* Tarrow emphasizes activist’s embeddedness in local contexts – They are rooted cosmopolitans
He asks three questions
* 1. How have transnational connections affected the goals, frames, strategies and perhaps identities of local activists?
* 2. To what extent has the increase in transnational activism create a space for contentious politics – a sphere of global civic activism – that fuses the local with the global?
* 3. To what extent has transnational activism so blurred the lines of the global and the local that it becomes impossible to think of them as separate spheres?
* Stresses the importance of internationalizaion vs. externalization of international conflict
* Concludes by saying that it is premature to speak of a global activism which fuses the local and the international
== Notes ==
* Transnational activists are both constrained and supported by domestic networks
* Method – Identifying and tracing the processes that link the domestic to the international level of activism
What’s different today?
* Diffusion, international mobilization and the modularity of protest are all familiar
* 1) Its connection to the current wave of globalization
* 2) Its relation to the changing structure of international politics
Internationalism channels resistance to globalization – it provides an opportunity structure within which transnational activism can emerge
Three orders of processes that link domestic activism to the international system
* 1. Local
** Global framing
* 2. Transitional
** Scale shift
** International coalition formulation
Question: Are we witnessing a short cycle of internationally oriented domestic contention, or a fusion between international and domestic contention politics?