Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
35
intended as a social movement aimed both at promoting the protection of the environment and
at politicizing citizens’ claims to such protection – as a project of political interaction which
makes use of local and global resources to achieve the legitimacy of its actions (Torsello
2011). Moreover, as Mollica points out (2012), in order to understand better local political
conflict it is important to take into account the role and dynamics of the communication
process through which the political élites legitimize issues that carry symbolic and identity
meanings.
We suggest that, in this debate, the theoretical framework of Habermas (1981, 1984)
can contribute to an analysis of the conflicting dynamics of local opposition to infrastructural
policies. In particular, this framework appears to be useful to our research on the actions of a
local movement in the public sphere against a governmental decision, and the attendant
dynamics of the process of negotiation and conflict. From this standpoint, as some scholars
have noted (Bedrous 2009, Brulle 2000, Withworth 2000, Edwards 2009), social conflicts that
arise from the actions of collective actors, the social movements, are seen as a form of self-
organization of the civil society. They are free associations of people who have something in
common – interests, values, living conditions and so on – and who act in the public sphere as
agents of change. In a democracy they attempt to transform their ‘private standpoint’
regarding work conditions, standard of living, and so on, into ‘shared public issues’
(Staggenborg 2007). In order to achieve their goals, these movements need to obtain a broad
consensus in the social context that produces a change in the political agenda and incorporates
the demands raised in the
public sphere
(Habermas 1989, 1996). The ‘public sphere’ is the
place where the private interests of the actors clash with the main social issues; the outcomes
of this struggle redefine the norms that control the economic and bureaucratic system and
produce changes in the collective viewpoint about the world. In an
ideal speech situation
,
where everyone can freely state their views in the public sphere, the result of the social
confrontation (or conflict) is a rational solution of the problems
(Habermas 1993).
Nevertheless, as various authors have stressed (Calhoun 1992; Fraser 1990, 2003;
Negt and Kluge 1993), the notion of public sphere needs to be rethought. To begin with, the
public sphere is not a monolithic social space, for societies are marked by internal
differentiation among social groups that have different social resources and interests;
consequently, social differences among these groups determinate different public spheres.
According to Lolive (1999), the mobilization of movements can generate an alternative
viewpoint (from particular interests) and redefine the policies first of all because they
generate their own position in the public sphere close to the movements and then because they
attempt to redefine ‘public interest’ through the dynamics of social conflict. For these reasons,
some
counter-public spheres
are observed to be in collaborative or conflicting relationships
with each other over the definition of the common good.
However, to understand how and if movements can promote social change, we must
consider three dimensions: the political opportunity structure, the resources mobilized and the
cognitive
praxis.
The first is related to the openness/closeness of the political system to the
movements and their claims (Kiesi et al. 1992). The second concerns the ability of the
movements to link with other social objectives, their internal organizational structure and the
