Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
44
movement’s activism against the Bridge. In addition to the support of the governmental actors
and the business world, the issue of the Bridge project seems to have reached a consensus
among important sectors of the Sicilian and Calabrian populations. Compared with the recent
past, many more citizens now foresee the possibility of getting a job through the opening of
the first building sites and the awarding of building contracts. It is not coincidental that some
of the movement’s recent actions have been opposed and openly criticized by the local
population. These difficulties appear harder to overcome for the movement, which generates
conflict in Southern Italian society between who is ‘for’ and who is ‘against’ the Bridge. The
new and unexpected inconveniences that these events have caused for the movement
demonstrate its inability to connect to the lower middle strata of the population, which have a
tendency to be in favour of the Bridge.
As it emerges from their interviews, the historical opponents of the Bridge continue to
show their disapproval, claiming that the business interests of a few people – harshly
criticized in the period 2002-2006 – are once again disguised by the promise of economic
growth for the chronically underdeveloped local areas. At this point of the conflict, one
observes that ‘the promise of work’ becomes a new source of legitimization and consensus in
the territories around the Strait. Questions about local consensus and its social implications
arise inside the movement; in the words of an activist, ‘The opening of the first construction
sites has certainly influenced the opinion of many citizens. Some have started thinking that
the realization of the Bridge might be an economic opportunity to be taken advantage of. I am
not only referring to the construction sites directly related to the Bridge, but to all
supplementary infrastructures. […] I am talking about the small sites involving small local
enterprises. This is an industry which achieves consensus. Many people have started thinking
that the Bridge will generate employment, which is important in an area characterized by
economic and employment difficulties.’
This change in ordinary people’s views has led the movement to intensify its actions
in the local communities in order to try to connect to the local actors. The support of the
population – or of its important sections – is a crucial element for any protest movement. In
this sense, from a sociological perspective, it is interesting to see the current confrontation
between the representatives of the movement and the more ‘disadvantaged’ citizens. As a
RNP activist reported to us, ‘I am referring to citizens who are almost illiterate but hold an
opinion on this issue. They tell me: “I see and totally understand what you (the movement)
want to do. I am from Messina and I know that the Bridge cannot be built there; but let’s be
very clear: I am a manual labourer and, in one year, I have been unemployed for 250 days. If
a construction site is opened, even only to dig a hole, and I am hired, what should I do?”’
Our informants in the movement claim that the central government has managed to
achieve a broad consensus by giving erroneous information on the real economic and
employment benefits connected to the building of the Bridge. For example, 4,500 workers
would be expected to be involved in the construction process of the Bridge; but, the
movement’s activists say, the fact has been omitted that the skills required are absent in the
