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.