09 2003
Centro Sociale Leoncavallo. The Social Construction of a Public Space of Proximity
Translated by Aileen Derieg
The Centro Sociale Leoncavallo was created in 1975 in Milan following the illegal occupation of a factory that had been shut down and abandoned years before, which was located in the middle of a quarter with social housing. The first squatters, who formed an informal and non-organized group, belonged to the radical leftist movements of Milan that emerged after 1968. The group adhered to the principle of self-organization/self-administration, which was based on the decision-making power of the assembly of all members and the absence of internal hierarchies, but also on valuing the individual autonomy and freedom of each person. The center was initiated as a "grassroots" response to the significant need for autonomous spaces for communal action, culture and the organization of social services in its surroundings. For this reason, from the start there was room in this building for a women's counseling office, a kindergarten, a space for concerts and exhibitions, in addition to the various rooms for communal use and informal meetings. The declared goal was to create a public space for the quarter and the city, that was to be located outside the control of the state and the capitalist logic of the market. In this respect, the services offered at the center and the cultural activities carried out there assume a clearly political value: they are the expression of a universalist engagement that aims to concretely expand social rights, especially the individual's right to self-determination with respect to satisfying one's own needs.
During the eighties,
though, the center ended up in a crisis, which represents
a consequence of the colorful collaboration and confusion
of processes that ended the experience of the movement
in the seventies. An encroaching self-referentiality
of the collective subjects, the emergence of armed resistance,
the dissemination of drugs like heroin, the increase
in phenomena of de-industrialization accompanied by
processes of disintegration within the working class,
are only a few of the elements that increasingly pushed
the Centro Leoncavallo into a position of social marginality.
While the social composition of society was subject
to rapid changes, the Centro found itself partly isolated
in an increasingly hostile territory. The privatization
of public space goes hand in hand with police repression
with respect to illegal occupations and to social movements
in general. The opinion, widespread among sections of
public opinion, especially among local politicians,
that the self-administered social centers were now a
closed development and thus a leftover from the past,
began to predominate. The activists tended to withdraw
into a space separate from society: on the one hand,
this phenomenon repeatedly generated new internal "thrusts"
in the direction of innovations in the area of counterculture
and art (for example through encounters with the punk
movement); on the other hand, though, the marginality
and the lack of effectivity in relation to social concerns
intensified, which would probably have led to abandoning
the center sooner or later.
Yet it was precisely the fact
that the police forcefully cleared the building that
indicates a reversal of these tendencies: resistance
came not only from the activists themselves, but a broad
movement of public support across all classes emerged
in the shortest period of time, taking to the street
to retain the center. Thus it was possible for the occupants
to rebuild the building that was partially destroyed
after the police attack and resume cultural activities
there.
The nineties thus
began with a renewed mobilization on behalf of the Centri
Sociali, especially the Centro Leoncavallo, which was
regarded as a clear example of resistance against the
privatization of territory and neoliberal notions of
culture. This support developed primarily at the heart
of the new students and pupils movements against the
privatization of the public education system, but was
also carried by progressive intellectuals, who stood
up for the defense of the public role of culture –
and for providing it with these free and autonomous
spaces in the city.
Culture and sociality are increasingly
perceived as essential needs of collectivity: for this
reason, although it was not intended, the Centri Sociali
find themselves at the center of public interest. Social
groups, whose composition is more transversal now in
comparison with the seventies and early eighties, are
turning to places like the Centro Leoncavallo, because
these are the only free – in the sense of both
independent and free of charge – meeting places
and spaces of artistic expression in the big cities.
Parallel to the ongoing demolition of the social state,
the demand is simultaneously growing for social services
on the part of various sectors of the urban population:
migrants, people with low income and the unemployed
are beginning to seek out the self-administered centers,
as these are freely accessible places, where one can
find a warm meal and advice for seeking employment and
dealing with authorities to obtain a residence permit.
Following the "retreat into
the private sphere" in the eighties, in the nineties
there was a demand again for public spaces characterized
by a low level of ideology and a high degree of competency,
taking up ongoing social transformations and setting
themselves in a positive relation to them. Parallel
to this, though, the privatization of urban territory
progressed with the increasing transformation of abandoned
industrial areas into commercial and office centers:
in 1994 the Centro Leoncavallo was finally driven from
its historical seat and in its place a – symbolically
charged – bank was built. This time the occupants
did not respond with active resistance, because negotiations
with the city government were already under way for
a possible new location for the center. This is a sign
that Leoncavallo had meanwhile become a relevant factor,
on which the press and public opinion took a stance.
In other words, it had been possible to raise public
acceptance through the moment of conflict by constructing
an image with a high symbolic value in the public sphere,
which is an essential resource in times of crisis.
Since the difficult relationship
with institutions does not allow for quick solutions,
however, following several months of urban nomadism
(during which the collective appropriated public gardens,
squares and finally an abandoned building), a former
printing plant in a quarter at the edge of the city
was occupied. Once again, a conflict situation created
a wave of public approval: a major demonstration of
support convinced the politicians and police not to
clear the building by force. The occupants thus remained
in the building, also because the main stockholder of
the owners' association became involved and agreed to
seek a legal solution for the center. During the relatively
peaceful situation after 1994, it was possible for the
occupants to address restructuring their own activities
in light of a huge space to be newly arranged (400 square
meters roofed, courtyards, green areas and cellars in
addition). The restructuring was an issue in terms of
the social composition of the groups that they had begun
to interact with. In this sense, the process of defining
the space coincided with the new orientation of identity
and organization: the new groups that had approached
Leoncavallo and the various social and cultural activities
that had developed in recent years required an adequate
spatial organization.
The tendentially
closed communal space of the eighties is again becoming
the open and public space of the seventies, but in a
much broader way. The dividing walls are removed, progress
is made on organizing decentralization, and all of this
becomes visible in the structuring of the building.
The wide street-side entrance that opens directly into
the courtyard is left open during the day to allow free
access to everyone, especially the homeless and migrants.
At the same time, the inner courtyard is intended to
be a meeting place for the city quarter. On the one
hand, it represents a protected space, where groups
that are endangered from a legal perspective (especially
migrants) can meet without fear of the police, yet it
is also designed as an outwardly oriented public space,
where there are bars and open air events for the quarter
and the city. The common areas outdoors are not subject
to any formal control, they are freely accessible and
are intended to serve the free development of social
relationships and direct interaction among people, not
only the occupants, but also the visitors and users.
All the spaces are self-administered by the most diverse
groups that organize cultural and social activities
in them.
The network-like structure is
held together by the plenum, which meets once a week
and decides, not without internal controversies, on
the overall strategy of Leoncavallo. The essential spaces
of the center with the concomitant activities serving
communal use are:
-
the two bars, where artistic and cultural events
take place (exhibitions, discussions, ...), and where
a position is taken against
prohibitionism in relation
to soft drugs. It is also possible for external groups
to carry out events like jam sessions and exhibitions
there.
-
the self-service kitchen, which is available
to the public at low prices, but where meals are also
distributed free of charge to
homeless people and migrants,
and where the activists eat in the evenings.
-
the headquarters of four NGOs that belong to
the center (these work in the socio-cultural sector
and in development cooperation),
which face the courtyard.
- the hall for concerts and theater productions, where well attended, low-priced events take place.
- the bookshop, which also functions as documentation center and archive and consultation office for self-produced material.
-
the "communication area", where the
center's administration and information and communication
services are located (maintenance
of the web site, migrant
counseling, information about the movement, ...)
Public services in the real sense are carried out in these spaces, which follow a clearly universalistic approach: at the same time, as a result of the special attention to social relationships and the concern for direct contact with the users, these services are carried out in the charged field between dynamics of a societal nature (in conjunction with universal fundamental rights) and communitarian being (based on reciprocity and face-to-face relationships). Contrary to the logic of the market (based on the monetary relationship between service providers and customers) and the logic of the state (rooted in the bureaucratic relationship between welfare providers and welfare recipients), the logic of the services provided at Leoncavallo is oriented to fundamental rights: through the services the citizens become active in terms of political and cultural contents, in terms of their rights and satisfying basic needs. In this sense, the relationships are public and oriented to raising the value of the individual, specifically by recognizing their individual autonomy and their "empowerment".
The provision of
these services with a universal character that have
concrete, local impacts additionally activates the dynamics
of business and employment, which make Leoncavallo a
kind of non-profit enterprise. In fact, the activities
of the center make it possible to pay salaries to about
forty activists (many of which are migrants) thanks
to the income generated by an annual number of visitors
amounting to roughly 100,000.
On the whole, the Centro Sociale
presents itself as a network of subjects, individuals
and groups that interact in a physical multidimensional
space, from which they place themselves in various relationships
to the world "outside": the means for establishing
these relationships consist of the services offered,
the diverse forms of communication, the political and
cultural events, and personal relationships. The spatial
and relational organization of Leoncavallo is based
in this way on a permanent tension between flow and
informality, which are typical of the social movement,
and the necessity of structuring and institutionalization,
which is linked to the dimensions and the complexity
of a meanwhile highly developed social actor.
The typical modalities of self-organization,
in other words horizontality, the absence of formal
hierarchies and the lack of specified roles within the
organization, thus often end up in conflict with the
need for a better structure that results from the growth
of the center. This impulse in the direction of institutionalization
is illustrated by recent events relating to Leoncavallo.
Since no agreement with the owners has been reached
after ten years of illegal occupation, the center is
again threatened with eviction. It is therefore necessary
to develop a strategy to harmonize the founding idea
of Leoncavallo with an adaptation to the external conditions
represented by the political and economic power of the
city. Naturally this adaptation must not constrain the
activities inherent to the center, nor may it lead to
a subjugation to the logics of the market and bureaucracy.
In this sense, a public campaign has been launched to
come up with the financial means for establishing a
foundation, which would take over rent and also the
operating costs of the building, since the center has
never received either public or private subsidies. The
public dimension of this campaign is also emphasized
in that the support committee consists of intellectuals,
artists and politicians that are not directly connected
with Leoncavallo, but have an interest in defending
this public space that is threatened with closure.
Based on the history and development of a concrete reality, we can maintain that the path of Leoncavallo so far highlights several key elements of the discourse on public space. Briefly summarized, this relates to the following points:
-
physical space, which represents an extremely important condition
for the development of collective identities and social
agency,
based on the mutual recognition of the subjects
inside it. It is a symbolic and concrete framework for
internal communities, but also
for "external"
society, and it represents the real possibility for
the territory to become public.
- proximity, in other words the physical neighborhood that enables the
development of communities, face-to-face relationships
and
intersubjective trust. This proximity serves as
a channel allowing the public sphere to flow into the
system of relationships to
transform principle universalism
into reciprocity and acknowledgment within a shared
horizon.
- participation through self-organization, which means opening the organization
and the space for individual and collective subjects
"from outside". In fact, self-administration
represents the means for including all those potentially
interested by creating a
tendentially egalitarian and
informal mechanism of organization.
- universalism, which means using the space and the services offered
in it, which are directed to the whole of society, in
keeping with
a logic of guaranteed universal rights
and not according to a logic of aid and sales.
- autonomy, which means the independence of the space and the organization from other political and economic organisms.
Regardless of what eventually comes from the process of the partial institutionalization of Leoncavallo, its development shows that the assertion and defense of public space in a metropolis requires recourse to moments of conflict, through which a broader social acceptance can be achieved. Real public space thus seems to be distinguished by being territory that is fought for, which is always in danger of being subjugated to privatized or bureaucratic control. A symbolic, identitary and complex territory, where the social sphere overlaps with the political, cultural and the economic sphere. A space in which these elements are newly composed again and again within diverse and fragile communities in permanent dialectic with an increasingly global society. A public space of proximity, in other words, where the discourse on the collective good is rooted in everyday social practices in a common material space with its multifaceted meanings.