Report 4. Case Studies in Italy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Poster elaborated by the working table ‘Creative use of law.’ National Assembly of the Italian Network for the commons. Naples, Ex Asilo Filangieri, 17/2/2019. ERC-COG-2016-724692 HETEROPOLITICS Refiguring the Common and the Political D3.4 Author: Dr. Antonio Vesco Host Institution: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Principal Investigator: Dr. A. Kioupkiolis ERC COG 2016 (implementation 2017-2020) July 2020 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Ιntroduction to the case studies in Italy........................................................................5 Commons in Italy......................................................................................................6 Legal constructs for the practice of the commons in Italy......................................10 Urban movements and local institutions.................................................................16 Urban commons and Italian urban contexts............................................................18 Naples and Turin: two case studies in dialogue.......................................................22 The difficult management of the commons and the role played by rules................24 Attempts to found a national network of ‘common goods’.....................................25 The ethnographer and the morality of the commons: theoretical and methodological reflections.......................................................................................29 4. Case studies in Italy................................................................................................35 4.1. Naples................................................................................................................35 4.1.1. Ironic Naples. An introduction...................................................................35 4.1.2. This report..................................................................................................39 4.1.3. A new local government in dialogue with social movements....................40 4.1.4 Mayor De Magistris and the practical management of the commons.........47 4.1.5. The Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies: élites and institutions.......52 4.1.6. The Neapolitan commons network............................................................58 4.1.7. History of an occupation. From Teatro Valle to Ex Asilo Filangieri..........71 4.1.8. A common different from the others but in dialogue with everyone.........76 4.1.9. How l’asilo works......................................................................................79 Inhabitants, guests, users...............................................................................79 The internal geography of the space and the articulation of activities.........82 4.1.10. Assembly and conviviality.......................................................................84 4.1.11. Conviviality, politics, and the political....................................................88 4.1.12. Around l’asilo: the neighborhood............................................................91 4.1.13. Positioning oneself an ‘inhabitant:’ τhe constant questioning of the process...............................................................................................................100 4.1.14. L’asilo as an incubator: a space for processing legal knowledge..........108 2 Bottom-up mobilization, juridical perspectives, and the State............................................................................................................108 The force of law, the Neapolitan legal avant-garde and the North-South issue............................................................................................................116 4.1.15. The work of the commons: looking for the political beyond the law....121 Consensus and the ethics of the self.............................................................121 Art, culture, and politics...............................................................................125 4.1.16. Commons in ironic Naples. A conclusion..............................................128 Beyond l’asilo...............................................................................................131 4.2. Turin.................................................................................................................135 4.2.1. Commons in Turin: an introduction.........................................................135 4.2.2. The occupation and management of a public space in Turin...................139 What is Cavallerizza?. .................................................................................139 The institutional building of a common good...............................................142 4.2.3. From the center-left hegemony to the 5 Star Movement..........................145 The political and economic context..............................................................145 The new administration and the commons...................................................149 4.2.4. From CSOAs to commons: social movements and institutions in Turin...................................................................................................................153 4.2.5. People of Cavallerizza..............................................................................157 Two, three, n sub-communities.....................................................................157 Artists and politicians...................................................................................161 4.2.6. The ‘political’ in a community without trust: rules as a defensive weapon................................................................................................................169 4.2.7. Relationships: what kind of care?.............................................................173 Socializing distress: assembly and social media as incubators of sick relationships................................................................................................ 176 4.2.8. Turin and the hegemony of legal knowledge............................................178 The civic use process: writing the Regulation..............................................178 Law, power relationships and leadership issues..........................................183 4.2.9. The disintegration of a community and the disposal of a common good.....................................................................................................................189 3 4.2.10. Commons in Turin: a conclusion.............................................................194 The morality of the commons in Turin...........................................................197 References................................................................................................................200 4 REPORT 4 CASE STUDIES IN ITALY Common goods network national Assembly, February 2019 (Theatre, Ex Asilo Filangieri). Introduction The case studies in Italy have been selected taking into account the main experiences of commoning and self-government in recent years. The latter, with a few exceptions, are concentrated in urban contexts and have to do with the recovery of large, publicly owned buildings by communities of activists who have at heart the future of public property and the forms in which it is managed. At the same time, in all these cases, occupying a public building was a political act that allowed certain communities to experiment with new forms of politics from below. In several Italian urban areas, in recent years, heterogeneous communities of activists have mobilized in the name of ‘common goods’ (beni comuni), in order to propose new alternative forms of politics. The latter appear to be discontinuous both with the purely institutional vision of the management of public goods and with the mobilization practices that had characterized social movements in recent decades. This 5 is a real paradigm shift in the conception of politics from below. New movements have created new forms of political participation. The communities that have given rise to this new political process are heterogeneous and involve actors from different social and political spheres. The resulting experiences reveal many elements of interest for those who want to study the changes that the theory and politics of commons has introduced in the more general panorama of grassroots movements. The case studies in Italy were mainly conducted in two major cities, Naples and Turin. In both contexts, the dialogue between the new commons movements and local institutions was deepened, along with the different conceptions of the commons that have been built in these two contexts. They are two urban fieldworks that instantiate the different realization of the commons in political and social contexts that have very different histories. At the same time, they evince some elements of continuity. In both cities, the emergence of a grassroots mobilization for the commons took place at a time of profound changes in local political and institutional structures. These changes represented a possibility –a real breakthrough– for communities of activists who wanted to propose forms of politics in dialogue with local governments. This report therefore focuses on two major Italian cities and the main commoning experiences that have been initiated in them. The analysis of the political action of these movements was conducted in parallel with the analysis of the local political and institutional contexts. I did not adopt a properly comparative approach, although each of the two case