View
216
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Community Groups from a Deliberative Democratic Perspective.
A Comparative Analysis of Two Italian Transitions.
Andrea Felicetti
(The Australian National University)
Paper presented at the
7th ECPR General Conference
4-7 September, 2013
Sciences Po, Bordeaux, (France)
In the first section, the paper briefly introduces some fundamental features of the
Transition movement. In section two, the Transition is framed within the literature on
social movements and deliberative democracy. A brief discussion on the concept of
deliberative capacity ensues in the third section. Section four and five are dedicated to
the two cases. Both of them provide an outline of the case-study followed by a specific
discussion on their deliberative capacity. In section six there is is a comparative analysis
of the case studies and a possible account of how deliberative capacity is developed. The
final section hosts the concluding remarks on the main issues emerging from this study.
1. The Transition Movement
The Transition movement is built around the idea of developing community-led responses to
the twin challenges of peak oil and climate change, and it seeks to promoting a transition towards
more localised and resilient communities (see Hopkins 2008; 2010). The idea of Transition was first
explored by Rob Hopkins and others in 2004 in Kinsale (Ireland). The following year, in the UK, this
experience was elaborated in a more comprehensive approach giving birth to the first Transition
Town, in Totnes (Devon). Widely circulated materials and a raft of events provided accessible
outlines of the movement’s ideas, eliciting interest worldwide (Brangwyn and Hopkins 2008; Hopkins
2008; Hopkins and Lipman 2009; Hopkins 2011). Within a few years, a plethora of local groups were
formed mainly in Western countries. However, the quality and level of engagement within each
Transition Initiative varies significantly (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2010).
Besides local Initiatives also national and regional Transition hubs are important. The
principal, the Transition Network Ltd. (TN) was set up in 2006 to ‘inspire, encourage, support, enable
networking, and training’ Transition Initiatives around the world (Hopkins and Lipman 2009: 15).1 As
of June 2012 the TN involved about a thousand between official Transitions and ‘Mulling Initiatives’
1 In December 2012, the Transition Network (TN) received the European Economic and Social Council (EESC)
Civil Society Prize.
2
(see TN, at http://www.transitionnetwork.org/).2 Moreover, there are ‘countless’ groups which try to
implement the movement’s ideas without formal connection to the Network. The movement thus
operates at different levels, with various types of organisations, in widely different local contexts.
Hence, although there are guidelines, steps, advices, networking, the Transition acknowledges that a
one fits all model cannot be applied. Each community is thus responsible for finding its own path and
a necessarily localised solution. Indeed, the Transition encourages a naturally open ended approach, in
which individual participation, as well as processes, should unfold in their own way (Hopkins 2008:
172).
The Transition draws on elements from a variety of pre-existing environmentalist analyses
(Quilley 2011: 2), yet it is said to differ from older environmentalism (ibid: 2-4; Hopkins 2008).
According to Connors and McDonald (2010: 559-60), for instance, the movement is an expression of
a ‘new environmentalism’ discourse, whose main novelty is a collaborative and issue-based action on
environmental matters. The Transition, moreover, rearticulates a variety of concerns under a markedly
localistic view, which appeals to a broad audience (Bailey et al. 2010: 596-602), integrating the
movement within alternative knowledge networks and what Featherston (2008) has termed ‘counter
global networks’ (Mason and Whitehead 2012: 496-7).
The philosophy of permaculture (e.g.: Mollison and Holmgren 1978) underpins the
Transition, which, however, draws also on insights from psychology of change and system thinking
(Hopkins 2008: 89). Given its antecedents, the Transition places a particular emphasis on the link
between the individual and the surrounding social and natural environment. An emphasis upon the
inner being is thus paralleled by a focus on more relational aspects involving action at community
level. In particular, the movement stresses the value of an open and high quality communication
(Hopkins, 2008, 2010),3 and deliberation and discussion are held central (Kelly and Cumming 2010:
16; Mason and Whitehead 2012: 496), a ‘necessary prelude to action’ (Barry 2012: 114). At any rate,
the Transition is also characterised by a markedly ‘pragmatic turn’, which stresses the importance of
practical activities (Quilley 2011: 4) as well as visible and tangible initiatives. To the Transition,
though challenging, socio-economic changes offer a unique opportunity to empower people and make
their lives happier. Hence, the movement deliberately shuns survivalist views where little space is left
for social responses (Hopkins 2006).
In regard to politics in particular, government is seen as a ‘reactive’ institution, which should
be addressed by a ‘proactive’ citizenry, especially at the local level (Hopkins 2010b: 76).4 A key tenet
of the Transition is avoiding the ‘them and us’ logic in dealing with other actors in the community,
and, government, in Hopkins’ (2010b: 2) words: ‘is part of the solution’. Transitions should thus
refrain from confrontational attitudes and maintain a non-adversarial and inclusive approach (see
Hopkins 2008b). Politics ought not to lead the Transition, yet groups should ‘build a bridge towards
local government’ (Hopkins 2008: 170; see also Rowell 2010). As shown by a national survey 82.4%
of the UK Transitions have already started this process (Haxeltine and Seyfang 2009: 10).
Nonetheless, the Transition is seen as a-political in the sense that, although the movement deals with
politically-loaded issues (Chatterton and Cutler 2008: 34; Haxeltine and Seyfang 2009: 8-14; Connors
and McDonald 2010: 560; North 2010; Smith 2011: 102; Mason and Whitehead 2012: 511), it strives
to act ‘below the radar’ (Hopkins 2008: 146) of mainstream politics.
2. Understanding a Social Movement from a Deliberative Perspective
The Transition appears to function as a ‘catalyst’ movement. It fosters formation and
networking of local companies clustered around more or less shared narratives (usually critical of
2 The latter have not still obtained the official Transition Initiative status from the Network.
3 The Transition is aware of the complexities involved in group activities and regularly devices new ways to
improve the success of local activities (see, for instance, Transition culture 2013) 4 Although Transition recognises that grassroots’ action does not suffice to address global issues, local
communities offer an increasingly important and more accessible platform for people to take action (Hopkins 2008, 2010).
3
contemporary ways of living) that individuals seek to enact privately and publicly. Commonly,
moreover, the Transition is referred to as a social movement. According to geographer Peter Taylor
(2012: 496), for example, the Transition is ‘one of the most impressive and important
social/community movements of the early twenty-first century’. Yet, it is important to comprehend
the peculiarities of this social movement. This is especially interesting since, as Barry and Quilley
(2009: 18) argue, the Transition differs from traditional (new) social movements, especially in ‘its
ontological and strategic orientation’.
A basic aspect on which social movements theories as well as the Transition’s ideology seem
to converge is the importance of a movement’s the bottom-up nature. The Transition, in fact, is
grounded in local communities (Seyfang and Smith 2007; Hopkins 2010; Taylor 2012) and, following
Barry (2012: 79), it can be defined as a ‘grassroots movement’. Moreover, the Transition displays also
several organisational features that are common among social movements. It presents a network
structure with low institutionalisation and practically no formal membership; official associations
paralleled by small, informal groups, are coordinated in fairly flexible ways; and, although the figure
of Rob Hopkins is widely acknowledged, in practice, Transitions rarely feature strong leaderships (see
della Porta 2005a: 79).
According to a classical definition, a social movement is characterised by ‘(1) informal
networks, based (2) on shared beliefs and solidarity, which mobilize about (3) conflictual issues,
through (4) the frequent use of various form of protest’ (della Porta and Diani 1999: 16). Importantly,
with Melucci (1994: 102) one could argue that the ‘conflictual’ component characterising new social
movements is to be intended as ‘a challenge that recasts the language and cultural codes that organize
information’. Thus, the Transition can be seen as giving voice to ‘actors [that] fight for control and the
allocation of socially produced potential for action’ (ibid.). In this sense, therefore, it is hard to deny
that there is a ‘conflictual’ dimension also in the Transition. Hence, the applicability of the above
definition to the movement under examination may be limited only by the Transition’s deliberate lack
of a protest background. This aspect notwithstanding, therefore, it appears that between the Transition
and the ideal of new social movements occurs at least a ‘family resemblance’, a term which Crossley
(2002, 7), borrowing from Wittgenstein, uses to refer to a typical aspect of social movements, insofar
as they lack ‘a fixed essence’.
Moreover, at least three further considerations are in order. To begin with, the traditional
image of anti-political social movements significantly diverges from a reality made of movements
which critically and selectively engage with institutions (della Porta 2009: 122). Secondly,
Transition’s rejection of early environmentalism’s more adversarial attitude in a sense might once
more confirm a typical trait of social movements. In fact, often social movements ‘have defined
themselves in imitation of, or opposition to, their higher profile counterparts’ and their ‘identity
comes in part from whom they define themselves against’ (Polletta 2002: 4). Finally, it is
acknowledged that whereas some social movements tend to support their cause via protest politics,
others aim to information politics, that is, the provision of reliable information to relevant sites (Kriesi
2011: 295).
In its essence the Transition seems to share some fundamental cultural traits that characterise
new social movements at large. As Habermas (1981: 31) argued a long time ago, conflict in Western
societies has moved towards ‘cultural reproduction, social integration, and socialisation’. It is sparked
by concerns over the ‘grammar of forms of life’, rather than by ‘problems of distribution’, and the
former issues seem exactly those around which the Transition, like other ‘new social movements’, is
mobilised. Indeed, the Transition embodies concerns related to life quality within the context of a
post-materialist society (Touraine, Aronowitz et al. 1988; Inglehart 1989: ch. 11), and it is engaged on
cultural grounds within the context of information societies (Melucci 1994:109-126). Furthermore,
the Transition shows substantive similarities also to Claus Offe’s (1985) ideal-typical characterisation
of social movements which considers issues, actors, values, and modes of action of these social
formations (ibid.: 828).
4
Having framed the Transition within the boundaries of social movements’ theory it is now
possible to discuss how it can be understood from a deliberative democratic perspective, especially in
light of the recent systemic turn (e.g.: Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012). The idea of deliberative
system employed in this paper comes from John Dryzek (2009; 2010) and it is articulated in a public
and an empowered space. The latter consists of ‘a deliberative space for actors, recognizably part of
institutions producing collective decisions’, that is, formally and informally empowered institutions
(Dryzek 2009: 1385). However, some connections to empowered space notwithstanding, the
Transition is firmly rooted in the public space, which is defined as:
‘a deliberative space (or spaces) with few restrictions on who can
participate and with few legal restrictions on what participants can say,
thereby featuring a diversity of viewpoints. Such spaces may be found in
connection with the media, social movements, activist associations, physical
locations where people can gather and talk (cafés, classrooms, bars, public
squares), the Internet, public hearings, and designed citizen-based forums of
various sorts ...’ (ibid.).
The idea of public space offers a valuable platform to connect the movement under
examination to important discussions in deliberative theory, and to understand how the local publics
have a role in deliberative democracy. Importantly, the notion of ‘public space’ is related to the
concept of public sphere, which, following the work of Habermas (1989 [1962]; 1996) and Benhabib
(1996), is seen as the place ‘where perspectives and ideas are generated, policy decisions are
questioned, and citizen competences are developed’ (Dryzek 2009: 1383). Moreover, borrowing from
McCarthy (1984), to Dryzek (1990: 37) the idea of public sphere ‘is central to any attempt to pursue a
communicatively rationalized lifeworld’.
Obviously the public sphere(s) is home, among others, to social movements and the
possibility of deliberation within these fundamental manifestations of democratic life represented a
core idea of early critical deliberative theorists (Dryzek 1987: 670). This view has been reaffirmed
following the development of the systemic approach that remarks the importance of discursive
processes beyond the traditional boundaries of public deliberation (e.g.: Habermas 1996; Mansbridge
1999; Chambers 2003; Parkinson 2006; Dryzek 2010; Mansbridge 2010; Dryzek 2010b; Parkinson
and Mansbridge 2012). The interest in social movements from a deliberative perspective seems well
justified since these are sources of innovation in political life (Dryzek et al. 2003) and in virtue of
‘their radical and modern character’ they ‘can contribute to the establishment or revival of free
discourse in a public space’ (Dryzek 1990: 49). Such an investigation has been invoked and explored
also by social movement theorists (in particular see della Porta 2005; Haug and Teune 2008; della
Porta 2009), and has generated some empirical work, which, however, seems characterised by widely
different conceptions of deliberation and, at any rate, do not adopt the notion of deliberative capacity
(e.g.: Conover 2002; 2005; Mutz 2006; Jacobs, Cook et al. 2009). Ultimately, after the systemic turn
it becomes all the more important to investigate also those organisations that may not be eminently
deliberative (and whose participants do not necessarily conceive of themselves as democratic
deliberators) but whose activities, nonetheless, might affect the democratic and deliberative qualities
of the systems they are in.
3. Deliberative Capacity, from Theory to Empirical Research.
Deliberative capacity is the extent to which an overall deliberative system or its parts host
authentic, inclusive, and consequential discursive processes (Dryzek 2009, 2010). This paper does not
focus on entire systems but on single components (i.e. the Transition Initiatives in the two
5
communities). By applying the notion of deliberative capacity to community groups of a manageable
size it is possible to analyse their qualities in-depth. However, even when focusing on single units,
‘we should always keep our eye on whole systems’ (Dryzek 2009: 1388) ‘rather than assess[ing]
component parts in isolation’ (Dryzek 2010: 14). Here, without formally identifying a deliberative
system, I investigate the two-case studies within their local context, and only in a second time I single
out some aspects that may affect the development of deliberative capacity.
‘Authenticity’ can be intended as a set of ‘criteria’ (Dryzek, 2009: 1386) informed by
deliberative democratic theory and its aim is to assess the deliberative quality of communicative
processes. Actually, plenty of communications including everyday talk or simple information-sharing
may fall short of deliberative ideals (Neblo 2007 : 529-30; Bächtiger 2010 : 33-48). However,
understanding the different qualities of discursive processes from a deliberative standpoint and the
potential explanations and interpretations of the observed phenomena are a core undertaking for
which the idea of authenticity is employed in the first place.
Given the nature of the concept, the criteria usually employed to assess the quality of public
deliberation (e.g.: Steenbergen, Bachtiger et al. 2003; Fishkin 2009) inform yet vary from the
desiderata of authenticity (Bächtiger 2010: 37; Stevenson 2011: 7). According to Dryzek (2010: 66)
although deliberation has got its own specificity, it remains ‘open to a variety of forms of
communication’ (2009: 1381). In this sense authentic deliberation goes beyond Habermas’ preference
for reasoned argument to include rhetoric, testimony, and humour, all of them being generally mixed
together in real-world political communication (Dryzek 2009: 1381). The idea of authentic
deliberation is illustrated in several occasions (see Dryzek 2000: 68; 2005: 224; 2009: 1381, 1382;
2010: 10, 136-7; 2013: 13) and four criteria emerge as fundamental. In sum, authentic deliberative
processes: are not affected by coercion, induce reflection about the preferences that individuals hold,
display claims that are systematically connected to more general principles, and exhibit reciprocity
(ibid.).
‘Inclusivity’, instead, is especially important in assessing the democratic qualities of a
deliberative process: ‘Without inclusion there may be deliberation but not deliberative democracy’.
‘Inclusiveness applies to the range of interests and discourses present in a political setting’ and both
empowered and public space can be tested ‘for the degree to which they are inclusive of relevant
interests and voices’ (Dryzek: 2009: 1382, 1385). Although inclusion may be universally desirable
from a normative point of view, the relevance of discourses and interests is ‘context-specific’ (Dryzek
and Niemeyer 2007: 2). Moreover, assessing the overall inclusivity of a deliberative system is
different from the observing inclusivity of its parts. In particular, the latter undertaking should always
be understood in light the broader system. In evaluating inclusivity, this paper takes in consideration
also the social background of participants, accounting for aspects such as ‘gender, race, age, ethnicity,
occupation, class, education’ (Young 2001: 3) and dis-ability (Young 2002). Finally, the paper seeks
to consider the extent and modality of inclusion (Sass and Dryzek 2011). More specifically, one
should check at least how far a group falls from an ideal of equality and eventually investigate how
imbalances are understood and justified by participants.
Finally, ‘consequentiality’ means that a process ‘must have an impact’ or ‘somehow make a
difference’ on collective decisions, or social outcomes. ‘Impact need not to be direct’ as in explicit
policy decisions; instead, it may also include, for example, ‘informal products of a network’,
‘influence on decision makers’, or ‘even cultural change’ (Dryzek 2010: 10). The traditional decision
oriented nature of deliberation (e.g.: Gastil 2000: 23; Thompson 2008: 502-3) is included in the
original descriptions of the idea of consequentiality although with some caution. In fact, from a
systemic standpoint, it may be unwise to simply discharge as non-authentically deliberative those
communications not directly aimed at decision making. Mansbridge (1999: 212), for example, notices
that an important part of deliberative systems such as everyday talk ‘is not necessarily aimed at any
action other than talk itself’. Nonetheless, power, decision and democratic deliberation remain
intimately connected, and in assessing the consequentiality of a deliberative process it may be
necessary to observe whether the latter is at all conducive to decision-making or at least choices of
any efficacy (Chambers 2009: 332).
6
4. Monteveglio and its Transition Town5
Monteveglio is a town of about 5,200 inhabitants in Emilia-Romagna region (ISTAT 2011). It
borders with other small centres surrounding Bologna, the regional capital. Local economy is
dominated by service industry (ibid.) and Monteveglio also hosts a dynamic industrial area.
Agriculture, despite its historical importance, has increasing problems; however, the pleasing natural
environment (more than 90% of the territory is green areas) favoured a nascent tourist industry.
Monteveglio, moreover, has a reputation for its environmental practice and the town is in the midst of
an area with a well-regarded economic model (e.g.: Cooke and Morgan 2011) and a high social
capital, which historically favoured good institutional performance (e.g: Putnam 1993). Finally, a
leftist tradition has characterized local politics almost in full since the end of World War II (Diamanti
2007).6
It is in this context that the first Transition Initiative started outside its native lands of the
United Kingdom and Ireland. In 2008, in fact, the Transition idea was brought to Monteveglio by a
local resident, Gugliemo,7 who later became President of the local association. A group of four people
thus started to hold meetings seeking ways to spread Transition values and ideals. Sticking to the
movement’s guidelines, since its beginning the steering group was deliberately destined to disappear.
It was hoped in fact that activities would be developed by individuals and sub-groups: funders’ goal
was not to have a Transition group but a Transition Town. Over the years a number of activities were
realised and energy as well as sustainable local agriculture became particularly relevant.
A fundamental aspect in Transition Town Monteveglio (TTM) was its collaboration with
local institutions. The local Initiative, in fact, partnered with the Partito Democratico (Democratic
Party, PD), which, for example, following TTM’s advise, run its campaign through Word Cafe. Ties
grew stronger when the newly elected Council passed a deliberation making of Monteveglio the first
Transition Town in Italy. From that moment, as the Mayor reported ‘on each theme [the
administration] tried to respect Transition Town’s concepts, and there have been also practical
implications’. Numerous activities were thus realised and TTM received economical as well as
logistic support in occasion of joint projects. Partnership with Council, moreover, permitted to get
involved a variety of local actors (the Mayor, the Councillor for environment, the manager of the local
regional park, the elementary school representative for environmental education) who were all
‘contaminated’ (an expression which was often employed by my interviewees) by Transition ideas.
These actors interacted with each other if needed, but it was mainly Gugliemo who functioned as a
hub on Transition themes. As he saw it: ‘what we know for certain is that to determine the agenda of a
community takes very little people’. Thus, from a group-centred model TTM started to rely upon, in
Gugliemo’s words, a ‘flux’ of people and ideas.
Partnership with local institutions, however, was just one platform for the local Transition.
Indeed, without a group structure, the existing divide between supporters of the partnership with
Council and less enthusiastic people did not seem to represent an insurmountable problem. Actually,
the extinction of the steering group probably avoided a stalemate. In fact, although the Council’s
deliberation was generally welcomed by Transitioners worldwide (see Transition Culture Blog
(2009): ‘What It Looks Like When a Local Authority REALLY Gets Transition… the Monteveglio
story…’) the reception of the news was lukewarm in Monteveglio. As explained by one of the
steering group members:
‘I personally do not share the deliberation of the Council in which they acknowledge the
Transition and end up putting a cap on us because to me Transition has to be a process
5 Each of these case studies is based on a fieldwork of more than six weeks from May to August 2012. Besides
attending virtually every Transition-related event, I interviewed twenty-three people in Monteveglio (twelve Transition participants and eleven local actors) and twenty-two people in Modica (half of whom participants and half community actors). 6 Also reformist catholic views were historically important to the area (see Pombeni, 1992)
7 Fictitious names are employed throughout the paper.
7
that comes from below, and doesn’t have to have connections with politics, because
when politics gets in, it ruins everything’.
Overall, the existence of different dispositions towards the local administration seemed to
influence the allocation of tasks within the Transition. Gugliemo, the promoter and fundamental
supporter of the partnership, tried to make the most out of this relationship. Others, instead, started to
take action largely independently of the Council. Giorgio, in particular, though not a member of the
original steering group, emerged as a key actor. He was an important figure for those Transition
activities not involving partnership with Council and he co-founded and was vice-President of a social
and agricultural association called Streccapogn. Born in 2009, this group probably represented the
main manifestation of Transition ideals in Monteveglio, to which it was largely inspired.
4.1 Transition Town Monteveglio’s Deliberative Capacity
TTM had a multifaceted nature and during my fieldwork its activities included two meetings
on group purchase of photovoltaic panels, weekly appointments connected to the Inner-Transition,
fairly regular on-line activities, contacts with the local administration, a talk on sustainable living and
nutrition, meetings with local businesses and Bologna’s section of the Democratic Party. Moreover,
there was also Streccapogn, the only manifestation of TTM which was based on a regular group
activity. Besides the daily work on the farms and transformation of products, Streccapogn organized
laboratories of self-production, weekly markets, one public meeting, one group assembly, and several
meetings with partners as well as other local groups.
Most TTM’s initiatives had a discursive nature and it was possible to observe their quality
according to authenticity’s criteria.8 An effort to seek a good quality interaction and to embed
Transitions ideals characterised the various activities of TTM which generally featured good
authenticity. As seen, TTM as such hosted no group meeting although, during my fieldwork,
Streccapogn organised a public assembly and one meeting for participants only. Overall, both
assemblies were not affected by any substantial coercion, they induced some participants to reflect
upon the many subjects being addressed; particular claims were anchored to higher principles most of
the times; practical issues as well as ideals were to some extent scrutinized, and a degree of
reciprocity emerged through the small meeting and at the public assembly (though only during small
group discussions). Several awareness raising activities, moreover, were organised as well. In the
past, TTM had also run a course on Open Space Technology, a two days training session for local
administrators, and dozens of events on climate change, energy, peak oil, financial crises, sustainable
living, local currencies, and pollution. Similar themes had also been addressed in more didactical
manners through collaboration with local schools. Streccapogn, in particular, also organised meetings
to introduce its projects and give support to groups interested in the idea. Gugliemo, moreover, was in
contact with local organizations to promote awareness on Transition related issues and proposing new
working methods. The main discursive activities that took place while I was in Monteveglio, with
some variation from case to case notwithstanding, displayed a good degree of authenticity although,
unlike groups meetings, these events tended to be based on a ‘oratory model’ (see Remer 2002; Manin
2005). Finally, however, despite TTM had a remarkable presence on-line and its ideas circulated
widely on the Internet, on-line discussions displayed almost no trace of substantial engagement.
TTM’s inclusivity, instead, varied substantially and participants tended to change depending
on the occasion. Overall, TTM’s activities hosted people from early twenties to late seventies, locals
and non-EU immigrants, workers with very different jobs as well as unemployed people. However,
actually most of Monteveglio citizens still did not know about the Transition and only a few hundred
people had participated to one of TTM’s events. In the words of Gugliemo: ‘there is part of the
community [that is] totally detached…’, and ‘absolutely impossible to reach out to’. Furthermore,
TTM’s had a dozen of most active participants whose interests and views naturally were voiced most
often. They were largely homogenous in terms of provenience (withe and locals), age (in their thirties
8 Despite they were important aspects to the life of TTM. Authenticity assessments appeared impracticable in
the case of Strecapogn’s daily work activities and Inner-Transition’s meditation meetings
8
and forties), education (well beyond the regional level), and job (with just one blue collar). Similarly,
whilst Strecapogn’s reached out to a broad audience and its public assemblies were possibly TTM’s
most inclusive activity, the social enterprise members-only meetings were attended just by a minority
of participants. Interestingly, Streccapogn assisted and gave a job to some disabled individuals and
non-EU immigrants showing a positive and supportive attitude towards these collaborators. However,
these people had not yet been significantly involved in the more deliberative moments. As the
situation showed, inclusion in good quality deliberation was not equivalent with involvement in the
activities of a group. At any rate, the most restricted discursive processes were those between TTM
and the local Council. This was all the more striking given that the local Transition was not
intentionally exclusionary. Individual initiative was acknowledged as an important way to take action
and in general there was just one person willing to engage with council (often Guglielmo) and one
actor from the local institution interested in actually collaborating (usually the Mayor). A
consequence of this dynamics (and the absence of a group structure) was that TTM’s President had no
way to regularly consult with (or being accountable to) other Transition participants, except for
informal talk.9 Ultimately, from a political standpoint TTM in its various manifestation included both
those in favour and those against the local government (usually on the left of the Democratic Party).
Nonetheless, overall the majority of participants belonged to the progressive end of the political
spectrum. Finally, interviews allowed a fairly comprehensive understanding of the basic elements
which populated TTM main actors’ discourses, and a common thread belonging to green
consciousness did emerge (Dryzek 2005a).
In regard to consequentiality, TTM had been quite successful in influencing the local
discussion especially on environmental and community related themes. In this sense, the above
mentioned Council’s deliberation probably represents the most significant result of this action.
Moreover, there had also been plenty of practical implications stemming from the existence of TTM,
of which the birth and success of Streccapogn was probably the most important one. Efficacy,
however, could not be intended as ‘consequentiality’ when achievements were not the result of
inclusive and good quality discursive processes. In particular, it was when TTM was not in interacting
with the local administration that it had the best occasions to develop consequential discursive
processes.
5. Modica and its Transition group
Modica is a city of about 55,000 inhabitants (ISTAT 2010) in the deep south of Sicily. The
city is lively and relatively affluent although Ragusa is the main centre in the province. Services and
agriculture are the principal sectors of local economy, yet a rising tourism industry is developing, in
this UNESCO heritage site (see Cugno 2012). There are, however, also some major criticalities
including major unemployment, environment degradation, some infiltration of organized crime (see
Ruta 1997), and public debt.10
Nonetheless, the area displays also distinctively positive features. To
begin with, organized crime is significantly weaker here than in many parts of the island (see
Bascietto 2005). Local economy is among the most developed in southern Italy (Terranova 2009), and
this area is renowned for its laborious, welcoming, and simple life style. My interviewees did not fail
to remark these aspects as they systematically reported on Modica’s specificity throughout history
within the Sicilian context.
Here, in early 2011, started the first Transition steering group in southern Italy. At that stage,
the Sicilian Transition consisted of the dedicated commitment of two people. One of them, Mariano,
tried to introduce Transition ideas in Modica (the other was in Palermo). However, for a whole year
there was only very little activity until, in January 2012, Mariano attended a public meeting for a
discussion about the current crisis. That event was a turning point for Transition Modica (TM). For
9 Quite unlike Streccapogn’s President and vice-President which were expected to report on their activities to
the broader group. 10
Modica’s deficit spending was the country’s highest (in absolute terms) in 2008 as certified by the Italian Audit Office (see Comune di Modica 2013).
9
the first time, in fact, the Transition entered in contact with a substantial group of active people with
some social infrastructures where Transition ideas could circulate.
The meeting was organised by critica la crisi (critique the crisis), a local initiative created to
reflect upon meanings and consequences of the crisis and other related issues. As explained by
Assunta, a leader of critica la crisi, meetings were a manifestation of a broader discussion involving
about fifty people, many of whom were also associated to a number of other local groups. When the
meeting was organized it took off ‘as if everyone was waiting for someone to call for that thing’
Assunta reported.
In Modica traditional forms of participation no longer held sway. Catholic volunteering (a
traditional source of political engagement) was in overt decline and party politics did not elicit
enthusiasm either. The vast majority of my interviewees expressed rooted disdain, bitter
disappointment, or detachment towards politics both nationally and locally, and Modica’s mayor was
possibly the only politician who was overly appreciated by most interviewees. The mayor would be
often referred to as an ‘honest person’ within a context in which ‘friendships, political patronage, and
favouritism’ were the widely acknowledged curses of local politics. In the words of Mariano:
‘Modica’s society is very clientelistic, very many Modica people are connected to a few but powerful
names ...’.
Nonetheless, in Modica greater engagement existed in other areas such as campaigns for local
environment, public spaces, and anti-militarism. The city, moreover, was part of a bustling network of
movements crossing Sicily and working on, for example, immigrants support, workers’ rights,
democratic participation, as well as against organized crime, illegality and corruption. Finally, more
recent political phenomena captured the attention of many. For instance, a majority of Transition
participants had attended at least one meeting of the movimento dei forconi (pitchfork movement) and
some of them were close to the then recently born Movimento 5 Stelle (5 Stars Movement).
Ultimately, thus, initiatives like critica la crisi were not isolated events but manifestations of a
broader underlying ferment in some enclaves within the community.
Although TM, in practice, was born thanks to critica la crisi, the local Transition soon
became an autonomous sub-group. In fact, critica la crisi was essentially a discursive open space for
active locals; thus, it could not be constrained into a specific agenda, as the Transition model seemed
to imply. Some people, in fact, had major reserves on the Transition and its methods. They doubted
that this foreigner method could be adapted to the local context, they stressed the importance of action
over talk, and privileged a more open and less structured discussions than the one proposed by
Mariano and a few others, who, instead, preferred to develop the local Transition by sticking to a
more structured path. Transitioners, in fact, believed that action required a preliminary group level
reflection on more theoretical issues, holding also that discussions without method had proven
unfruitful and problematic. As reported by Beatrice, in other groups’ meetings ‘there is the tendency
to leave things as they are, to live in peace, gather together, eat, drink, and that’s it’. Angelica, instead,
referring to a past initiative, highlighted how: ‘the older experience almost abolished diversity…in
that group they tended to be like either you are like us or you are out’.
Eleven people participated to TM’s study group. Meetings would follow the instruction of
study guide companion to the Transition Handbook (Joann K. 2010). Participants were expected to
read in advance the parts that would be discussed each time. Small parallel initiatives like self-
production laboratories started as well. Some participants began to also get involved in local activities
outside Transition meetings. In particular, three of them took primary roles in a campaign to rescue a
public park from vandalism (‘Reclaim the Park’). Other three, instead, were among the main actors of
the NO MUOS committee, an anti-militarisation campaign against the construction of an American
base in the nearby town of Niscemi.
TM, which relied upon a minimal self-finance budgeting, had developed no contact with local
institutions. To a degree that decision was related to the group being at an early stage. TM, however,
seemed also cautious of politics given the shared belief that the latter was hazardously tightened to
10
local interests. In particular, Transition participants often saw local ‘oil’, ‘concrete’, and ‘waste
collection’ groups as unscrupulous actors. Although no interviewee appeared in any way to fear local
politics or organized crime most seemed aware that, as an interviewee put it: ‘talking about
environment means going against mafia’.
5.1 Transition Modica’s Deliberative Capacity
Group meetings were TM’s most important activity and I attended the first two of a series of
six. Despite assemblies should take place fortnightly, participants suspended them in August to focus,
instead, on alternative actions such as the NO MUOS and 'Reclaim the Park' campaigns, which were
reaching a crucial stage. In this time Transition topics would be discussed during informal meetings
and laboratories – whereas the Internet was hardly ever used beyond basic communications. In
particular, I participated to the only self-production laboratory that took place during my fieldwork. A
dozen people, mainly from TM, attended. Friendly chats unfolded as the various tasks were carried
out and a variety of themes were discussed. Some ideas on the Transition as well as the local group
emerged regularly (and were later channelled into the official meetings). Engagement among different
ideas was less systematic than during meetings and interactions were significantly less structured.
However, many appreciated this latter aspect as these events represented important appendixes to the
study group. Indeed, informal gatherings were important as they offered an alternative site for more
casual interaction. In the words of Angelica: ‘...because of time constrains I feel like I need some
spaces outside meetings to engage’, and she added referring to the self-production laboratory:
‘...spaces aside, like the one we had today were you do other things and chat…’
During group meetings, instead, the handbook guidelines were scrupulously followed in an
effort to find a better way to interact. The guidebook’s indications seemed to be efficacious. Overall,
the group’s stress upon the quality of its discursive interaction could be understood in light of the fact
that studying was the core activity of TM. Moreover, a parallel effort to keep the group as ‘horizontal’
as possible, an expression participants employed often, was also evident. In TM experienced activists
sat next to first timers who had never spoken in public or reflected with a group of strangers about
public issues before.
Mariano: ‘...to many of us it is a new thing to be able to engage with each other and say
our own opinion within a given time so it’s also that which is part of the experiment,
isn’t it? [It is also about] us learning how to engage with others because we have not
been used to seat around a table, or better on a circle, and having each and everyone to
speak up and say what we think and being understood, or at least not being attacked…’.
A vast majority of participants appreciated the way meetings unfolded, and these events also
manifested some positive features to an external observer. In the first place, coercion seemed
negligible during TM’s assemblies. Meetings also induced reflection as theoretical issues were
discussed together and connections with the local situation were systematically sought and debated.
Diverging views often emerged on the merits of the arguments found in the Transition handbook.
Discussions on the local situation tended to be critical and far-reaching, although variety of views was
less apparent. Occasionally participants, mainly through storytelling, exposed also their personal
concerns. They also tried to discuss them with the rest of the group to see how problems could
possibly be addressed in light of the Transition. In doing so a fairly systematic connection between
their particular interests and more general principles emerged. However, the study group nature of the
meetings did not leave significant space for presenting one’s material interests. In fact, despite every
member brought in the group her own views and interests, there was more space to discuss the former
rather than advocating the latter. Finally, the Transition represented the main common ground upon
which participants tried to articulate their views. In some occasions it was also possible to observe
how individuals in different positions (e.g.: a business owner and an occasional worker, or a less
engaged citizen and an activist) tried to talk to each other making an effort to take the other’s
perspectives into account.
11
In terms of social background TM was markedly diverse despite its small size. Although the
group was composed of (white) people mainly born in the area, participants’ age (from early twenties
to late fifties), occupation, scholastic education (though outstanding in comparison to the rest of the
community) varied. Differences in views emerged as well, although a green consciousness discourse
dominated the group (see Dryzek 2005a). TM, however, like other local initiatives, included just a
niche within the population. TM was, in fact, followed within the circles of the local public sphere
whilst beyond this space it was hard to find anyone aware of the Transition.
Finally, in regard to consequentiality, although any achievement was arrived at through good
quality and relatively inclusive discussion, TM displayed only a very modest capability to reach out to
those who were not already actively participating to the life of the community. Furthermore, TTM
achievements were discursive in nature. Aside from lifestyle change among some participants, little in
more practical terms had been, in fact, obtained in several months.
6. Deliberative Capacity and its Drivers from a Comparative Perspective
Both cases display a degree of deliberative capacity. In particular, TTM and TM have in
common fairly authentic discursive processes which, however, feature shortcomings in terms of their
inclusivity and consequentiality. In regard to inclusivity neither Transition actually involved the
whole town. In TM, participants showed a diverse background, yet only an extremely small portion of
the community was ever involved; in TTM, instead, although more people were involved, inclusivity
was limited by the pronounced homogeneity of its most active members. Consequentiality, finally,
varied significantly. In TTM, instead, consequentiality was higher than TM, yet, as seen, some
achievements were the result of individual efforts rather than authentic and inclusive engagement.
The development of deliberative capacity can be understood in light of the interactions
between a given case study and the local context in which it takes action. Relevant elements for the
generation of deliberative capacity can be clustered in two groups, that is: ‘context’ and ‘internal’
features. The ‘context’ refers the resources available to a group in terms of deliberative and
democratic values and practices. These elements can be found in the movement’s ideals, goals, and
repertoire, on the one hand, and in the local community’s public space and institutions. ‘Internal’
elements, instead, are related to the local Initiative’s interest in and commitment to deliberative
democratic values and practices. In particular, these elements concern a local group’s goals, priorities,
and structural features, on the one hand, and, on the other, to participants and leaders’ ‘personality’
and skills.11
To understand how deliberative capacity can be developed it is important to analyse these
‘internal’ and ‘context’ features and the way they interact. That is, favourable conditions in the
‘context’ or, for that matter, positive ‘internal’ features do not necessarily imply high levels of
deliberative capacity, and viceversa. Local initiatives, in fact, seem to establish relationships with
their context, and, specifically, groups develop a ‘selective opening’ to the elements of the context in
which they take action.12
A fundamental aspect that affects the extent to which a given case will
pursue a more deliberative democratic approach seems to depend on whether groups perceive
deliberative and democratic means as attractive and/or necessary (see Fig 1).
11
Although in its original formulation deliberative capacity refers particularly to structural elements rather than individuals’ characteristics, it appears that the latter may have a role when rather than entire systems it is small groups that are under considerations. Obviously the role of leaders, when present, is particularly important given their relevance to the life of the group. 12
A similar point is made by della Porta (2009: 5) who referring to social movements remarks the importance of cognitive aspects: ‘organisations, do not automatically adapt to their environments; environmental pressures are filtered by actors’ perceptions’.
12
These dynamics can be seen at work in both case studies, they do have an impact on the type
of choices that local groups make and the deliberative capacity they feature. In Monteveglio, there
was no Transition group but a loose network of people firmly committed to the movement’s values
and dedicated to the realisation of a raft of activities. The two leaders of the local Initiative, in
particular, attached special importance to the development of high quality interactions, in occasion of
every Transition project. The relationship with local Council represented the main cleavage within
Transition Monteveglio. Partly as a consequence of this situation, the local Initiative had
differentiated its activities. In fact, whilst many events were developed in collaboration with local
institutions there were activities that were only loosely connected to local politics, if at all, and
focused more on the public. Collaboration with Council was vital in developing numerous activities
that allowed Transition Monteveglio to reaching out to the community. Nonetheless, this relationship
was problematic from a deliberative democratic standpoint since they were largely based on private
and informal interactions among community leaders. Independent initiatives, on the other hand, left
more room to express the deliberative and participatory values of members and more substantial
discursive engagement was observable. Though far from perfect, through its differentiation,
Transition Monteveglio had, thus, managed to maintain its focus on the movement’s values and
developed some elements of a good quality, partially inclusive, and often consequential discursive
process.
In Transition Modica, interaction with local institutions was not a priority, the group
originated and was firmly rooted within (and oriented towards) the lively local public sphere.
Transitioners, however, by forming their own group, sought to create a distinct space where
interaction would be based on the Transition’s approach, rather than ‘the usual manners’, which
interviewees found particularly flawed. Participants, starting from the local ‘leader’, attached a
fundamental importance to the democratic and the communicative features of the group and a high
quality interaction could be observed during the study meetings, the main activity of the group. Yet,
possibly also because of its early stage, the Transition group had not reached out to the people outside
the local activist scene. Indeed, besides raising awareness among some individuals, it had been unable
to affect the life of the community in a more practical way.
7. Conclusions
This paper investigated two community groups from a deliberative democratic standpoint. In
particular, case studies were framed within the literature on social movements and deliberative
systems. This study employed the concept of deliberative capacity through a comparative perspective.
Overall, the three main dimensions of deliberative capacity can develop quite independently. In
particular, it was shown that whist both Transitions were able to develop discursive processes of good
quality, inclusivity and consequentiality are more problematic. The possibility of obtaining
authenticity within local publics’ discursive processes is a very important aspect. However, this study,
13
of course, of its own, does not suggest that good quality interaction is the norm among organisations
in the public space. Indeed, both organisations under examination payed a quite extraordinary
attention to the quality of interaction, and the situation may be widely different where this is not the
case. However, despite their open attitude, both cases displayed limited inclusivity, presenting issues
that may be common among a variety of publics. Transition Modica featured some inclusivity in
terms of participants’ background, yet it seemed unable to spread beyond enclaves within the
community. Quite the opposite occurred in Monteveglio where a rather remarkable outreach was
paralleled by inclusivity limitations in terms of the main deliberating actors, a problem that was
particularly evident in the relationship with Council. Finally, the two cases suggest that, whilst
seeking institutional collaboration may foster efficacy, consequentiality may be at risk if community
groups abandon their ties to their local publics. The observed levels of deliberative capacity have been
illustrated in light of the interaction between the ‘internal’ characteristics of each case study and the
local ‘context’ in which it was taking action, and not just, deterministically, on the basis of one or the
other set of features.
References
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M.R., Steiner, J., (2010). "Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities." Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 32-63.
Bailey, I., Hopkins, R., Wilson, G., (2010). "Some things old, some things new: The spatial representations and politics of change of the peak oil relocalisation movement." Geoforum 41(4): 595-605.
Barry, J. (2012). The Politics of Actually Existing Unsustainability: Human Flourishing in a Climate-Changed, Carbon Constrained World. USA, Oxford University Press.
Barry, J. and S. Quilley (2009). "Transition towns:‘Survival’,‘resilience’and the elusive paradigm shift in sustainable living." Ecopolitics Online 1(2): 12-31.
Bascietto, G. (2005). Stidda: la quinta mafia. Palermo, Pitti.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Brangwyn, B. and R. Hopkins (2008). Transition Initiatives Primer, Transition Network.
Chambers, S. (2003). "Deliberative democratic theory." Annual review of political science 6(1): 307-326.
Chambers, S. (2009). "Rhetoric and the Public Sphere Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?" Political Theory 37(3): 323-350.
Chatterton, P. and A. Cutler (2008). The Rocky Road to a Real Transition: the transition towns movement and what it means for social change, The Trapese Collective.
14
Comune di Modica (2013). "Piano pluriennale di riequilibrio finanziario.Relazione del Sindaco di Modica." Retrieved 22-08-2013, from http://www.comune.modica.gov.it/content/piano-pluriennale-riequilibrio-finanziariorelazione-del-sindaco-modica.
Connors, P. and P. McDonald (2010). "Transitioning communities: community, participation and the Transition Town movement." Community Development Journal 46(4): 558-572.
Conover, P. J. and D. D. Searing (2005). "Studying Everyday Political Talk in the Deliberative System." Acta Politica 40(3): 269-283.
Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., Crewe, I. M., (2002). "The deliberative potential of political discussion." British Journal of Political Science 32(01): 21-62.
Cooke, P. and K. Morgan (2011). The associational economy: firms, regions, and innovation. USA, Oxford University Press.
Crossley, N. (2002). Making sense of social movements, Open University Press Buckingham.
Cugno, M. (2012). The past to discover the present. Short history of Sicily, the county of Modica, the province of Ragusa and Pozzallo, HGO.
della Porta, D. (2005). "Deliberation in Movement: Why and How to Study Deliberative Democracy and Social Movements." Acta Politica 40(3): 336-350.
della Porta, D. (2005a). "Making the polis: social forums and democracy in the global justice movement." Mobilization: An International Quarterly 10(1): 73-94.
della Porta, D. (2009). Democracy in Social Movements. Basingstoke (UK), Palgrave Macmillan.
della Porta, D. and M. Diani (1999). Social movements: an Introduction. Oxford, Blackwell.
Diamanti, I. (2007). "The Italian centre-right and centre-left: Between parties and ‘the party’." West European Politics 30(4): 733-762.
Diani, M. (2004). Networks and participation. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule and K. Hanspeter, Wiley-Blackwell.
Dryzek, J. S. (1987). "Discursive Designs - Critical-Theory and Political-Institutions." American Journal of Political Science 31(3): 656-679.
15
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy : politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics, contestations. New York, Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2005). "Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to Agonism and Analgesia." Political theory 33(2): 218-242.
Dryzek, J. S. (2005a). The politics of the earth. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Dryzek, J. S. (2009). "Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building." Comparative Political Studies 42(11): 1379-1402.
Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2010b). "Rhetoric in democracy: a systemic appreciation." Political Theory 38(3): 319-339.
Dryzek, J. S. (2013). "The deliberative democrat’s Idea of Justice." European Journal of Political Theory.
Dryzek, J. S., Downes, D., Hunold, C., Schlosberg, D. (2003). Green States and Social Movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. and S. Niemeyer (2007). The Theory and Practice of Discursive Representation. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
Featherstone, D. (2008). Resistance, space and political identities: the making of counter-global networks, Wiley-Blackwell.
Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation, Oxford University Press, USA.
Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.
Habermas, J. (1981). "New social movements." Telos 1981(49): 33-37.
16
Habermas, J. (1989 [1962]). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, the MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Haug, C. and S. Teune (2008). "Identifying Deliberation in Social Movement Assemblies: Challenges of Comparative Participant Observation." Journal of Public Deliberation 4(1): 8.
Haxeltine, A. and G. Seyfang (2009). "Transitions for the People: Theory and Practice of ‘Transition’ and ‘Resilience’ in the UK’s Transition Movement." Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Hopkins, R. (2006). "Why the Survivalists Have Got It Wrong.". Retrieved 04-02-2013, from http://transitionculture.org/2006/09/04/why-the-survivalists-have-got-it-wrong/.
Hopkins, R. (2008). The transition handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience, Chelsea Green Publishing.
Hopkins, R. (2008b). ""The Rocky Road to a Real Transition”: A Review.". Retrieved 04-02-2013, from http://transitionculture.org/2008/05/15/the-rocky-road-to-a-real-transition-by-paul-chatterton-and-alice-cutler-a-review/.
Hopkins, R. (2010). Localisation and Resilience at the Local Level: The Case of Transition Town Totnes (Devon, UK). School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science Faculty of Science and Technology. Plymouth, University of Plymouth. Doctorate Dissertation.
Hopkins, R. (2010b). What Can Communities Do? Santa Rosa, California, Post Carbon Institute.
Hopkins, R. (2011). The Transition Companion: Making Your Community More Resilient in Uncertain Times, Chelsea Green Publishing.
Hopkins, R. and P. Lipman (2009). Who we are and what we do, Transition Network.
Inglehart, R. (1989). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
ISTAT (2010). "Popolazione residente e bilancio demografico." Retrieved 5-12-2012, from http://en.istat.it/popolazione/demo/?codice=088006.
ISTAT (2011). "Geodemo, Popolazione Residente." Retrieved 22-11-2012, from http://demo.istat.it/pop2011/index.html.
17
Jacobs, L. R., F. L. Cook, et al. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Joann K., S. G., Leo B., (2010). Il Manuale della Transizione, Corso di Condivisione e Approfondimento.
Kelly, U. and L. Cumming (2010). Civil society supporting dialogue and deliberation. Commission of Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society in the UK and Ireland. London, Carnegie UK Trust.
Kriesi, H. (2011). Social Movements. Comparative Politics. Daniele Caramani (ed.). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Manin, B. (2005). Democratic Deliberation: Why we should promote debate rather than discussion. Paper delivered at the Program in Ethics and Public Affairs Seminar, Princeton University.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement. S. Macedo. New York, Oxford University Press 211-239.
Mansbridge, J. (2010). The Deliberative System Disaggregated. American Political Science Association Annual Conference.
Mason, K. and M. Whitehead (2012). "Transition urbanism and the contested politics of ethical place making." Antipode 44(2): 493-516.
McCarthy, T. (1984). "Translator’s introduction." The theory of communicative action 1: vii–xxxix.
Melucci, A. (1994). A strange kind of newness: what's ‘new’in new social movements? New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Laraña E., Johnston H. and Gusfield J R. Philadelphia PA Temple University Press.
Mollison, B. and D. Holmgren (1978). "Permaculture one." Morebank, NSW Australia: Transworld Publications.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Neblo, M. A. (2007). "Family disputes: diversity in defining and measuring deliberation." Swiss Political Science Review 13(4): 527-557.
North, P. (2010). "Eco-localisation as a progressive response to peak oil and climate change–a sympathetic critique." Geoforum 41(4): 585-594.
18
Offe, C. (1985). "New social movements: challenging the boundaries of institutional politics." Social Research: 817-868.
Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world : problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.
Parkinson, J. and J. Mansbridge, Eds. (2012). Deliberative Systems, Cambridge University Press.
Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Pombeni, P. (1992). "Il dossettismo. Una storia ancora da scrivere." il Mulino 41(5): 865-875.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work, with Robert Leonardi and Raffaella Y. Nanetti, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Quilley, S. (2011). Resilience Through Relocalization: Ecocultures of Transition?, Ecocultures Working Paper: 2012-1. University of Essex, UK. URL: http://www.ecocultures. org/2012/02/resilience-through-relocalisation-ecocultures-of-transition.
Remer, G. (2002). "Two models of deliberation: oratory and conversation in ratifying the Constitution." Journal of Political Philosophy 8(1): 68-90.
Rowell, A. (2010). Communities, Councils and a Low Carbon Future: what we can if governments won’t, Green
Ruta, C. (1997). Cono d'ombra : la mafia a Ragusa. Palermo, La Zisa.
Sass, J. and J. Dryzek (2011). Deliberative Cultures. Social Science Research Network.
Seyfang, G. and A. Haxeltine (2010). Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based social movements for sustainable energy transitions, CSERGE working paper EDM.
Seyfang, G. and A. Smith (2007). "Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda." Environmental Politics 16(4): 584-603.
Smith, A. (2011). "The Transition Town Network: A Review of Current Evolutions and Renaissance." Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 10(01): 99-105.
19
Steenbergen, M. R., A. Bachtiger, et al. (2003). "Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index." Comparative European Politics 1(1): 21-48.
Stevenson, H. (2011). Democratising the Governance of Climate Technologies. http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/working_papers/Stevenson%202011-5%28Sept%202011%29.pdf.
Taylor, P. J. (2012). "Transition towns and world cities: towards green networks of cities." Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 17(4): 495-508.
Terranova, G. B. S. (2009). Le PMI nell'area del libero scambio, Franco Angeli.
Thompson, D. F. (2008). "Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science." Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11: 497-520.
Touraine, A., S. Aronowitz, et al. (1988). Return of the actor: Social theory in postindustrial society, University of Minnesota press Minneapolis.
Transition Culture (2009). "‘What it looks like When a Local Authority REALLY Gets Transition… the Monteveglio story…’." Retrieved 22-11-2012, from http://transitionculture.org/2009/12/04/what-it-looks-like-when-a-local-authority-really-gets-transition-the-monteveglio-story/.
Transition Culture (2013). How to Make your Transition Group even more Effective.
Transition Network. Retrieved 04-02-2012, from http://www.transitionnetwork.org/.
Young, I. M. (2001). "Equality of whom? Social groups and judgments of injustice." Journal of Political Philosophy 9(1): 1-18.
Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. New York, Oxford University Press.
Recommended