The crisis of democracy affects every modern society. On the other hand, new politicization practices vary depending on the historical context and the meaning given to citizenship. The in-depth investigation within the activist milieu of Lyon and that of Helsinki allows Finnish sociologist Eeva Luhtakallio to grasp its dynamics and logic.
What happens when a group from Lyon of supporters of participatory democracy is invited under the chandeliers of Helsinki town hall by their Nordic peers ? The crisis of democracy is unanimously noted as is the need to encourage local democracy initiatives. Behind the common cause, misunderstandings lurk. Why does the group of Finns consist of dispassionate technocrats ? Why would French guests want to meet local politicians ?
Eeva Luhtakallio uses this scene from the field investigation that took place between 2003 and 2008 to unravel the trials of local democracy observed in Lyon and Helsinki. The Finnish sociologist writes against a flattening discourse on the global crisis of democracy which is expressed everywhere in substantially identical forms and resistances. Luhtakallio’s comparative investigation demonstrates that although Finnish and Lyon supporters share the vocabulary to say they are committed to the meaning given to the key words of democracy, citizenship and representation vary just like the ways of politicizing, i.e. -say opening a space for political action or raising a problem for political debate (p. 4).
Luhtakallio traces the stages of politicization at multiple levels at which the process evolves – within small groups of activists, in urban space, on websites, in the local press and again in interactions between activists and representatives of the political world. The originality of the approach lies in its anchoring on the analytical scale of the city – as opposed to the national scale – as well as that of actors practicing democracy outside traditional democratic institutions – within groups, associations and movements of ordinary citizens. The analysis of ordinary practices of politicization in the cities of Lyon and Helsinki further favors distancing from the centers of political power: in relation to national powers thanks to the choice of Lyon for the benefit of Paris, from international powers because the The French case is juxtaposed with the Finnish case, peripheral but rich in lessons.
Democracy in the making
Luhtakallio is explicitly part of a pragmatist sociology perspective. His analysis of democracy gives priority to the analysis of the unfolding of democratic processes in daily situations in two cities whose historical and institutional contexts are finely restored. In addition to the context, the sociologist calls on the cultural representations of activists and their social interactions to explain variations in the politicization process.
Chapter two introduces the reader to the activist milieu through the analysis of six groups characterized as “ local movements for global justice » (p. 26). These are local activist circles, squatter groups and movements in support of municipal services (Helsinki) and against security technologies (Lyon). Based on the theory on “ group styles » by Nina Eliasoph and Paul Lichtermann (2003), Luhtakallio paints a dynamic portrait of the formation of internal and external links and the logic of their maintenance. The Lyon groups are characterized by strong links inscribed in the space of the Red Cross district and updated on a daily basis by the uniform choices of places of consumption, entertainment and communication. These places, the choice of which is neither banal nor random, are located in the neighborhood itself and membership in the group thus requires regular attendance of the place and its actors. Lyon activists maintain tense relations with the police and the media, whose presence on their territory is experienced as a hostile intrusion. In Helsinki, on the contrary, activist networks are relatively devoid of spatial inscription. The uniqueness of groups is based on membership in multiple associations and on a network of friends, two mechanisms guaranteeing trust. The boundaries separating activists from journalists, civil servants and even the police are more porous than in Lyon and strategic alliances with the latter are possible if this is considered beneficial for the pursuit of the common cause.
The analysis is striking because it highlights the intimate dynamics of the groups, the places and the motivations which form the framework of politicization and the conditions of its success. French activists live their political commitment on a daily basis, maintain strong ties among themselves, categorically oppose central powers and move forward without becoming demoralized in the face of the lack of social change because citizen mobilization – as an intimate experience and moral exercise – takes precedence over its effectiveness. Even if the Lyonnais did not succeed in removing the video surveillance devices despite their operation to cover the cameras using bags attached to multicolored balloons, the carnival performance has a political value in itself. In Helsinki, the exercise of citizenship is experienced as a moral obligation in the service of the common good. Violence and vandalism are condemned, consensus and cooperation with officials sought as this is often the best way to ensure that at least a compromise is reached. Finnish activists succeed in rectifying the municipal budget by meticulously reproducing financial accounts and maintaining semi-professional relations with civil servants and politicians.
Citizenship: conflict vs. Consensus
The discussion of theories relating to citizenship and democratic representation adds theoretical and contextual depth to the analysis of interviews conducted with municipal activists and politicians. Luhtakallio notes that the mirror game between these two countries is necessarily asymmetrical so that French citizenship forms an illustrious example of a paradigm with a universal aim: republican, political and individualized citizenship would transcend society and make everyone into equal citizens. The Finnish concept of citizenship hardly enjoys such notoriety and its genesis remains poorly understood by the non-Finnish speaking public. However, the joint discussion has all its merit. Luhtakallio highlights in particular two points on which the conceptions diverge. First, associations play a crucial role in Finnish democracy. At first glance, the Finnish case bears some resemblance to the functioning of American democracy. However, Finnish citizens do not join associations in order to ensure individual material and social conditions of existence. In the social democratic regime, the welfare state complements the working life of the generation of these.
The explanation for the status of the association sector lies in the historical formation of the young Finnish republic, independent since 1917. Associations are important because the Finnish nation-state was built under and against the Russian imperial occupation. The idea of a national common good of which the State and society are at the service persists as a legacy from this era. Unlike France, in Finland the intermediary bodies did not prevent the birth of the modern nation-state but are its main agents. Nor is the collective memory of Finns marked by incidents where the state turned against citizens or failed to recognize them. The ambivalent and conflicting relationship to citizenship of French activists, identifying the latter as an object and place of struggles, therefore contrasts sharply with the Finnish conception. For Helsinki activists, citizenship implies an obligation to participate in the regeneration of the good in a consensual spirit.
Citizen experience and expertise
Relying exclusively on qualitative data, the work also reads as a methodological lesson in comparative research. Even if the author emphasizes that the research carried out within a sample of the activist community of Lyon and Helsinki would not constitute comparative research – a term to which she prefers that of “ cross-national » – nor would it aim to formulate arguments generalizable to each national case, the organization and rhetoric of the book make it read as such. Accepting that the quality of comparative research using large encrypted corpora on the one hand, and textual and visual materials on the other, is not evaluated according to the same criteria, we can only appreciate the triangulation strategy methodology put in place by Luhtakallio. First, the rich and poignant data from interviews and ethnographic observation illustrate the perspectives of activists and politicians as well as the unfolding of politicization.
Luhtakallio also mobilizes two visual and textual corpora in order to analyze the cultural context in which democracy is practiced. She applies the idea of framing (Goffman, 1974) to a corpus of images from the main websites where activists and municipal representatives publish materials about their activities. In Lyon as in Helsinki we find a gap between the two camps: the city and its cultural and professional dynamism prevail in town hall publications, injustices, conflicts and demonstrations on the activist side. In order to analyze articles in the local press on political conflicts, Luhtakallio uses the theory of justification (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991). The analysis shows that although civic justification dominates in the two national corpora, it is not understood in the same way. The Lyon slogans of equality, solidarity and rights are opposed to Finnish civics as a question of legality, respect for contracts and decisions taken by expert bodies. The politicians’ modes of justification diverge further: in Finland, the city of industry and the market takes precedence, while in France, civic justifications take precedence.
What about the social context ?
Luhtakallio analyzes with finesse the local practice of democracy and provides us with the keys to understanding the institutional and cultural contexts as well as the conception of citizenship. On the other hand, in order to understand the motivation of the activists and what is at stake, we would have appreciated elements on the social context in the sense of the distribution of material goods and social status among the inhabitants of Lyon and Helsinki. Perhaps because of the firmness – and brilliance – with which the analysis is anchored in a cultural and interactionist perspective, the world of activists appears disconnected from social structures. To explain that the Lyon activists are mainly young adults contrary to a more balanced distribution according to age in Helsinki, could we take into account intergenerational inequalities ? Is the peaceful aspect of the squatter movement in Helsinki explained solely by the type or genesis of the squat culture or could housing inequalities have a role to play? ? Taking into account the social inequalities faced by residents of both cities would have provided a better understanding of why they pursue the struggles they pursue in their specific ways.