grassroots activism
Reclaiming Participatory Governance: Social Movements and the Reinvention of Democratic Innovation – review
In Reclaiming Participatory Governance, Adrian Bua and Sonia Bussu bring together analyses of social movements around the world that engage with democracy-driven or participatory governance. Although the essays in this volume reveal the challenge of bringing grassroots organising into our political systems, they advocate compellingly for nurturing these practices to create fairer and stronger democracies, writes Andrea Felicetti.
Reclaiming Participatory Governance is a compelling investigation of the potential for bottom-up forms of democratic innovations to vitalise our democracies. Anchored on Adrian Bua and Sonia Bussu’s concept of “democracy-driven governance” (DDG), this edited volume critically investigates the “potential, limits and opportunities” of social movements’ engagement with participatory and deliberative institutional designs. This is no small feat since social movements and democratic innovations are often seen as crucial in strengthening our democracies.
[Democracy-driven governance] is considered in its capacity for effectively ‘[o]pening up spaces for a deeper critique of minimalist liberal democratic institutions and the neoliberal economy that underpins them’.
From the introduction, expectations are high. Pitted against forms of “governance-driven democratisation” (GDD) that tend to be seen as top-down and markedly bureaucratic, DDG is considered in its capacity for effectively “[o]pening up spaces for a deeper critique of minimalist liberal democratic institutions and the neoliberal economy that underpins them”. Of course, this needs to occur at a time when “space for meaningful citizen input is increasingly constrained by technocratic decision-making and global economic pressure”.
The book presents a highly coherent and impressive collection of in-depth analyses that span theory and empirical research, with a great variety of cases. Spain takes centre stage, and there are no case studies from English-speaking countries, going markedly against the tide. Theory is at the heart of the first section. Drawing from fascinating cases in Germany and Iceland, Dannica Fleuss shows the urgency of thinking about democracy beyond liberal institutions. Nick Vlahos introduces the idea of “participatory decommodification of social need” as an interesting way to think about how participatory governance can combat the worst effects of capitalism, with examples from Toronto, Canada. Based on his extensive fieldwork in Rosario, Argentina, Markus Holdo discusses the concept of “democratic care” to unearth the work performed by activists that needs to be recognised in participatory governance. Finally, Hendrik Wagenaar offers a compelling analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the GDD/DGG pair from a political economy standpoint, building on a well-established threefold distinction between the dominant economic, financial system, the political, administrative sector and civil society.
Vlahos introduces the idea of ‘participatory decommodification of social need’ as an interesting way to think about how participatory governance can combat the worst effects of capitalism
The second part is markedly empirical. Paola Pierri analyses the Orleans Metropole Assise for the Ecological Transition, in France, showing a case of “collaborative countervailing power” that reminds us that the seminal work of Empowered Participatory Governance by Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright remains highly relevant to understand participatory governance. Lucy Cathcart Frodén investigates the parallels between prefigurative social movements and participatory arts projects as well as their potential to contribute to democratic renewal. A rather effective collaboration between “right to the city” activists and local administration is documented in Roberto Falanga’s in-depth analysis of the participatory process for the regeneration of one of the main squares in Lisbon, Portugal. Giovanni Allegretti shows clearly how anticolonial protests irrupt into and benefit participatory experiments in Kalaallit Nunaat, Greenland. Mendonça and colleagues, instead, systematically explore strengths and weaknesses of Gambiarra, an unconventional means social movements in Brazil use to break into elites-dominated elections at local and parliamentary level. Bua, Bussu and Davies offer the ultimate comparison about the GDD and DGG models as embodied in the historical trajectories of participatory governance of the cities of Nantes and Barcelona respectively.
The third section highlights problems and limitations. Joan Balcells and colleagues unveil the tension that lay at the basis of the famous participatory platform Decidim. Always focusing on Barcelona, Marina Pera and colleagues look at the Citizen Assets Program showing how lack of trust prevented this very advanced form of democratisation from being embedded into its context. Fabiola Mota Consejero considers another case from Spain where Madrid’s progressive local government broke with a longstanding tradition of conservative patronage but failed to turn its main innovation, Decide Madrid, into an effective means for participatory governance. Patricia Garcia-Espin, instead, shows the fatigue and disappointment of activists involved in another innovation of Madrid’s new municipalist government, the local forums. Finally, Sixtine Van Outryve looks at a fascinating case of a local Yellow Vest organization in Commercy, France, trying to set up an open citizens assembly to have a communalist project represented in the local government that ultimately failed.
Virtually every chapter of this book details a host of challenges participatory governance faces in the context of minimalist democracies dominated by neoliberal economics.
The findings in this book are rather sobering. Employing a rigorous approach devoid of self-celebration or ideological dismissal, virtually every chapter of this book details a host of challenges participatory governance faces in the context of minimalist democracies dominated by neoliberal economics. In many case studies, elements of both GDD and DGG coexist, and sometimes one morphs into the other. Second, empirical investigations highlight weaknesses with DGG. This reduces our expectations about this model of democratisation, yet it also lends it a more realistic and useful outlook. Third, while the theoretical section highlights the political economy of participatory governance as a crucial issue, that remains in the background in the empirical analysis, as it tends to happen in the field. This kind of investigation remains essential.
Further, after reading this book, one has the feeling that contemporary participatory governance grapples with two important limitations. First, the promotion of participatory governance remains primarily within the purview of a select group of political actors: progressive parties, particularly those with a robust radical left presence. As we move to the centre of the political spectrum, the idea of reinvigorating democracy, let alone doing so by means of radical participatory governance, seems to lose attractiveness. Indeed, the book consistently shows that, in those uncommon cases in which progressive parties that champion participatory governance take power, they downscale their democratisation ambitions as they face the challenges implied in participatory governance. These can vary from administrative hurdles in implementing innovation to more endogenous problems relating, for example, to internal conflicts arising from differing conceptions of democracy that exacerbate fatigue and disillusionment. Second, the book gives the sense that contemporary participatory governance still has a mass democracy problem. It is still missing any substantial connection with the public at large. Except for occasional influence during electoral campaigns, none of the studied experiments have garnered sustained support or substantial interest from the public at large.
This volume stands as proof of the ongoing efforts to use participatory governance in critical and democratising ways around the world
This might seem disheartening, especially because there is no practical solution in sight. The electoral defeat of Spanish municipalism, central to this book, heightens this sensation. Yet, there is not much use in despairing, and a temporal prospective might offer some hope. As Gianpaolo Baiocchi reminds in his refreshing concluding remarks, it is not so long ago that the idea of participatory democracy made its irruption in our democracies. Initially championed by social movements and to a lesser extent Left political projects in the 1960s, this idea was later taken up by mainstream policymakers and international agencies. Unsurprisingly, participatory governance has not been able to singlehandedly compete with the broader political trend towards neoliberal governance; indeed, it has had to adapted to it to some extent. The resistance it meets today shows major limitations. Yet, this volume stands as proof of the ongoing efforts to use participatory governance in critical and democratising ways around the world. It also speaks to the fact that there is great social scientific scholarship trying to understand and strengthen this phenomenon.
The book often refers to the value of learning from and with activists. Indeed, one of its the most significant contributions is its ability to forge an expanded understanding of participatory governance.
The book often refers to the value of learning from and with activists. Indeed, one of its the most significant contributions is its ability to forge an expanded understanding of participatory governance. This volume goes beyond the perpetual dispute between different conceptions of democracy. It shows how participatory governance todays draws from a rich tapestry of diverse ideas and practices – both old and new. The fact that concepts such as “care”, the “right to the city”, “communalism”, “new municipalism”, “gambiarra” and “decolonisation” are brought together in this volume speaks to the eclectic nature and vitality of contemporary participatory governance. Despite its challenges, participatory governance continues to attract the ingenuity of people and their eagerness for democracy. Persistence is crucial, as these are fundamental ingredients in the struggle to build a more equal and just world.
Note: This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Dedraw Studio on Flickr.
Care Without Pathology: How Trans- Health Activists Are Changing Medicine – review
In Care Without Pathology: How Trans- Health Activists Are Changing Medicine, Christoph Hanssmann explores the evolution of trans therapeutics and health activism through ethnographic fieldwork conducted in New York City and Buenos Aires. Demonstrating how grassroots movements are disrupting social and biomedical power structures, the book is an essential contribution to research on depathologisation efforts in trans care, writes Robin Skyer.
Care Without Pathology: How Trans- Health Activists Are Changing Medicine. Christoph Hanssmann. University of Minnesota Press. 2023.
Find this book: 
“The moves that would help the most transgender people the most? None of them are transgender specific”. Paisley Currah, praised political scientist and co-founder of the leading journal in trans* studies TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, stated what seems to be a fairly obvious point at a seminar in 2020. Yet, considering the ways in which dominant political and media discourses speak about trans* therapeutics (the term that the author of Care Without Pathology, Christoph Hanssmann, uses to describe the wide variety of gender-affirming care), trans* health, and hence trans* lives, are still considered to be an exception.
(Following Marquis Bey, in this article I use “trans*” – with an asterisk – as a disruptive term that perturbs ontological states. Most often, in Anglophone contexts, “trans” is used as an umbrella term to describe individuals whose gender identities expand beyond, subsume, or deny a binary structure. The use of the asterisk frees “trans*-ness” from its corporeal, nominalist ties. Instead, “trans*” becomes a function or expression; one that is neither predetermined nor limited in its scope.)
Hanssmann traces the shifting definition of trans* therapeutics, from 20th century transsexual medicine to contemporary crip, trans*-feminist informed healthcare infrastructures.
In Care Without Pathology, Hanssmann traces the shifting definition of trans* therapeutics, from 20th century transsexual medicine to contemporary crip, trans*-feminist informed healthcare infrastructures. In contrast to gay and lesbian depathologisation, Hanssmann notes, trans* activists and advocates have not looked for a divorce from medicine (as the tools for therapeutic care were, and continue to be, controlled by the state), but for a transformation of biomedical care structures. This is not to say that the movement seeks assimilation with, or inclusion within, current systems, but instead asks: what would it be like to receive the care we ask for, in the way that we need?
Care without pathology […] resists the damaging effects of legal, state, bureaucratic, and financial systems upon pathologised groups
Hanssmann emphasises how issues such as medical gatekeeping and self-determination in care settings are the result of hegemonic power relations; issues that many (multiply-)marginalised groups face in their interaction with biomedical practice. Care without pathology, he argues, calls not only upon a broader change of healthcare infrastructures, but resists the damaging effects of legal, state, bureaucratic, and financial systems upon pathologised groups. As such, trans* health activism has more in common with disability and feminist movements, as they contest hierarchies of power and systemic harm within the constraints of the present.
As an ethnographic study, Care Without Pathology is founded upon eight years of research in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and New York City, USA. Hanssmann argues that by choosing locations in both the Global South and the Global North, he was able to engage in “transhemispheric discursive inquiry” (17), an approach that leans away from a standard comparative study by acknowledging the interactions and relations between research sites. Although I would contest Hanssmann’s use of this oversimplified dichotomy, his choice of locations enables us to explore different contexts in which major changes in the regulation of trans* therapeutics were taking place between 2012 and 2018.
In Argentina, 2012 saw the passing of the Gender Identity Law, which removed the requirement of a diagnosis for trans* therapeutics. In 2013, the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) by the American Psychiatric Association removed “Gender Identity Disorder” from their guidelines and included a new diagnostic classification: ‘Gender Dysphoria’, which advocates saw as a positive step toward depathologisation. Hence, Care Without Pathology spans a period of significant transformation, the effects of which are continuing to unfurl. Moreover, Hanssmann draws upon ethnographic observations and interviews, ensuring that the voices of social workers, community members, activists and advocates resonate throughout the book.
Hanssmann draws upon ethnographic observations and interviews, ensuring that the voices of social workers, community members, activists and advocates resonate throughout the book.
Hanssmann describes vivid examples of grassroots activism and its volatile association with political compromise. Chapter Three, for example, focuses upon the use of epidemiological biographies by community-based researchers in Buenos Aires. This involved the combining of biographical data with statistics, creating visuals and information about the effects of violence and discrimination upon the health and lives of travesti and trans* people. Through this method, organisers were able to leverage political focus upon Argentinian state responsibilities for premature deaths, as well as institutionalised neglect and violence with regards to employment, healthcare, and housing. However, as Hanssmann highlights, this use of statistical collectivisation, and the concept of “population”, are closely associated with state power, structural violence, and trans* necropolitics.
[The] use of statistical collectivisation, and the concept of “population”, are closely associated with state power, structural violence, and trans* necropolitics
This is particularly salient for travesti, for whom the subsuming of their livelihoods, identities, and culture under a wider trans* umbrella is colonial oppression. (I urge readers to review the work of Malú Machuca Rose, who writes about travesti and resistance to colonial usage of the word; as well as the works of Giuseppe Campuzano and Miguel A. López.) It is through the discussion of these conflicting ideas that Care Without Pathology deftly illustrates the complexity of struggles for change.
Another example is outlined in Chapter Four, where Hanssmann describes the “narrow passageways of action” (149) used to contest Medicaid exclusion. Activists and advocates pressed for access to trans* therapeutics by using the language of state authorities that spoke predominantly of economic risk. They highlighted the negative effects of austerity measures and reframed the narrative around trans* therapeutics as a public good. Nevertheless, as Hanssmann explains, by utilising a method that draws upon human capital and the politics of investment, one may ask whether more harm may be caused (or left to fester), through an adherence to these neoliberal conceptions. It seems antithetical to use economic value as a measure for the “worthiness” of lives, when coalitional social change is what you are striving for.
What happens when trans* people seek to distance themselves from biomedical and state institutions, and find self-supporting solutions?
Hanssmann acknowledges that there has been a narrative shift from trans* health to trans* wellness, a change that reflects depathologisation efforts. He also mentions the work of scholars such as Cameron Awkward-Rich, Hil Malatino, and Andrea Long Chu, who highlight the constitutive pain and negativity of trans*-ness as a counter to “curative” discourse surrounding trans* therapeutics. Yet what could expand upon Hanssmann’s work is an exploration of self-procurement and therapeutic experimentation. What happens when trans* people seek to distance themselves from biomedical and state institutions, and find self-supporting solutions? Consequently, we may ask whether the term “trans* therapeutics” is appropriate to describe trans* care practices. It is in this area that my own PhD research is situated. My current research approaches the topic of trans* care through qualitative, participatory techniques and looks to complement Hanssmann’s analysis.
Where Care Without Pathology succeeds is through the presentation of trans* activisms that have acknowledged the epistemological ties between groups and individuals that are labelled as “an exception”. By demonstrating how the politics of difference creates harm through biomedical structures and other systems of power, Hanssmann highlights the need for coalitional activism in the struggle for social change, and as resistance to neocolonialism. It is an excellent addition to the reading lists of scholars, activists, and indeed, anyone interested in social movements, queer studies and the sociology of care.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: Ross Burgess on Wikimedia Commons.