Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
36
way in which they manage resources – money, citizens, experts and so on (Della Porta and
Diani 2006). The third aspect refers to the identity, meaning and knowledge that movements
represent and are capable of conveying and producing through the social struggle (Catherin
2000). Taken together, all these elements may explain the social dynamics of conflict and of
its results.
In short, we can summarize our theoretical standpoint as follows:
1.
Social conflict generated by the movements against infrastructural policies
could be considered as a reaction to a unilateral top-down decision that is seen as disruptive in
a specific context because its realization would deeply change the socio-cultural and
environmental scenario;
2.
The attitude of the political system to social movements must be evaluated
considering which public sphere influences the decision-making process and what factors
block their ability to influence political decisions by other actors;
3.
In order to achieve their goals movements must expand their counter-public
sphere of action by including social issues related to their main interests. This can increase
their available resources and their strength to influence political decisions; at the same time,
this increases the complexity of their internal organization.
In our view, this framework helps to analyse the rise of social conflict against
infrastructural policies and to understand what a movement needs in order to influence these
policies. However, as Schlosberg (1995) noted, only the analysis of the practices of the
movements can help to understand how a critical framework can be useful in the social
analysis and, thus, to understand better the relationship between cultural representation
(discursive frame) and the organizational structure of the actions of social movements (their
practices).
An ‘Unrealized Bridge’
The Messina Bridge project is one of the major infrastructure works which the last Berlusconi
Government considered part of a modernization plan for Italy. This colossal infrastructure –
3,300 meters long and 60 meters wide supported by two gigantic piers – should be completed
by 2017 at the cost of 8.5 billion Euros. The Bridge would be part of the priority mobility
projects of the EU, a section of the
European Corridor N. 1
which would link Palermo to
Berlin.
2
However, the idea of connecting Sicily with the mainland is not new. In 1969, two
government-owned companies, ANAS
and FS,
3
launched an international competition to
stimulate bids on a project regarding the construction of a motorway and a railway on the
Messina Strait. After three years, the law n. 1158/1971 granted authorization to build a link
2
See the EU COM (2007)135. However, in 2011 the EU Commission changed the initial project.
Among the EU infrastructure priorities, the Corridor n. 1 will be replaced by the Corridor n. 5
‘Helsinki-Valletta’ which excludes the Calabria and Sicily Regions.
3
ANAS is an Italian government-owned company responsible for the construction and maintenance of
motorways and state highways. FS is a government-owned holding that manages infrastructure and
services on the Italian rail network.
