Abstract
In many parts of the world these days there is widespread practical experimentation in grassroots initiatives which aim to improve the conditions of everyday life. Such local activism is called by many names reflecting different framings – self-organising, local civil society initiative, co-operatives, social enterprises, commoning, bottom-up governance, social innovation. The ambition of some of these initiatives is primarily focused on a specific locale and activity. The aim of other initiatives is wider – to experiment with alternative ways of providing public services and social infrastructures and to challenge and change prevailing governance regimes. Many activists and critical analysts argue that such initiatives are a response to the nexus of corporate capital and governance regimes inspired by neo-liberal philosophy, which privileges the economy over social and environmental realms while expecting individuals to take on more responsibility for their life conditions. The result, where such policies have been energetically pursued, has been the deterioration of services and infrastructures, along with deepening inequalities between those who reap the rewards of such policies and the rest of us. Neo-liberal advocates welcome the increase in grassroots initiative as a positive response to the reduction in state activity. Critics, in contrast, dream of a world where governments focus more on life’s social and environmental dimensions, and give more attention to the varied voices and experiences of the people they claim to represent. Does local, grassroots activism have any potential to bring this world into being? Can its collective impact have transformative effects on governance regimes?
It is this challenge which has been the focus of institutional economist Frank Moulaert’s work, directed by the concept of social innovation (see Moulaert and MacCallum 2019). By social innovation, he means “ a combination of the satisfaction of human needs, the building of solidarity-based social relations and empowerment towards socio-political transformation” (p.30). His arguments have interacted for many years with those of the political ecologist Eric Swyngedouw, more sceptical of the power of local agency, who argues for a more structural approach to power dynamics (see Swyngedouw 2018). In recent years, the political sociologist Bob Jessop has been drawn into their discussion, locating the discussion in arguments about the nature of the State (see Jessop 2020). All three work within a social ontology which emphasises the importance of solidarity and mutuality in human affairs, rather than the rational individualism so dominant in mainstream economics and promoted by neo-liberal philosophy. And all three have developed their thinking from a base in Marxist political economy, though in different ways.
The questions which are the focus of discussion between these three scholars will resonate with those which preoccupy students of social and political change, inspired by the innovative and transformative possibilities of grassroots social activism. In a public debate organised in KU Leuven, Belgium in 2019, the three were brought together to present their arguments, draw out their commonalities and differences, and engage in discussion. This book is the result. The authors refer to it as a ‘Dialogue Book’, as it is a record of their debate. The result is a rich text, full of claims, counter claims and linking arguments that usually can only be found in academic seminars and classrooms. Its central concern is how to realise the political potential of grassroots, ‘bottom-linked’ social activism. To quote: “It examines the strategies to turn (the) fragile relationship (between the (mutual) social and the (democratic) political) into proactive political actions and to build a nurturing socio-political dynamic … predicated on transforming the State from a control system promoting economic individualism and entrepreneurship .. to a system based on universal emancipation and collective solidarity” (p.119)
The book starts with a long narrative of the precursors and foundations of the concept of social innovation. It then picks up speed as each protagonist presents their arguments. Frank Moulaert starts the discussion by summarising how his interest in bottom-linked, socially-innovative governance grew out of a body of research investigating many empirical cases of integrated area development, urban restructuring projects and their impacts, efforts to challenge social exclusion and promote social cohesion in cities. (Note: This reviewer was involved in some of this research!). Implicitly challenging overly structural arguments about how transformative change happens, he argues that “if we want to work towards a durable transformation of State and civil society relationships, we need to take into account local initiatives and how they work with … bottom-linked democracy” (p.44). Moulaert’s researches illustrate the potentialities for socially innovative grassroots initiatives to promote alternative forms of governance. They also show the “necessity of dismantling the neo-liberal State’ and its practices” (p.56). But he does not support a more communitarian argument for the complete dismantling of the State. Instead he recognises that governance regimes will always be multi-scalar. He concludes that ‘bottom-linked governance’ initiatives are “triggers for both social and political change .. (and) represent a key for unlocking socio-political transformations that may bring us to the deep democracy we so desperately need” (p.57).
Next comes Eric Swyngedouw, who claims that “effective social transformation is enacted through political means rather than through innovative social practices” (p.61). For some time in his work, he has challenged the de-politicisation of the hegemonic techno-managerial forms of governance associated with neo-liberal regimes. He attacks the way mainstream political parties of western democracies focus on strengthening their economies, promoting globally competitive ‘growth’, while neglecting to attend to social injustices and environmental harms. He also criticises identity politics as seeking a place in the existing order rather than seeking to change it, while the focus on grassroots social innovations neglects the formation of the political alliances, which, in his view, are the only force which can carry sufficient power to displace neo-liberal techno-managerialism. So Swyngedouw argues for foregrounding “insurgent urban democratic acting, one that operates at a distance from the State and aims at transforming the instituted (governance) forms” (p.70). He states: “if one wants to change the world, this has to start from the streets, from public space” (p.70). For him, such protesting is the essence of ‘the political’, as understood by French scholars such as Alain Badiou, rather than merely the experimental ‘doing and making’ involved in many local civil society initiatives.
Bob Jessop’s contribution is to review these apparently opposing positions within a wider framework of the relations between capitalism, the State and civil society. Drawing on inspirations from Gramsci and Foucault, he urges those promoting social innovation to read the specific ways these three forces come together, the particular conjunctures which occur in time and space, and the opportunities and limits available for transformative dynamics. He argues that current governance regimes emphasise hierarchical modes of control and market-based, competitive forms of innovation. But these fail in addressing the complexity of the challenges faced. Instead, he suggests those seeking to transform governance regimes should explore and enact modes of governance based on networks and solidarity. Drawing on his own recent work, he suggests opposing neoliberalism through the promotion of social enterprise rather than self-emancipation, empowerment rather than deregulation, use-value rather than exchange value, fair trade not free trade. In such a governance regime, a re-designed State would support bottom-linked mechanisms.
All three presentations provide provocations for the discussion which follows, constructed from the questions asked by members of the seminar audience and the response of the three scholars. As a reader, full of questions after reading the presentations, I found this the most engaging part of the book, as my thoughts were echoed in the flow of discussion. Debates and discussions are after all key ways in which each of us tries to work out how we ourselves think about issues we puzzle over. The authors provide their own reflections on the debates in a final chapter. In searching for ways of escaping from a techno-managerial and hierarchical controlling state, they re-iterate the importance of the search for a kind of emancipation based on solidarity rather than disciplinary force. They argue for reviving a politics in which everyone feels they have a stake and which promotes equality. They stress the necessity of overcoming the separation of “economic, political, social, ecological and cultural lifeworlds” (p.130) into separate spheres of policy and administration, and the importance of civil society initiatives in showing why this re-integration is important and how it could be done. They suggest that such initiatives should become more politically aware and astute in order to push transformative opportunities harder, while continuing to build the experience of working in solidarity. Finally, they reflect on moments of opportunity for transformative initiative, enhancing the awareness that will allow such moments to be grasped and expanded, and the need for intellectuals like themselves to find a place on the “political stage”. Rather mournfully, they conclude that “politicians and public managers today have become so intellectually dull that they prefer to listen to the advice of consultants arriving overnight with a bucket list of ‘things to do’ rather than take time to discuss with scientists the complexity of a societal problem that needs to be addressed”( p.145).
This book will be helpful for all those seeking to clarify their thoughts about the progressive potential of grassroots self-organising initiative, and about what it takes to transform governance regimes infected with neo-liberal philosophy into ones which could release the energy of civil society activism in promoting a more just and sustainable world. I too have struggled with these issues (Healey 2022). My own sympathies lie more with those of Moulaert and Jessop. For me, governance regimes are never such hard and fast structures as implied by generalisations about techno-bureaucracy. Instead, they are an aggregate of multiple organisations and communities of practices, responding to internal contradictions as well as external pressures and top-down political edicts. And how this aggregate works varies from region to region and country to country. In my own context, of the UK, and of England within it, local self-organising initiatives are proliferating. I am also aware of several networks connecting public agencies, local governments and community groups, seeking to transform the practices of public administrations into ones which prioritise building relationships among the people they are there to serve and delivering public services in sensitive and supportive ways. And popular pressure, enhanced by the pandemic, is pushing much more attention to mutual social care and care for the environment. Structurally, what is needed to release these dispersed, but nevertheless potentially transformative, pressures is significant decentralisation of the legislative and tax raising powers of our highly centralised state, and a commitment to rebuilding our public services in ways which support the strengthening of the social infrastructures which support social life and environmental care and which often bring economic benefits too. And as for us intellectuals, in a world where the public sphere is fragmented among very many different and shifting platforms, we too need to move from the computer screen and lecture hall into the many worlds around us, and out onto the street, both actually and digitally, not necessarily to protest, but to learn what concerns our neighbours have, to insert what knowledge we have in helpful ways to those around us, and to convey what we have learned, critically or supportively, depending on context, to those shaping governance regimes. Books such as this one help hone our antennae as we make such moves.