Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
41
activist’s statement illustrates well this point. He said, ‘We must not betray our goals, the
level of close examination and the level of analysis that characterize our mission, for we
might risk a regression or the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) syndrome. As far as ten years
ago, we tried to spread the idea that the issue was not only the protection of the territory but,
most importantly, a distorted idea of the development of an area. We reported on the
uniqueness in the management of our public resources and we also tried to link the Bridge
issue to the general political context’ (See n. 10).
These positions go far beyond the debate on a single facility and engage important
ethical issues concerning the idea of ‘development’. Thus, the Bridge can be seen as a symbol
of division between two different – and incompatible – development models in which growth
is opposed to underdevelopment, consumption to saving and authority to participation
(Pieroni and Ziparo 2012). These are contrasting orders of priorities in which the mutual
encounter, the compromise or the acceptance of the others’ point of view can be realistic
hypotheses if there are substantial procedures allowing a dialogue between the government
and the citizens on strategic decisions on development. These procedures become
fundamental especially when it comes to legitimizing infrastructure choices which will have
considerable impact on a territory for many years to come. These choices cannot be endorsed
simply by issuing a governmental decree.
It is also interesting to note that this movement has made use of the opinions
expressed by experts in several fields. Geologists, engineers, city planners, economists and
social scientists have shared their knowledge with the movement, producing a higher
awareness both in the movement itself and in its counter-public opinion (Pieroni 2012). Such
‘alternative expertise’ has given the movement a set of data, specialized studies and
scientifically-oriented technical language which have proved useful in their understanding of
very technical issues and in their standing when interacting with their counterparts. This
demonstrates that the movement has skilfully mobilized both material and non-material
resources. Specifically, it should be stressed that the conflict was based on
knowledge
, in
support of different forms of legitimacy and that the movement tried to expand through
counter-knowledge and experts the consensus on its position. However, it is not always easy
for ordinary citizens to interpret conflicts based on scientific matters and, as in the case of the
Bridge, this adds to the confusion on the implications of the dispute. Sometimes the scientific-
based debate has confounded the issues related to the factual sustainability of the
infrastructure with the potential negative social and cultural consequences of the Bridge. The
media played a key role, as they broadcast the propaganda for and against the bridge. As
pointed out by Mollica, ‘Such seeds of propaganda have taken root easily in a well-watered
ground, for public opinion had been made vulnerable by the offensives of official (or
perceived as such) sources, including leading newspapers. Metaphors and strongarm tactics
have been used in relation to all Messina Bridge-related issues. They have become a source of
biased interpretations of events and a fertile ground for subtle political agendas, which has
been continuously replenished by socio-economic narratives and their convenient
interpretations’ (2012: 65). And yet, this conflict has proved that a particular social group can
manage a difficult issue. In the recent past, the most detailed critique has been generally
