrence of a third group of

emotions, reciprocal emotions including “love, loyalty, jealousy, rivalry, [and] resentment”, has been observed to have a particularly strong effect on movements. Furthermore,

dramaturgy, narrative, and rituals all play a crucial role in increasing activists’ commitment, as well as forging “emotional chains” during protest events (p.269).

(18)

17

As can be examined, the emergence and role of frames as an interpretive reflection of the environment, actions, behaviour, as well as the role of the individual during protest events is closely linked to the emotional effects of the latter (Lewicki, Gray, and Elliott, 2002, p.12; Della Porta, 2012). Accordingly, frames and framing processes can promote the emergence, development, and perpetuation of emotional actions because they are used to “(1) define issues, (2) shape what action should be taken and by whom, (3) protect oneself, (4) justify a stance we are taking on an issue, and (5) mobilize people to take or refrain from action on issues” (Lewicki et al.,2002, p.15). Thus, it is often the confrontation with the police and activists’ perception of an external aggression that leads to the emergence of injustice frames. Participants of the protests against the WTO in Seattle (30.11.1999) for instance described the clash with the police as “an act of war against a peaceful community” which in turn motivated some to “join the front line” (Della Porta, 2012, p.270). Moreover, in reaction to the police or higher authorities, arrogance is a primary narrative frame emerging during protests. Especially in the case of transnational protests, arrogance frames are likely to emerge as a result of protesters being stopped at the borders, preventively arrested, or in general trying to be hindered from joining the demonstrations. These actions often cause activists to feel violated in their democratic freedoms and rights and generate an impression of a small number of powerful authorities being estranged and sealed off from the common citizens as was expressed in the Genoa protests’ slogan “You G9, we 8 billion” (Della Porta, 2012, p.271). Such cases of perceived arrogance and repression imply a greater cost of collective action, thereby functioning in a discouraging way, if not complemented by emotions of anger. The latter’s mobilising role can be explained with its link to a feeling of empowerment and pride triggered by the mutual experience of successful direct action – moments that constitute a “serene but intense experience that reinforce[d] feelings of mutual trust” (p.272).

3. Contextualising Blockupy: Movement and Protest

3a. Delineating Blockupy: An introduction to the Blockupy movement

Before moving to the methodological design of this study, there is a fundamental need for identifying and exploring the movement’s composition and agenda to begin with. Blockupy emerged as a result of a European action conference held in late February 2012

(24.-26.02.2012) and subsequent European days of protest in May 2012, (16.-19.05.2012) against the “austerity regime of Troika and the government” (European Resistance, 04.02.2012;

(19)

18

20.03.2012). According to the movement’s initial call for resistance, those who founded Blockupy Frankfurt were “groups and activists from the Occupy movement, initiatives of unemployed people, the crisis alliances, trade unionists, Attac activists, from the

environmental and peace movement, anti-racist, migrants' and anti-fascist initiatives, youth and students' organisations, groups and organizations of the radical left, activists of various local struggles and parties of the political left” (ibid.). In line with the declared aim to demonstrate resistance against the austerity mandate and the denounced resulting impoverishment and denial of democratic rights, the movement’s first protests in 2012 intended to erect a full blockade of the European Central Bank (ECB) as well as other

financial institutions in Frankfurt am Main, thereby effectively disturbing their daily business (European Resistance, 24.03.2012).

Being united in the aforementioned common aim, Blockupy developed in a transnational scope, arguing that “in a multitude of local forms, we are fighting the same fight” (ibid.). Thus, actors involved in Blockupy would increasingly strengthen each other “like never before”, thereby emerging into a “truly transnational opposition” (ibid.). Nowadays, Blockupy perceives itself on its official website as “part of a European wide network of various social movement activists, altermondialists, migrants, jobless, precarious and industry workers, party members and unionists and many morefrom many different European countries from Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Germany and other countries.” (Blockupy, 2015a). A variety of different international groups (such as Attac France or the organization Commune of Europe) take part in Blockupy international. The German part of the Blockupy alliance is, among others, primarily represented through activists from numerous emancipatory groups and organisations such as “Attac, the interventionist Left, Occupy Frankfurt, trade unions, youth and student organizations, the forum of the unemployed in Germany (Erwerbslosenforum), the party DIE LINKE, the network peace cooperative (Netzwerk Friedenskooperative) and the alliance umsGanze […]” (ibid.). Besides, there are local platforms of the alliance’s organisation for example in Berlin, Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, and Nuremberg. Given the variety of actors and groups involved in the network it is rather difficult to establish a precise number in terms of activists adhering to Blockupy. As the aforementioned diversity in supporting actors suggests,

Blockupy is a rather broad, leftist movement, including activists from diverging gradations and visions for politico-economic and social change. Yet, adopting the EU’s official motto, Blockupy aims at the creation of a “common European movement, united in diversity” which intends to “break the rule of austerity and will start to build democracy and solidarity from

(20)

19

below” (ibid.). In this respect, Blockupy and its protests in Frankfurt are seen as only a step in the direction striven for.

A large part of the alliance’s organisation takes place in the German-speaking context, the major actions so far all took place in Frankfurt am Main. Yet, the international network and organisational process provides for a close communication and consultation between the various branches. Blockupy operates primarily through blockades and actions of civil disobedience. In this regard, Blockupy displays a rather horizontal hierarchy, with several opportunities for participation in the network’s strategy development, decision-making processes as well as concrete organisation of events. While the alliance “NoTroika” is largely involved in the local organisation of Blockupy, several working groups and respective

subgroups deal with different substantial aspects and functions of the network. Hence, there is a group organising the alliance’s public relations, a group coordinating Blockupy’s

antirepression work, a finance-group, and one focusing on Social Media and the web presence. These groups are complemented by a coordination group which functions as a central merger for the various actors and subjects involved. In addition, open alliance

meetings provide a platform for an evaluation of previous actions, reviews of the political and organisational process and space, as well as any discussions concerning future projects and issues (Blockupy, 28.04.2015).

3b. #18M – Transnational Actions against the European Central Bank’s opening gala

Considering the protests and acts of civil disobedience either initiated or endorsed by

Blockupy under the title “#18M – Transnational Actions against the European Central Bank’s opening gala”1 in a chronological order, the first concrete action points already took place a day before the actual protests. On Tuesday, March 17th, activists who had already arrived to Frankfurt am Main met for a late breakfast at 11am during which remaining organisational tasks were distributed and discussed. Later that day, an activists meeting took place in the alliance’s central meeting place for the protest “Naxos”2, which provided an opportunity for informational exchanges, debates, and the further assignment of tasks (Blockupy, 2015h). Furthermore, an action plenum took place in the German Federation of Trade Unions’s (DGB) building at 8pm. As a last scheduled point of the day, activists had the possibility to eat and exchange in further meetings and assemblies during the evening in the

1_{A map of the protest’s environment and route can be found in 10. Annex 2: Map of the demonstration} 2_{An old factory building currently used as a cinema, theatre, and venue for other cultural activities.}

(21)

20

kitchen” – a kitchen organised by activists prior to the event. During the night, first incidents of vandalism took place including the torching of a number of cars and the destruction of windows (FAZ, 18.03.2015).

The day of the protest itself, Wednesday, March 18th, officially started at 7am with blockade actions around the new ECB buildings. Theseactions involved primarily sit-ins and standing blockades supported by the playing of music, and presentation of banners and themed objects. However, first incidents already occurred around 6am when participants of the demonstration threw stones at the "Alte Oper" and police cars were torched (Polizei Frankfurt, 18.03.2015). In side roads, police and activists clashed and accused each other of using chemical substances (FAZ, 18.03.2015). Furthermore, barricades were created and set on fire by protesters. In several instances, firefighters were attacked with stones while trying to extinguish the fire sources, consequently resulting in a cancellation of their operations (Polizei Frankfurt, 18.03.2015). Around 7.30am, protesters attacked Frankfurt’s first police station (ibid.). At the same time, police and activists clashed in the area of the

“Obermainanlage” and “Flößerbrücke”, resulting in the use of water cannons, sweeping tanks, and pepper spray by the police. Around the “Hanauer Landstraße”, a group of Italian activists had been encircled by the police and their personal details were recorded, other activists loudly demanded their release (FAZ, 18.03.2015).

At 12am, the peaceful demonstration of theConfederation of German Trade Unions (GDL) started in front of the Union’s building but had to change its planned route due to police barriers (FAZ, 18.03.2015). The demonstration thus ended on the Römer square where the alliance’s big rally took place at 2pm. Among others, Canadian activist and globalisation critic Naomi Klein, deputy chairperson of the German Left party Sarah Wagenknecht, and “Podemos” politician Miguel Urbán, delivered speeches and reported about the consequences of the austerity policy. Besides, music was played, activists advertised for different causes, and participants enjoyed a festival-like atmosphere. At 5pm, Blockupy’s mass demonstration started from the Römer square with the motto “jointly, colorfully and loudly” (Blockupy, 2015h). A final rally was cancelled in front of the “Alte Oper” and the demonstration ended without any major incidents. At 7pm, most of the organised buses departed from Frankfurt am Main. During the whole day, a NoTroika Center located at Naxos provided “information, updates on action and repression, [and] food for all” thereby serving as an “Anti-repression-Infopoint and Out-of-action-area” (ibid.).

(22)

21

4. Methods, data collection and analysis

4a. Case Selection and Rationale

The decision to focus on the capacity of a protest to influence the movement itself was a deliberate one. As DiCicco (2010) points out, protests are often portrayed and perceived as a public nuisance, negatively impacting the broad majority’s daily life (p.137). The positive potential these events can bear is hence often overlooked within the field. Thus, according to DiCicco, there seems to be a gap between the media, academic and public perception of protests. Against this background, Della Porta’s 2012 study on “eventful protests” provides a suitable framework within which a protest’s capacity to influence a movement can be studied. As Della Porta points out, protests can function as a trigger of “cognitive and affective

mechanisms that change the very definition of the self and others, enhancing capacities to act.” (Della Porta, 2012, p.256).

In this regard, the author decided to conduct a single case study as the latter represents the critical case in testing a well-formulated theory (Yin, 2009, p.47). Within such a research design, single cases are well suited to determine whether a theory’s propositions can be further supported by the new study’s findings or whether an alternative set of explanations might possibly be more relevant. Therefore, the decision to focus on a single case in detail rather than to superficially touch upon a higher number of cases promised to yield relevant insights in regard to confirming, challenging, or extending the existing framework. As a next step, choosing a transnational protest was a rather fast and uncomplicated decision. Given the limited timeframe, as well as practical concerns this thesis was constrained by, the decision to focus on a protest taking place in the wider European vicinity of the University was a

relatively practical one from the start. This research project began in February 2015. By then, an announcement of the March 18th Blockupy protests in Frankfurt am Main had already been published. The selected case promised to present an interesting research case as Blockupy’s history of prior protests already hinted at a protest dimension that would attract a

comparatively large number of participants, as well as great media attention. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, while there appears to be great academic interest in current right-wing protests and movements in Germany and Europe, choosing a left-wing movement as a study focus awakened the researcher’s curiosity. In a rather practical sense, the March 18th protests qualified as an excellent research case as the transnational protest location in Germany, and the consequently high number of German and English speaking people at the protests,

(23)

22

allowed the researcher to conduct interviews and read related documents, signs, and posters without the consultation of a translator. Thus, a possible source of an early distortion of the results was avoided from the beginning. Once it became foreseeable that the protests were indeed, notwithstanding critical voices demanding a restraining of the protests as well as the announced police presence, taking place, this thesis was designed with the March 18th protests in mind.

The Blockupy movement itself served as a highly interesting case given its reference to the popular and influential Occupy movement. However, despite the similarity in names, Blockupy is argued to have little to nothing in common with its eponym (Rucht, 2015). This project places importance on the depth of the material on the one hand, while accounting to the large breadth of actors involved on the other hand. Yet, it would have been beyond the finite resources available to the researcher to compare several cases across countries, although such a study would certainly yield interesting and valuable insights with a perhaps greater degree of generalisability. Against this background, the author decided to embark on a focused and committed analysis of only a single protest using a triangular and multi-faceted methodological approach as opposed to a more superficial comparative case study.

4b. Research design

As has been already hinted at before, a single exploratory case study as outlined by Robert Yin (2009) has been employed in order to arrive at a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the posed research question. As Yin states, such as case study design allows the researcher to retain the “holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (p.4). In this context, a single case study is an “empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p.18). Thereby, single case studies have to deal with the technically challenging state of having potentially many more variables of interest than data points. Further, results rely on multiple sources of evidence and benefit from the prior establishment of theoretical propositions to guide the process of data collection and analysis (ibid.).

As this study aims to analyse to what extent Della Porta’s concept of eventful protests applies to the given case, the employed methods for data collection seek to recreate the original study’s setting as far as possible. Thus, the following research aims at arriving at a comprehensive analysis by following a triangulation of 36 semi-structured interviews and

(24)

23

participant observation which includes field notes, as well as secondary sources, such as official statements and documents issued by the movement and affiliated groups, newspaper articles, and reactions on Social Media platforms. Through a triangulation of data, the analysis reaches a more holistic understanding of the studied research topic as each data source can be considered a “piece of the puzzle” vitally contributing to the strength of the analysis and its interpretative validity (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p.554). Adopting Della Porta’s study design, the focus of the analysis is primarily on Blockupy’s experiences in regard to the protest. Hereby, the analysis is primarily based on a comprehensive and systematic assessment of the data obtained through interviewing activists. Interview transcripts were first generated and then analysed using thematic coding based on theoretical interests defined prior to the fieldwork. Further data received from field notes and secondary data were used to contextualize the interview data, to fill in analytic gaps, as well as to provide for a more inclusive and

encompassing analysis. Field notes generated in the course of participant observation at the March 17th preparatory meeting, the March 18th protest itself, and the May 10th open alliance meeting constitute a valuable and important addition to the analysis, given their account for events, experiences, and further impressions otherwise lost and not included in the analysis. Moreover, this study was strongly influenced by contemporary literature on ethnography. As Hockey and Forsey (2012) point out, “ethnography should not be conceptualised as a method, rather it should be defined by its purpose or as an outcome” (p.74). Unfortunately, the conduction of a comprehensive and profound Ethnography was beyond the scope of this paper, as the researcher was faced with time constraints which rendered the sustained

observation and engagement of actors in the protest’s setting impossible. Furthermore, while participants appeared to be open towards engaging with the author during the protests, it was not possible to gain prolonged access to the organisational environment. This problem might to a certain degree be attributed to the author entering the field overtly as an announced researcher; however, given the target group’s surveillance by the German constitution protection and the resulting suspicion towards any new actors, an overt entrance strategy intended to allay any concerns.

While each style of entrance certainly comprises difficulties, the author acknowledges that the very presence of either an announced researcher, or a supposedly fellow activist in the study setting potentially influences any results. As Berg (2001) emphasises, the existence of the role of a participant observer within the studied environment “inevitably introduces some degree of reactivity into the field setting." (p.137). Thus, in an attempt to limit the

(25)

24

researcher’s potential data-tainting influence, research regarding the atmosphere at former Blockupy protests as well as their appearance and participating activist groups, was conducted prior to the protest. Based on this knowledge, both the researcher and assistant tried to “melt” into the protests’ environment as much as possible. The practice of studying the field as a participant observer allowed the researcher to examine “various phenomena as perceived by participants and represent these observations as accounts.” (Hockey & Forsey, 2012, p.134). Besides, the decision to enter the field overtly as an announced researcher proved to be fruitful and helpful in gaining a level of trust and rapport with the interviewed participants. Many of the participants appeared to be rather suspicious and mistrusting when being approached, a behaviour which in some cases could be attributed to the large police and media presence during the day of the protests. By having established the author’s role in the protests, the researcher and her assistant were able to inspire confidence and interest in the conducted fieldwork as well as strived to gain as much rapport with the activists as is possible in such a short timeframe. In this respect, attention was also paid to protect the subjects from harm by ensuring their anonymity and privacy during the interviews (Montgomery, 2012, p.144). For the latter reason, participants’ identity will be protected by the use of a random numbering throughout the study.

4c. Semi-structured interviews

This study conducted semi-structured interviews, consulted secondary literature, as well as employed participant observation as suitable instruments for understanding the transformative capacity of the March 18th_{2015 protests in Frankfurt am Main. Each method of conducting}

research produces a different kind of dataset, thus taking the diverse channels of gaining evidence into consideration, a combination of interviews and participant observation is expected to yield valuable and comprehensive data. Both methods are highly suitable for exploring the given case as they “open a window on lived experience, on the meanings embedded in everyday life, on motives and emotions.” (Lichterman, 2002, p.121).

Semi-structured interviews are especially useful for “understanding social movement mobilization from the perspective of movement actors or audiences” (Blee &Taylor, 2002, p.92). In employing such a technique, the interviewer is allowed a higher degree of flexibility to deviate and spontaneously investigate further based on participants’ narratives and

interactions. In regard to the interviews conducted, Hockey and Forsey’s (2012) terminology shift away from troublesome participation approaches towards an analysis of participant

(26)

25

engagement was considered. The latter offers not only an opportunity to overcome the traps of current terminology divisiveness within anthropologic and ethnographic studies but also reflects on an understanding of the study as crucially “being there” and “being with” research participants (p.74f). In this regard, the researcher observed and engaged with participants of the March protests in several instances. On the one hand, the researcher attended a strategic preparation and information meeting on March 17th, as well as attended the protests itself on March 18th. During the latter, 23 semi-structured interviews with a total of 31 participants were conducted as well as the event analytically observed and recorded in field notes. Some interviews were conducted with more than one participant at the same time. Hereby, the author did not establish a pre-arranged number of activists prior to the protests but intended to interview 1) as many people as possible, 2) a sample as diverse (age, gender, ethnic

background, activist involvement, displayed group affiliation, progress of the protests) and representative as possible. A higher sample number was restricted by the factor that at least half of the day needed to have passed already to provide for valuable data. Earlier accounts could be expected to not be significant yet, as participants only arrived and did not have the chance to engage with other activists yet. In addition, after 31 participant interviews, themes in the interviews seemed to repeat themselves and a representative data set appeared to be obtained. On the other hand, the researcher conducted a number of five (#32-36) in-depth follow-up interviews at different instances after the protest had passed. Following the wish of the respondents, these interviews were conducted via Skype or Email. The researcher

considered it important to have a sample of participants who were both interviewed during the protests and in a follow-up after the protests. Thereby, she aimed to arrive at a degree of consistency as well as a deeper level of understanding. These interviews considerably helped to gather further data consequently closing potential gaps, and yielding new insights also taking into account the aftermath of the protests. In the process of achieving the latter, the author also attended Blockupy’s open alliance meeting in Berlin at May 10th 2015.

As Hockey (2002) points out, interviews can sometimes provide for the most effective way of producing an ethnography. Given the degree of direct social engagement necessary in employing such a study design, an interview-based account of the examined events offers a culturally appropriate, flexible and socially dynamic narrative. Thus, the conduction of interviews offers a possibility for generating and capturing first-hand accounts of a depth and scope rarely reached through office-based research. In this respect, a semi-structured

interview design was adopted based on Leech’s (2002) Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. This technique proved to be especially suited as it “can provide detail, depth, and

(27)

26

an insider’sperspective, while at the same time allowing hypothesis testing and the quantitative analysis of interview responses” (p.665).

When conducting such interviews, a researcher relies on an interview guide that outlines a consistent set of questions or topics to be addressed during the interview. Hence, an interview guides have been used for conducting a number of short interviews at the protests. The employed interview guide can be found in 9. Annex 1: Protest interview guide. In the case of the longer more in-depth interviews, questions and strategies were adapted to the respective respondent and differed consequently. All of the conducted interviews were recorded in voice and script files as well as complemented by observational notes. During the interviews, Leech’s techniques and strategies for gaining rapport were followed, and questions from the interview guide were complemented by spontaneously posed follow-up questions based on the participant’s reply. During the interviews, the author’s experience with the technique and comfort in conducting interviews in an unknown terrain increased. Thus, over time, the researcher was able to refine the created interview strategy and adapt it to new elements spontaneously introduced by the study’s participants. Thereby improving on the ability to listen thoroughly, identify important features and to create rapport, the quality of the obtained data and consequently the internal validity increased.

4d. Participant observation

In addition to the data obtained from interviewing protest participants, this study presents findings attained from participant observation. The latter can generally be defined as the “study of others in their space and time” – a research technique in which the researcher “observes and to some degree participates in the action being studied, as the action is

happening” (Burawoy, 1998, p.25; Lichterman, 2002, p.120). As Lichterman (ibid.) points out in his discussion on participant observation, using this technique, data are obtained by

producing field notes, meaning “detailed accounts of people, places, interactions, and events that the researcher experiences as participant-observer” (p.121).

Participant observation can be conducted in two different ways – field-driven and theory-driven research (Lichterman, 2002). While the former is generally employed when “a given subject matter ‘in the field’ directs the goals of research”, the latter seeks to address a specific theory rather than to explain an observed field site with the help of several theories (ibid., p.122). While it would certainly be possible to employ both approaches in this study, a theory-driven participant observation appears to offer a more specific and nuanced research

Against the belly of the beast! : an analysis of the transformative capacity of Blockupy’s March 2015 protests in Frankfurt am Main