Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
42
presented by scholars and intellectuals belonging to varied fields in the
social sciences. In
some cases, however, the argument was presented in highly philosophical terms.
7
It is easy to
notice that some intellectuals discussed the Bridge while losing sight of the economic and
social dynamics closer to the daily life and real needs of citizens. This reflects the fact that,
although it has involved many lower-middle-class people, the opposition to the Bridge
originated in the counter-public sphere of the local upper-middle-class.
Also because of the dramatic increase in the subjects participating in the current public
debate, the institutional relationships have become intricate and for the majority of individual
citizens the ‘discussion room’ appears to have become smaller. Due to the absence of
institutional alternatives, citizens are forced to choose a collective subject that can give them a
voice, technical knowledge and a political and intellectual platform, but there is the risk of
poor communication between individual citizens and the various levels of representation of
the local movements. In other words, there is no chance for a single, untagged individual or
group without an organizational identity to express their opinions in the mainstream public
sphere. This leads to a double exclusion. One is imposed from the top, in the form of the
authoritarian strategy of the government. The other, results from social and cultural dynamics
leading to the success of certain protest movements with a strong élitist factor. After all, the
organized groups themselves have been involved in an artificial, indirect confrontation. A
RNP activist graphically stated, ‘Any confrontation has always been indirect; for example,
through newspapers. Many times a confrontation has started at a distance, through local
newspapers, which is not useful with regard to the complexity of the issue. […] The formal
debate is absolutely inconclusive. We have tried to create opportunities for discussing the
issue with the institutions and for participation opened to all, with no significant results. In the
end, all that we have obtained as a movement was indirect communication, a scarcely
fulfilling repetition of simple formulas devoid of reflection.’
The conflict has become an informal but definite space, where the most influential
stakeholders (in terms of the quality and the quantity of resources which can be activated)
operate in a framework devoid of rules. This absence of rules and places dedicated to
interaction between the parties leads to the production of a discourse marked by ideological
tones. The absence of places for interaction between politicians and civil society seems to
have a huge impact on the organizational strategy adopted by the no-Bridge movements. It is
interesting to note, for example, the constant search for ‘impressive’ communication
strategies, the on-going search for striking slogans, and so on. When the institutional dialogue
is blocked, when the indifference of the institutions and of the contracting companies
continues to stand, when national and local newspapers do not provide space for discussion
and the managing director of the ‘Stretto di Messina S.p.A.’ erects communication barriers
between himself and the local civil society, citizens’ movements look for alternative paths.
8
7
The case of Osvaldo Pieroni is emblematic. He is a sociologist and a member of the Committee
‘Between Scilla and Cariddi’, which was established in 1998, following the approval of the general
project. Pieroni has made high sociological-philosophical arguments against the Bridge.
8
The Ministry for Infrastructure and Transportation did not foster any form of dialogue in the
territories discussed here. Information about the infrastructure was fragmentary and of scarce
