Cultures of Participation in Social Movements

Cultures of Participation in Social Movements Donatella della Porta (European University Institute) and Alice Mattoni (University of Pittsburgh) PRE-PRINT VERSION TO BE PUBLISHED AS Della Porta, D. & Mattoni, A., 2012. Cultures of Participation in Social Movements. In A. Delwiche & J. Jacobs Henderson, eds. The Participatory Cultures Handbook. London: Routledge, pp. 170–181. Available at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415882231/ [Accessed October 24, 2012]. Introduction Mainstream definitions of democracy stress its representative character: the institutional rules to elect representatives are considered as the main indicator for the presence or absence of democracy. From the normative point of view, this means that accountability is considered as mainly linked to electoral practices. In existing democracies, however, this type of accountability is challenged by a decline in electoral participation and, more generally, conventional forms of political participation (such as membership in political parties). Consequently, there is an increasing mistrust, not in democracy as a principle, but in the functioning of democratically representative institutions. Additionally, transformations in media systems have been said to reduce the possibilities for citizens to hold their elected officials accountable, as commercialization of media foments a personalization and spectacularization of politics. In part as a reaction to these perceived challenges to representative democratic institutions, alternative conceptions of democracy have emerged and re-emerged. As Pierre Rosanvallon’s has observed in his recent publication on Counterdemocracy, ”the idea of popular sovereignty found historical expression in two different ways. The first was the right to vote, the right of citizens to choose their own leaders. This was the most direct expression of the democratic principle. But the power to vote periodically and thus bestow legitimacy to an elected government is almost always accompanied by a wish to exercise a more permanent form of control over the government thus elected” (Rosanvallon, 2006, 12). As he notes, in the historical evolution of democracy, near to the growth of institutions of electoral accountability, there has been the consolidation of a circuit of oversight anchored outside of state institutions. In fact, the understanding of democratic experiences requires the consideration of the “functions and dysfunctions” of electoral representative institutions and the organization of distrust. In what follows, we will discuss how social movements have nurtured visions of “another democracy,” stressing its participatory quality. We shall add, however, that the meaning of participation changed in place and time, so that we can single out different cultures (plural) of participation. In particular, contemporary social movements’ participatory visions have been linked to deliberative ones, with a new emphasis on consensus building. The stress on dialogue makes conceptions and practices of communication all the more important. Different cultures of participation are also at work also with regard to the use of media in the social movement milieu, both with regard to interpersonal and intergroup communicative practices to organize mobilizations and to the development of media practices oriented towards the creation of alternative media. Participatory practices in social movements While in representative conceptions of democracy social movements remain at the margin, they acquire instead a central position in participatory conceptions. In the debate on transformations in democracy, social movements appear 1 to play a potentially crucial role. Recognizing the democratic potential of mistrust means, in fact, to push forward the reflections of the democratic role played by non-institutional actors in the political system. Recent research on political participation noted that while some more conventional forms of participation are declining, protest forms are instead increasingly used. Citizens vote less, but are not less interested and knowledgably about politics. And if some traditional types of associations are less and less popular, others (social movement organizations and/or civil society organizations) are growing in resources, legitimacy and members. They are in fact considered as most relevant for conceptions of democracy in which society has a voice, collective sentiments can be articulated, judgments on the governments and its action are constructed, counter-knowledge (or counter-expertise) is formulated and demands are issued (Rosanvallon, 2006, 20). Not by chance, social movements, especially of the left, challenged representative conceptions of democracy, promoting different democratic qualities. In their “metapolitical critique” these movements suggest an alternative conception of politics itself (Offe, 1985). In this sense, they kept alive in their theorization and practices “an ancient element of democratic theory that calls for an organisation of collective decision making referred to in varying ways as classical, populist, communitarian, strong, grass-roots, or direct democracy against a democratic practice in contemporary democracies labelled as realist, liberal, elite, republican, or representative democracy” (Kitschelt, 1993, 15). From a diachronic (or historical) perspective, it is possible to see different cultures of participation and conceptions of democracies. As it emerged, the labour movement did not limit itself to the promotion of social rights, but also proposed and practiced alternative democratic values (della Porta, forthcoming; Sewell, 1980; Thompson, 1991). While in liberal conceptions of democracy, political rights were essentially individual ones, the labour movement supported the right of association as a collective right (Bendix, 1964). In addition, the labour unions joined forces with other movements (such as the Chartist in Great Britain) in order to extend electoral participation, pushing for universal suffrage. Beyond democratic claims addressed to political institutions, the labour movement also at times experimented with organizational models that went beyond representation. Direct forms of democracy were kept alive and re-emerged in periodic surges of internal criticism against internal bureaucratization. Grassroots organizing based on equal participation primarily developed during cycles of protest. The reading societies and other associations linked to the labour movement worked as spaces of debates, contributing to the development of alternative publics. When the New Left emerged in the 1960s, a main criticism addressed the institutionalization of the Old Left, with a call for a renewed vision of participatory democracy. The antiauthoritarian frame, typical of the student movement, promoted claims of self-management and democracy from below. At least since the 1960s, social movements have in fact criticized delegation as well as oligarchic and centralized power, legitimating instead forms of direct participation and grass-roots, horizontal, egalitarian organizational models. These claims became central in the so-called new social movements: the women’s movement introduced the consideration of the personal as political organizing in consciousness raising groups; the peace movement developed affinity groups; the environmental movements pushed for grassroots organizing. Transnational social movements and cultures of participation These historically rooted cultures of participations survived within various social movement organizations, contributing to contemporary debates on democracy. Contemporary movements are now blending these core values with an emerging interest in deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy refers to the decisional processes which occur under conditions of equality, inclusiveness and transparency, and where communicative process based on reason 2 (the strength of a good argument) are able to transform individual preferences, leading to decisions oriented to the public good (della Porta, 2005). Recent movements, especially the Global Justice Movement (GJM), have emphasized consensus building as a main democratic quality. They put an emphasis on preference (trans)formation with an orientation to the definition of the public good, stressing argumentation and dialogue. Participation has in fact maintained a relevant, though plural, meaning for the organizations belonging to the GJM (della Porta, 2009b, 2009c). Its nature as “movements of movements” is reflected in the presence of a plurality of conceptions and practices of democracy. In particular, participation acquires different meanings in different movement areas. In the organizations rooted in the Old Left participation and delegation are seen as highly compatible, and the stress on participation appears as a recovery of original values of democratic centralism. For the New Left groups, the emphasis is on direct democracy and selforganization, while for the new social movement organizations stress the prefigurative role of participation as a “school of democracy.” Finally, searching for coherence between their criticism of existing democratic institutions and their internal practices, the organizations emerged with the GJM elaborate counter-models that combine concrete proposals of reform with a utopian aspect (Reiter, 2009). Even if rooted in different cultures of participation, most of the organizations studied in the Demos project which examined activists groups using a web-based platform to increase participation between citizens and government officials, (della Porta, 2009b) show an increasing attention to the discursive quality of democracy with an emphasis on four elements that are usually stressed in normative theory on deliberative democracy: the transformation of preferences, the orientation to the public good, the use of arguments, and the development of consensus. Sometimes explicitly (with references to the concept of deliberative democracy), more often not, the organizations of the GJM adopt deliberative norms. First of all, they stress that there are no easy solutions to complex social problems, or derived from big ideologies. Many conflicts must be approached by reliance on the potential for mutual understanding that might develop in an open, high-quality debate. The notion of a common good is often recalled (e.g. water as a common good) as is democracy as a common good, which is constructed through communication, exchanging ideas, knowledge sharing. The value of discussion among “free and equal” citizens is mirrored in the positive emphasis on diversity and inclusion, but also in the attention paid to the development of structured arenas for the exchange of ideas, with the experimentation of some rules that should allow for horizontal flows of communication and reciprocal listening. Consensus is mentioned by half of the organizations analyzed in the Demos research as a general value as well as an organizational principle in internal decision making. In fact, even though social movement organizations have stressed conflict as a dynamic element in society, more and more they tend to balance it with a commitment to different values, such as dialogue and mutual understanding. Consensus is presented as an alternative to majoritarian decisionmaking which is accused of repressing and/or alienating minorities. Consensual decision making, instead, increases the awareness of collective contribution to decisions. In addition, the dialogue between different points of views would help “working on what unites,” constructing a shared vision while respecting diversity. Cultures of participation based upon consensus building spread transnationally, in particular thanks to the symbolic impact and concrete networks built around the Zapatistas experience and the following adoption of consensual principles and practices in the Social Forum process. Dedicated publications, workshops and training courses helped the diffusion of consensual practices and the principle of consensus in the movement. Here as well, however, we have to note the multiple meanings attached to consensus as a special quality of cultures of participation. In particular, when coupled with an assembleary, horizontal tradition, the consensual decision making is perceived as a way to reach a collective agreement that reflect a strong communitarian identity. This vision, 3 particularly widespread among small and often local groups within the autonomous tradition, resonates with an antiauthoritarian emphasis and an egalitarian view. In these cultures, group life assumes a prefigurative value. An alternative, and more pragmatic, view is spread in the new (even transnational) networks. Here, consensual decisionmaking is accompanied especially by an emphasis on diversity and the need to respect it, but also improve mutual understanding through good communication (della Porta, 2009a). Within this general attention to the participatory and deliberative qualities, visions and practices of democracy in the GJM vary. Debates tend to develop on the intrinsic democratic qualities of participation and deliberation. First, participatory conceptions that stress inclusiveness of equals (high participation) are contrasted with those based upon the delegation of power to representatives (low participation). In this sense, there is a continued presence of direct forms of democracy that put a strong emphasis on the assembly, but also processes of institutionalization of social movement organizations (often stressed in social movement research in the last two decades) that have spread a principle of delegation of power. A second dimension refers to the prevalence of majoritarian decision making based upon vote versus public discussion, the common good, rational arguments, and transformation of preferences. The traditional use of the vote as a decision making mechanism even within the assembleary organizational model has been challenged by the emerging emphasis on values and practices that stress good communication. If all these diversities created tensions inside the GJM, they however also made possible a cross-fertilization between different models: the development of new forms, such as modern networks, but also a transformation of already existing groups. Communication has been seen as fundamental in order to keep diverse actors together. Communicative practices and cultures of participation In the previous section, we illustrated the existence of different cultures of participation and conceptions of democracy in social movements, in the past and in the present. Whether individual activists or activist groups, social movement actors experiment with different democratic practices to make ordinary and extraordinary decisions about themselves and their actions in the political realm. As underlined above, good communication is particularly relevant in order to sustain and practice effective forms of participatory democracy based on the transformation of preferences and the development of consensus. Communicative mechanisms have a great importance in the construction of relations within and beyond the social movement milieu (Mische, 2008). Communicative practices are essential in the achievement of satisfactory instances of participatory and deliberative democracy within social movement networks. In settings like assemblies and preparatory meetings for subsequent collective actions, activists participate to deliberative processes according to a model of synchronous participation. They engage in face-to-face interactions that are spatially and temporally situated. The co-presence of activists that participate in the discussion is essential to reach common decisions. This is true in local affinity groups as well as in transnational social movement networks. Communicative practices, however, may be also sustained through media, technological supports enabling the exchange of information between individuals and groups of individuals. Depending on the culture of participation at stake, media may be used in different ways to sustain communicative practices. In the case of transnational social movements, where preparatory meetings and assemblies are particularly important to organize mobilization, media may be used to involve lay citizens. Individual activists and activist groups employ media – from leaflets to radios, from mobile phones to mailing lists – to inform people within and beyond the social movement 4 milieu about the organization of a public assembly where lay citizens, together with activists, are called to take decisions about future collective actions. In this regard, media are employed to enhance and expand participation of activists and potential activists to those moments of deliberation in which social movement actors experiment with new forms of democracy. In this sense, the media sustain future forms of synchronous participation revolving around face-to-face communication. However, these moments of synchronous participation does not always take place. The rising of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and, in particular, the spread of portable and personal digital devices such as mobile phones have sustained, in some cases, the emergence of more immediate forms of collective action. A relevant example in this direction are the demonstration in Spain after the terroristic attacks in March 2004 when the use of brief text messages calling for protest in the street spread quickly amongst the citizens of Madrid, resulting in a public demonstration of 20,000 people in the streets of the capital city (Sampedro, 2005). In this specific case, there were no collective moments of discussion and deliberation where social movement actors prepare mobilizations, planned protest strategies, or constructed common claims. The participation in the demonstration followed a different pattern in which the time for collective organization and the space for political reflection basically shrunk in the immediacy of mobile text messages. This specific media, therefore, promoted massive participation in a demonstration which was mostly based on an individualized culture of participation. Similar observations may arise when considering the employment of “social networking sites” (boyd & Ellison, 2007), such as Facebook, that seem to enhance a strong politics of the self in which a culture of political participation based on “mutual individualism” prevails (Barassi & Fenton, 2010). Individual activists and activist groups taking part in local, national and transnational social movement networks also employ media to engage in processes of asynchronous participation sustained through ICTs and, in particular, internet applications or web platforms. Mailing lists, for instance, can be seen as means of discussion allowing for a many-to-many model of communication similar to the one that characterize public assemblies and preparatory meetings. Asynchronous participation based on computer-mediated communication intertwines with synchronous participation based on face-to face interactions in these movements as it has been shown in the case of the transnational Euro Mayday Parade network against precarity – the lack of access to steady employment (Mattoni, 2008) - and for the European Social Forum (Kavada, 2005). In the European Social Forum, the one-to-one model of communication behind email exchanges among individual activists, the one-to-many model of communication behind informational websites set up by activist groups, and the many-to-many model of communication behind mailing lists involving an entire community of individual activists and activist groups intertwined and recombined according to different articulations (Kavada, 2005). Similarly, organization of the Euro Mayday Parade, a transnational parade against precarity occurring since 2004, was sustained by a network of activist groups rooted in different European countries, through online and offline communication. The online and offline environments were not mutually exclusive for the organization of the demonstration. Rather, deliberative processes took part both online, through the mailing list, and offline, through preparatory meetings. The offline preparatory meetings agendas were set collectively online 5 through the mailing list, where discussions to organize the parade continued even after preparatory meetings ended (Mattoni, 2008). Also at the analytical level, the online and offline realms were not in opposition in that they were part of a continuum that activists experienced in its totality and complexity when involved in this unconventional form of political participation.1 Activist Media Practices and Cultures of Participation Along with communicative practices, social movement actors also engage in creation of their own media, usually labeled alternative (Atton, 2002; Couldry & Curran, 2003a), radical (Downing, 1984), autonomous (Langlois & Dubois, 2005) or community (Hackett, 2007) media, with each term highlighting some specific aspects of them.2 The production of alternative media outlets and the creation of alternative technological infrastructures are deeply linked to the social movement milieu. Political participation, here, acquires a specific meaning in that it is oriented in the production and diffusion of alternative and radical media cultures in societies. Far from being merely oriented towards the creation of content and infrastructures, this specific set of “activist media practices” (Mattoni, 2009) is inherently political. Indeed, these media create spaces which oppose the dominant cultures in a direct manner and, hence, challenge mainstream and mass media power that detain the monopoly over the naming of realities (Couldry & Curran, 2003b). These various activist media practices oriented towards the creation of alternative media share many features. They also differ in many respects. For instance, they may involve different creation and distribution technologies, from pieces of papers for leaflets to internet infrastructures to set up and develop an informational website. Therefore, they also change according to the technological availability of a certain moment in time and space (McCurdy & Feigenbaum, 2010). Activist media practices may also be based on and hence mobilize different cultures of participation. Alternative media, indeed, may be radical with regard to processes that lead to their production and to the very form that they take as final products (Atton, 2002). Three dimensions of media practices, and their related axes, are relevant to understand and categorize cultures of participation through alternative media: collectiveness, openness, and possession. The degree of collectiveness in the creation of alternative media outlets and technological infrastructures is the first axis. At one end of the axis there are those activist media practices that involve the collective production of alternative media outlets. The creation and production of electronic media in Latin America (Rodriguez, 2001), Telestreet in Italy (Ardizzoni, 2010; Berardi, Jacquemet, & Vitali, 2003) or grassroots street newspapers in North America (Howley, 2005) all involve a group of individuals, either activists or non-activists, who make decisions collectively. In this regard, the creation of alternative media outlets and alternative media texts, like radio broadcasts or newspaper articles, also contribute to the empowerment of people participating to such processes. Individuals involved in the production of alternative media outlets and texts regain their voice in societies, speak for themselves and do not delegate their narratives to any external media professional (Rodriguez, 2001). In doing so, these individuals change the way in which they think about themselves and undertake a process of subjectivity empowerment and citizenship enactment.3 At the other end of the axis, there are media practices that involve individual participation in the creation of alternative media outlets and texts. Blogs, for instance, are usually, though not always, managed by individuals and not 1 Although this is not the focus on this chapter, it has to be mentioned that specific forms of politcal participation taking place in the online realm also developed in the recent past. For a discussion on this issue see Jordan (2002; 2004) and Costanza-Chock (2003). 2 For a comprehensive discussion on different types and model of alternative media outlets see Hadl (2007) and Atton (2007). 3 For this reason, Clemencia Rodriguez suggests to call these media outlets ‘citizen media’ (Rodriguez, 2001) 6 by groups of individuals. In this case, the individual writing online engages in the production of “challenging codes” (Melucci, 1996) that oppose the dominant system of meanings. Her/his alternative media texts could be easily accessed, reproduced, circulated, and even debated online and offline. In this way, the alternative media text may become part of discussions in the general public sphere and hence gain a certain degree of collectiveness. During the Second Persian Gulf War, for instance, the famous blogger Salaam Pax wrote reports on his daily life in Baghdad and offered an alternative point of view on war narratives proposed by Western media corporations. Soon his blog became known worldwide, and his posts spread in through a variety of media outlets. From his home in the bombed Baghdad, therefore, Salaam Pax was part of a collective debate on a global scale. But he conceived and wrote his posts alone. This example shows that what changes most in the creation of these alternative media texts, such as post in blogs, is the communicative act behind their creation which is individual and not collective, experienced alone and not shared with others. The degree of openness of participation in the making of alternative media outlets and alternative media text is the second axis. In this case, at one end of the axis there are those alternative media outlets that are easily accessible and, as such, can be considered open to a variety of contributions. At the other of the axis, there are those alternative media outlets that tend to revolve around a small, closely knit group of activists. In the Italian mobilizations against precarity, two different models of participation have been observed in the creation of alternative media outlets and texts that could be put at the two opposite end of this axis (Mattoni, 2009). On the one hand, there are the activists who considered it more fruitful to develop a communication tool available to everyone, not only as media audiences but also as media producers. Indymedia Italy was based on an open-publishing system that granted the anonymity of those who wished to publish articles, comments and other contributions. Participation in the newsmaking process, therefore, rendered Indymedia Italy and similar Independent Media Centres in other parts of the word a medium in which activist and non-activists engage in direct democratic practices (Coyer, 2005). On the other hand, there are the activists who preferred to create their own communication tool with which to organize participation in protest events and offer their own particular political analysis. The informational website Global Project, for instance, was organized through informal groups of activists who acted as decentralized local newsrooms sending their contributions to the website. While in Indymedia Italy comments were admitted, anonymous and unmoderated, the Global Project website did not provide for comments. The degree of possession of the media outlet and/or technological infrastructure is the third axis. At one end of this axis there are individual activists or activist groups that use media outlets not situated in the social movement milieu. Although activists and non-activists participate either individually or collectively in the production of alternative media content, they do not own or control the media outlet. An example, here, are individual activists and activist groups who decide to use, for strategic and tactical reasons, already existing applications such as Facebook and YouTube. In other words, social movement actors are actively involved in “mainstreaming the alternative” media content (Askanius & Gustafsson, 2009). For instance, in recent mobilizations against the financial cuts to the public education system in Italy many unconventional political actors established their presence in social networking sites (Caruso, Giorgi, Mattoni, & Piazza, 2010). Since social movement actors do not control these web applications, they have to adapt to the technological constraints and aesthetic appearance set by the owner of the platform. Moreover, in employing these applications they implicitly accept control over content they produce when uploading alternative content. At the other end of the axis, there are individual activists and activist groups that decide to employ alternative media outlets and technological infrastructures that could be positioned within social movement milieu. Indeed, sometimes social movement actors also participate in the production of the technological infrastructure hosting 7 alternative media content and develop “communicative emancipatory practices” (Milan, 2009). A relevant example in this direction are Independent Media Centers, a “new genre of do-it-yourself media” (Kidd, 2010) first created during the November 1999 protest against the World Trade Organization in Seattle and then spread across the world. Conclusions In the social sciences, the recent focus on democratic qualities points to tensions between different democratic values and goals. Various definitions of democracy can, in fact, be counterpoised with each linked to specific values. Representative democracy resonates with terms such as efficiency, delegation, individual, majoritarian, vote, institutions, procedures, instrumentality, singular, professionalism. Participatory “counter-democracy” privileges inclusion, direct exercise of power, associative practices, discursive deliberation, the society, the process, the normative, plurality, the lay citizens. If the historical evolution of representative democracy has privileged some of these values, the renewal of democracy should bring about a re-evaluation and adaptations of elements that (such as control, participation, deliberation) were well present in the “ancient” conceptions of democracy. Old or new (or even newest), the different elements of what Rosanvallon (Rosanvallon, 2006, 16) defined as counter-democracy “do not represent the contrary of democracy, but instead the form of democracy that contrast the other, the democracy of indirect powers that are disseminated in the social body, the democracy of the organized defiance face to the electoral legitimacy.” Marginal actors in representative democracy, social movements acquire instead more and more relevance in (participatory) conceptions of counter-democracy, as they contribute to the creation of critical public spheres (e.g. Cohen, 1989; Dryzek, 2000; Young, 2003) or, more in general terms, enclaves free from institutional power (Mansbridge, 1996). Social movements have historically promoted and kept alive cultures of participation in at least two ways. On the one hand, they experiment with democracy in its internal practices; on the other, they develop proposals for a democratic reform of institutions at different levels. In this way, they emphasize some democratic qualities that are less and less present in, and cherished by contemporary institutions. As we observed, however, even within social movements conceptions of participation vary. In recent periods, participation has been bridged with deliberation. With a positive value given to the networking of diversity, the Global Justice Movement conceive of participation as a continuous dialogue oriented to the definition of public goods (democracy being one of them). In these emerging cultures of participation a particular emphasis is put on good communication. Communicative mechanisms and practices amongst social movement actors are indeed important in the making of democracy within the social movement milieu. In order to set the ground for mobilization, individual activists and activist groups engage in preparatory meetings and assemblies where participation is essential to take collective decisions about how, why and when to act. During these essential moments synchronous communicative practices take place. Through the use of media technologies, collective discussions and confrontation also take place according to asynchronous communicative practices. However, the latter do not replace the former. Rather, social movement actors tend to rely on both synchronous and asynchronous participation. Innovations in the media environment, like the one produced by the rise of ICTs, may actually support new forms of political participation based on the individual level of immediate commitment and engagement in public protests, rather than on the collective level of preparatory meetings and assemblies to prepare mobilization. The qualities of informal political participation in an era of digital and portable media are hence changing and deserve further research. Social movement actors also engage in the creation of their own media. Like interpersonal and intergroup communicative practices, activist media practices oriented towards the creation of alternative media are linked with and at the same time sustain different cultures of participation. Three axes seem to be particularly useful to understand this 8 linkage: 1) the degree of collectiveness in the creation of alternative media content and infrastructures, 2) the degree of openness in the making of alternative media content, and 3) the degree of possession of the infrastructures on which the alternative media outlet or content is originally published. Combining the three dimensions, we can analytically single out alternative media base on different cultures of participation. On one hand, there are alternative media messages spread through outlets that are open, based on collective participation and rooted in autonomous technological infrastructures. On the other hand, there are alternative media messages spread through outlets that are close, based on individual participation, and rooted in commercial technological infrastructures. In the middle, there are multiple combinations that render even more plural the meaning of cultures of participation when addressing activist media practices in contemporary societies. Bibliographical References Ardizzoni, M. (2010). 'Neighborhood Television Channels in Italy: The Case of Telestreet', pp. 171-184 in M. Ardizzoni & C. Ferrari (eds), Beyond Monopoly: Globalization and Contemporary Italian Media. Lanham: Lexington Books. Askanius, T., & Gustafsson, N. (2009). Mainstreaming the alternative: Changing Media Strategies of Protest Movements, II Global Conference on Shaping Europe in a Globalized World? Protest Movements and the Rise of a Transnational Civil Society. Zurich. Atton, C. (2002). Alternative Media. London: Sage. Atton, C. (2007). 'Current Issues in Alternative Media Research', Sociological Compass, 1(1), 17-27. Barassi, V., & Fenton, N. (2010). Alternative Media and Social Networking Sites: the Politics of Individuation and Political Participation, Communication and Citizenship - IAMCR Conference. Braga, Portugal. Bendix, R. (1964). Nation Building and Citizenship. New York: Wiley & Sons. Berardi, F., Jacquemet, M., & Vitali, G. (2003). Telestreet. Macchina immaginativa non omologata. Milano: Baldini Castoldi Dalai. boyd, M. D., & Ellison, B. N. (2007). 'Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Caruso, L., Giorgi, A., Mattoni, A., & Piazza, G. (eds.) (2010). Alla Ricerca dell'Onda. I Nuovi Conflitti dell'Istruzione Superiore. Milano: Franco Angeli. Cohen, J. (1989). 'Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy', pp. 17-34 in A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (eds), The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell. Costanza-Chock, S. (2003). 'Mapping the Repertoire of Electronic Contention NJ: Greenwood' in A. Opel & D. Pompper (eds), Representing Resistance: Media, Civil Disobedience and the Global Justice Movement. NJ: Greenwood. Couldry, N., & Curran, J. (2003a). Contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Couldry, N., & Curran, J. (2003b). 'The paradox of media power', pp. 3-15 in N. Couldry & J. Curran (eds), Contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Coyer, K. (2005). 'If it Leads it Bleeds: The Participatory Newsmaking of the Indipendent Media Centre' in W. De Jong, M. Shaw & N. Stammers (eds), Global activism, global media. London: Pluto Press. della Porta, D. (2005). 'Making the Polis: Social Forums and Democracy in the Global Justice Movements', Mobilization, 10(1), 73-94. della Porta, D. (2009a). 'Consensus in Movement', pp. 73-99 in D. della Porta (ed), Democracy in Social Movements. London: Palgrave. della Porta, D. (forthcoming). 'I movimenti sociali e la democraciza' in A. Pizzorno (ed), Lo Stato Democratico. Milano: Feltrinelli. della Porta, D. (ed.) (2009b). Another Europe. London: Routledge. della Porta, D. (ed.) (2009c). Democracy in Social Movements. London: Palgrave. Downing, J. (1984). Radical Media. The Political Experience of Alternative Communication. Boston, MA: South End Press. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. Hackett, M. (2007). 'Community Radio and Television', Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. London: Sage. Hadl, G. (2007). '‘Community Media’? ‘Alternative Media’? Unpacking Approaches to Media By, For and Of the People', Papers in International and Global Communication, Volume(7). Howley, K. (2005). Community media: people, places, and communication technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jordan, T. (2002). Activism! : direct action, hacktivism and the future of society. London: Reaktion Books. 9 Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. A. (2004). Hacktivism and cyberwars. London: Routledge. Kavada, A. (2005). 'Exploring the role of the internet in the ‘movement for alternative globalization’: The case of the Paris 2003 European Social Forum', Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, Volume(1). Kidd, D. (2010). 'Whistling Into the Typhoon: A Radical Inquiry into Autonomous Media' in C. Hughes (ed), In the Middle of a Whirlwind. Oakland: AK Press. Kitschelt, H. (1993). 'Social Movements, Political Parties, and Democratic Theory', The Annals of The AAPSS, 528, 1329. Langlois, A., & Dubois, F. (eds.) (2005). Autonomous media: activating resistance and dissent. Montreal: Cumulus Press. Mansbridge, J. (1996). 'Using Power/Fighting Power: The Polity', pp. 46-66 in S. Benhabib (ed), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mattoni, A. (2008). 'Organisation, Mobilisation and Identity: National and transnational grassroots campaigns between face-to-face and computer-mediated-communication', pp. 201-232 in S. Baringhorst, V. Kneip & J. Niesyto (eds), Political Campaigning on the Web. Bielefeld: transcript. Mattoni, A. (2009). Multiple Media Practices in Italian Social Movements Against Precarity of Work, Political and Social Sciences Department (PhD Dissertation). Florence: European University Institute. McCurdy, P., & Feigenbaum, A. (2010). From Greenham to Gleneagles: Analyzing the Media Strategies of Pre and Post-Internet Social Movements, MeCCSA Conference. London School of Economics. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes : collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milan, S. (2009). Stealing the Fire. A study of emancipatory practices in the field of communication, Social and Political Sciences (PhD Dissertation). Florence: European University Institute. Mische, A. (2008). Partisan Publics. Communication and contention across Brazilian youth activists networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Offe, C. (1985). 'New social movements: challenging the boundaries of institutional politics', Soc. Res., 52, 817. Reiter, H. (2009). 'Participatory Traditions in the Global Justice Movement' in D. della Porta (ed), Democracy in Social Movements. London: Palgrave. Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the mediascape. An international study of citizens' media. Creskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. Rosanvallon, P. (2006). La contre-démocratie. La politique a l’age de la defiance. Paris: Seuil. Sampedro, V. B. (ed.) (2005). 13-M. Multitudes On Line. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata. Sewell, W. H. J. (1980). Work and Revolution in France, The language of Labour from the old regime to 1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, E. P. (1991). The Making of the English Working Class. London: Penguin Books. Young, I. M. (2003). 'Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy', pp. 102-120 in J. S. Fishkin & P. Laslett (eds), Debating Deliberative Democracy. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10