Tuesday, March 27, Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani is going to host the launch of “Politiche pubbliche” (“daily politics”), a book written by Professor Ezio Manzini, DESIS Network‘s founder.
Daily politics are those that each of us implement developing our own life goals and projects. They can confirm the tendency to develop new forms of connected solitude, or either to create flexible, open and inclusive communities who are, for this reason, resilient and socially sustainable.
“Politiche del quotidiano” finds in social innovation some examples of how, in hard times, the second path can be feasible. They teach us that, combining autonomy and collaboration, it is possible to develop unedited forms of design intelligences. For our own good, for its own’s community and for society as a whole.
Together with the author, the event is going to host Marianella Sclavi, Federica Fava and Bertram Niessen.
Martedì 27 marzo l’Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani ospiterà la presentazione di “Politiche pubbliche”, il nuovo libro del Professor Ezio Manzini, edito da Che Fare
Le politiche del quotidiano sono quelle che ciascuno di noi mette in atto sviluppando i propri progetti di vita. Esse possono confermare le tendenze verso nuove forme di solitudine connessa. Oppure concorrere a creare comunità flessibili, aperte e inclusive. E, per questo, resilienti e socialmente sostenibili.
Politiche del quotidiano trova nell’innovazione sociale esempi di come, anche in tempi difficili come questi, la seconda strada sia praticabile. Essi ci insegnano che, coniugando autonomia e collaborazione, è possibile sviluppare inedite forme di intelligenza progettuale. Per il bene proprio, della comunità di cui si è parte e della società nel suo complesso.
Ezio Manzini si occupa da molti anni di design per l’innovazione sociale e di come promuovere una nuova cultura del progetto. Su questi temi ha fondato una rete internazionale, DESIS Network, e svolge attività di ricerca e didattica in diverse università. Il suo ultimo libro, Design, When Everybody Designs, MIT Press, 2015, è stato pubblicato in 7 lingue.
Saranno ospiti dell’evento, insieme all’autore, Prof Marianella Sclavi, Federica Fava and Bertram Niessen, scientific director of CheFare.
Culturability – regenerating spaces to share is starting its tour with the aim of presenting the 2018 call promoted by Fondazione Unipolis in ten italian cities.
On Monday, March 26th, at 5.30 PM, the call we be presented in Rome at Fusolab2.0 (Viale della Bella Villa 94, Rome), in collaboration with LabGov – LABoratory for the GOVernance of the City as a Commons and Legacoop Nazionale.
During the event, the participants will be able to go through and deepen all the details of the call and ask question at a general or more specific level. It will also be an occasion to talk about the themes linked to the initiative – culture, social innovation and cohesion, collaboration and sustainability.
Fondazione Unipolis allocates for this call 450.000 euro for innovative cultural projects with a high social impact, aimed at regenerating and giving new life to abandoned spaces, buildings or ex industrial sites. 15 selected projects will have the opportunity of participating to a training path in June and July. In September, an evaluation committee will select between those the 6 finalists, that will receive 50.000 euro each and will continue the mentoring activity. The remaining 150.000 euros will be used to realize the training activities for the teams’ empowerment, for reimburses and support programmes.
Participants must register on Eventbrite to book a seat: http://bit.ly/2FqFKEF.
The call will be open until April, 20th. The call is open for NGO, private entreprises operating in the cultural field and informal teams with a majority of under 35 members. Projects must be sent online through the dedicated section on the website. For more information, please visit the official website https://culturability.org/
The initiative is in partnership with MIBACT (whose General Direction for Art, Contemporary Architecture and Urban Suburbs makes available economic resources for the sixth winning project, one more respect to the last call), Avanzi/Make a Cube³ and Fondazione Fitzcarraldo.
Culturability sta iniziando il tour 2018 per presentare il suo quinto bando, promosso da Fondazione Unipolis, in in dieci città italiane.
Il 26 marzo alle 17.30 la call sarà presentata a Roma presso Fusolab2.0, in collaborazione con LabGov e Legacoop Nazionale.
Nel corso dell’incontro sarà possibile approfondire tutti i dettagli della call e fare domande di carattere generale o legate alla propria idea. La serata sarà anche un’occasione per confrontarsi sulle tematiche al centro dell’iniziativa – cultura, innovazione e coesione sociale, collaborazione, sostenibilità – assieme agli ospiti presenti.
La Fondazione Unipolis stanzia 450 mila euro per progetti culturali innovativi ad alto impatto sociale finalizzati a rigenerare e dare nuova vita a spazi, edifici, ex siti industriali, abbandonati o sottoutilizzati. Fra le proposte pervenute, ne saranno selezionate 15 che avranno l’opportunità di partecipare a un percorso di formazione nei mesi di giugno e luglio. Tra queste, nel mese di settembre, una Commissione di Valutazione selezionerà i 6 progetti finalisti che riceveranno 50 mila euro ciascuno e continueranno l’attività di accompagnamento e mentoring. Gli altri 150 mila euro stanziati saranno utilizzati per realizzare le attività di formazione e accompagnamento per l’empowerment dei team, rimborsi spese per partecipare ai programmi di supporto.
Iscrizione obbligatoria su eventbrite a questo link: http://bit.ly/2FqFKEF
La call è aperta dal 22 febbraio alle ore 13 del 20 aprile 2018. Al bando possono partecipare organizzazioni no profit, imprese private che operano in campo culturale ricercando un impatto sociale e team informali con prevalenza di under 35. I progetti dovranno essere inviati online tramite la sezione dedicata del sito Culturability.
L’iniziativa si avvale della collaborazione del MIBACT (la cui Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura Contemporanee e Periferie Urbane ha messo a disposizione le risorse economiche per finanziare un sesto progetto vincitore, uno in più rispetto allo scroso anno), e della partnership con Avanzi/Make a Cube³ e Fondazione Fitzcarraldo.
On Thursday, February 22nd, the Bologna Urban Center is going to host the seminary “A one-year-long research: participation and imagination in the experience of Bologna’s Disctrict Labs“, organized by Ces.co.com in collaboration with Bologna Urban Center and Bologna Municipality,
During the seminary experts, local administrators and academics will show the achieved results and will open a debate on social innovation, urban regeneration, participatory democracy and community entrepreneurship: an asset of themes that are crossing the bolognese experience through the hard work of Civic Imagination.
The seminary will end with a focus on the involvement of migrant citizens, with the aim of thinking about new methods of active citizenship.
The event will start with an institutional welcome from Matteo Lepore (Comune di Bologna) and Mirko degli Espositi (Bologna University).
The first session will be conducted by Roberta Paltrinieri (Ces.co.com, Università di Bologna) and will host contributions from Giovanni Allegretti (Università di Coimbra, Portogallo), Andrea Boeri (Università di Bologna), Christian Iaione (LUISS-LabGov’s co-founder), Vincenza Pellegrino (Università di Parma). Conclusions by Giovanni Ginocchini (Urban Center Bologna).
The second session will be introducted by Lucia Fresa (Comune di Bologna), will be conducted by Giulia Allegrini (Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna), Bernardo Venturi (Agenzia per il Peacebuiliding) and will host contributions by Pierluigi Musarò (Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna), Stefania Paolazzi (URBAN CENTER BOLOGNA). Conclusions by Dino Cocchianella (Comune di Bologna Iperbole Rete Civica)
The full program is available here: http://www.urbancenterbologna.it/42-urbancenter/1679-una-ricerca-lunga-un-anno-partecipazione-e-immaginazione-nell-esperienza-dei-laboratori-di-quartiere-del-comune-di-bologna
Giovedì 22 febbraio 2018 dalle ore 10.15 la sala Atelier dell’Urban Center di Bologna ospiterà il seminario “Una ricerca lunga un anno. Partecipazione e immaginazione nell’esperienza dei Laboratori di Quartiere del Comune di Bologna”
The idea of proactive citizen engagement in Science and Policy-Making has recently attracted the institutional interest at the European Union level. In particular, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has often dealt with the topic in recent years. Worth to be quoted is the JRC Science for Policy Report “Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making” released in 2016 . The report shows an open and welcoming approach from the Commission towards citizen-driven contributions to science and policy. The JRC explicitly affirms (JRC, 2016, 3) that citizen engagement in heavily ‘expert-based’ sectors can “boost in democratic legitimacy, accountability and transparent governance”. Furthermore, the JRC acknowledges the potential of citizen involvement for enhancing “trust building among citizens and institutions as well as ownership of policy outcome. The Centre recognizes a shift from the mere “info-giving” to increasingly participatory deliberation practices “at each stage of the policy-making process” (JRC, 2016, 3) and, even more relevant, a push from “asking the citizens” to “co-creating with citizens” (JRC, 2016, 32).
Apart from increasing legitimacy and trust, the JRC stresses the benefits for the EC’s strategic planning itself, by underlining that people’s inputs “can offer a unique understanding of societal concerns, desires and needs” and thus a better targeting of EC’s actions. Moreover, the value of this contribution is identified in the provision by citizens of “evidence for policy-making and evaluation of policy decisions” as well as “ideas for new policies or services.”
The JRC in its report (JRC, 2016, 4) identifies also the main challenges to a proper inclusion of inputs from laymen’s knowledge in science and policy. First, the Centre stresses how the “predominant paradigm for policy-making is based on expert inputs (evidence based) in detriment of non-expert or lay knowledge coming from other parts of society.” The advice from the JRC to the Commission seems encouraging for more participatory practice and for a reconsideration of the “usefulness and validity of non-traditional inputs coming from citizens, communities or other groups”.
However, data quality and reliability of the knowledge fed by the lay people when it comes to inclusive science and policy seems crucial, together with transparency and disclosure of possible conflicts of interests. The modalities for gathering laymen’s input should be clearly defined and integration strategies properly agreed. Lastly, the need to go “beyond usual suspects” (the tech-connected wealthy citizens) in this inclusive science and policy is underlined by the report. At p.9 of the document (JRC, 2016, 9) a series of practical examples of citizen engagement in EU’s policy and science are illustrated, such as the initiatives ‘MakingSense’, ‘MyGEOSS’ and ‘DigitalEarthLab’.
The call of the JRC for a “dialogue across co-existing worldviews and knowledge production spaces in science, society and policy” (JRC, 2016, 7) seems particularly timely in present times in which the need of a dialogue between top and bottom stakeholders seems increasingly urgent. Facing Science and Policy-Making challenges through an inclusive and open-minded approach would contribute to the establishment of this dialogue. In the end, both top and bottom players share common interests or, at least, can constructively face each other’s needs to reach together a compromise, towards the establishment of a shared interest. In cases of post-normal science problems, the achievement of this shared or common interest will be even harder. However, those problems are highly of public interest and demand for the inclusion of all the concerned stakeholders in their governance.
 Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. 2016. Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. EUR 28328 EN, doi: 10.2788/40563.
Il presente articolo illustra la crescente necessità di coinvolgere il cittadino nei processi politici e scientifici, come percepita dalle istituzioni a livello europeo. In particolare, l’articolo focalizza l’attenzione sulla prospettiva del Joint Research Center (JRC) dell’Unione Europea sul tema. Viene illustrata la posizione del JRC, il quale incoraggia la creazione di un dialogo condiviso nell’interazione tra scienza, società e politica. Tale appello sembra di particolare attualità oggigiorno, in considerazione della complessità dei problemi che la nostra società deve affrontare. In effetti, le sfide odierne spesso riguardano interessi comuni a più attori sociali, ed il compromesso tra loro, come anche il reciproco ascolto, sembrano gli unici mezzi per raggiungere una definizione di “interesse comune”.
In my previous post I presented the phenomenon of Social Street and different ways of these neighbourhood communities to interact with their urban local government. After its publication I had the chance to discuss about it with Luigi Nardacchione, administrator and member of the group Residenti in Via Fondazza – Bologna, and founder – together with Federico Bastiani – of the website Social Street Italia. Our conversation was useful for resuming what has been said about Social Street so far and to clarify once more what we are exactly talking about.
Luigi Nardacchione and Federico Bastiani, administrators of the group “Residenti in Via Fondazza – Bologna” and founders of the website Social Street Italia. Credits: Facebook group Residenti in Via Fondazza – Bologna.
At the question what Social Street is, this is the usual and immediate Luigi’s answer: Social Street is sociality. «The aim is to facilitate the relationships and the acquaintance of neighbours, to re-create the sense of sociality». Sociality, therefore, is the most important goal to reach. All the initiatives, that every Social Street organizes – such as parties, walking tours, cooking laboratories, cleaning of the green public spaces, organisation of second hand markets, etc – have the single purpose to stimulate citizens in socialising. They represent a way, an “excuse”, to gather neighbours around common projects and interests. The will of maintaining members’ relations as first and main goal refers to the concept of «pure sociability», considered the most authentic and transparent model of interaction. In this perspective, sociality becomes a value and a good in itself.
A higher attention towards the urban territory arises in Social Streets’ members as a consequence of the increase in sociability and in activities done together in the area of residence. Indeed, the fact that meetings and events are organized in the neighbourhood makes residents more aware of public spaces: «we feel the territory as our own house, we claim it and we take care of it». This dimension has been already underlined by some members of the group Residenti in Via Fondazza whom I interviewed three years ago. After the Social Street creation and after meeting the neighbours living in the street, they recognize the sidewalks, the arcades and the street in general as an extension of their home. This brings members of Social Streets to notice negative behaviours or lack of attention towards the urban territory and to act consequently: «In one year and a half, every Sunday we met to clean all the entrance doors, all the gates and all the walls facing the street. We do it just because we are glad to do it and because we like to meet on Sundays». The presence of residents committed to this activity give the chance to other neighbours, who initially did not participate in Social Street or who were sceptical about it, to appreciate its values and to socialize more. Besides triggering the sociality in the area, this behaviour produces a second mechanism, similar to the one described by the theory of broken windows: many inhabitants of the street start to clean their own facades autonomously. «Instead than saying “it will be dirty again, why are you doing it?”, there is this virtuous mechanism, without getting angry. You do what you can without complaining».
What is fundamental, however, is that citizens’ care does not depend on the collaboration with the urban local government and it has not to be triggered in any case by the public administration’s request. «I claim the city because I live here, not because the municipality asks me to do so […] We can do everything without political and economic compromises. We want to show that this experiment [Social Street] is possible staying outside of the existing structures, because sociality is out of the system». Luigi mentions many examples of Social Streets that decided to establish a formal collaboration with the local government, both in Bologna and Milan, some of them also signing a collaboration pact. In Bologna the most part of parks and green areas are managed and cured by citizens – individuals or associated in formal organizations. This citizens’ attitude is not wrong generally and Luigi is not against either citizens/committees engaged in this kind of activities or the public administration that opens up this possibility. He does not agree with it just when Social Streets give more values and importance to this aspect than to the generation of sociality. Moreover, since the subjects formally involved in the maintenance and cleaning of public spaces are already numerous, Social Street does not need to base its activity from the same starting point. The possibility to take care of the urban territory is positive – reporting Luigi’s words – and it is possible that neighbours who met thanks to Social Street, decide afterwards to engage in the management of a common good collectively. Nonetheless, it has to remain characteristic of an individual agency, not of a collective and informal subject such as the Social Street that aims, firstly, to include everyone in socialisation practices. Inclusion, indeed, is a variable that strongly matters when one Social Street has to decide whether collaborating with the Municipality. Signing a collaboration pact implies getting closer to the political party that is leading the city at that moment. Some members of the group might disagree with political decisions of this party and, thus, disagree with their Social Street’s decision as well: the result would be that these specific members get distant from the group, not feeling included and engaged anymore. In Milan, really few Social Street – 28 out of 76 – decided to enrol in the official register for informal associations founded by the current municipality’s administration. According to Luigi, this happened because engaging in the research of solutions for collective problems or in the regeneration of urban spaces is not the first aim of Social Street. These aspects become important within Social Street framework only as vehicle of sociality.
Together with sociality, another solid idea emerging from Luigi’s words is that social initiatives do not need to be framed in the existing mainstream structure and political system to be innovative. They can bring innovation by being free, unformal and based on little, but always kept central, values: «Small revolutions are made on even smaller things, but these things have to be really clear».
L’articolo riassume il significato di Social Street, basato sul valore fondante della socialità. La cura verso gli spazi pubblici si sviluppa in un secondo momento e secondo Luigi Nardacchione, amministratore della prima Social Street e fondatore del sito Social Street Italia, questo non implica una collaborazione con la pubblica amministrazione. Anzi, l’intento originale è quello di non entrare nel sistema politico ed economico già esistente, ma dimostrare che le innovazioni possono svilupparsi anche da piccole iniziative, libere e indipendenti.
 All quotations refer to the conversation that I had with Luigi Nardacchione on 16/11/2017.
 Simmel G., 1997, La socievolezza, Roma: Armando.
 Kelling G. L., Wilson J. Q., 1982, Broken Windows: The police and neighbourhood safety, Atlantic Monthly, pp. 29-38.
 Regulation on civic collaboration for the urban commons.
 Avviso pubblico Social Street, politiche sociali, Comune di Milano