@JohnGrant Thanks for the reference. I dug a bit more* into that book and the one recommended in the first footnote (“Prefigurative Politics: Building Tomorrow Today” by Paul Raekstad and Sofa Saio Gradin). I begin to understand why it is so difficult to define the term.
* just a quick diagonal read of the introductions
In Lara Monticelli’s book I didn’t see a single and concrete definition:
Throughout the chapters, the reader will encounter many definitions and attempts to characterize prefigurative politics
The closest I have found is this (click to expand)
One particular feature, though, makes prefigurative politics unique with respect to other forms of political engagement: its ontological and epistemological nature. Unlike conventional or contentious politics, prefigurative politics focuses on the creation of alternative ontologies: alternative ways of being in the world and, one might even dare to say, ‘alternative worlds’. Change is sought on multiple and interconnected levels: the private and the public, the individual and the collective, the socio-economic and the subjective–emotional.
IMHO it misses the idea that “the process must reflect the goals” (see below) that the other definitions emphasize.
“Prefigurative Politics: Building Tomorrow Today” has two concrete definitions, the original one by Boggs (1977), also cited in the anthroencyclopedia page, and one proposed by the authors:
- Boggs: those forms of social relations, decision-making, culture, and human experience that are [its] ultimate goal.
- Paul Raekstad, Sofa Saio Gradin: the deliberate experimental implementation of desired future social relations and practices in the here-and-now.
Please correct me if I’m missing something, but to me it sounds a lot like a strong rejection of “the end justifies the means”. One must remain ontologically faithful to one’s goals.
Which fits with the limitations acknowledged in Lara Monticelli’s Introduction. Restricting yourself from the beginning to tactics compatible with the end goal limits your options.
Rereading your first post in this thread, I would like to comment on this:
In this sense, prefigurative protocols are sets of rules, practices, or structures deliberately designed to bring about a desired future.
From those last two definitions, and using your words, I would say that “prefigurative protocols should themselves embody the desired future”. They are not prefigurative if the protocol is ontologically different than the desired future.
If I understand correctly, The Archipelago: An Island Network In Practice would be an example of a prefigurative protocol.