They are engaged in a politics of doing, as much as discussing. In working on the
social and technical aspects of alternative ways of, say, harvesting rainwater, they
undertake a practical reasoning in the politics of water supply in development.
Formal institutions have a hard time recognizing, let alone accommodating this
more political appreciation of grassroots innovation. Indeed, the whole point of
some grassroots innovation movements is to challenge and unsettle prevailing
institutions for innovation and development. When workers at Lucas Aerospace
developed an alternative corporate strategy for their company in 1976, for instance,
they were deliberately challenging not just company strategy, but also the wider
political economy of technology development. Arising through grassroots trade
union organization, the alternative plan was a novel response to management
announcements that thousands of manufacturing jobs were to be cut in the face
of industrial restructuring, international competition and technological change.
Instead of redundancy, workers argued their right to socially useful production. In
promoting their arguments, shop stewards at Lucas attracted workers from other
sectors, community activists, radical scientists, environmentalists, pacifists and the
Left. The Plan became symbolic for a movement of activists committed to inno -
vation for the purposes of social use over private profit. Supportive polytechnics,
union organizations and local governments provided resources and spaces for activists
to develop their ideas, products and argument.
The Lucas Plan, and others like it, included designs and prototypes for
alternative, socially useful products, but they also went much further. These plans
included market analyses and economic argument; proposed employee training and
the development of new technologies, such as computers, that enhanced and
broadened skills; and suggested reorganizing work into less hierarchical teams that
bridged divisions between tacit knowledge on the shop floor and theoretical
engineering knowledge in design shops.
Business and government rejected the plans. The idea that a grassroots movement
of workers, their communities and social activists had a democratic right to
participate in the design, production and marketing of goods and services seemed
simply incredible to business and government elites, or, more seriously, was
discomforting, unwelcome and even threatening. Even leaders in the trade union
establishment were reluctant to back this grassroots initiative, wary that its precedent
would challenge privileged demarcations and hierarchies. The critical point here
is that the practical process of developing prototypes – in community workshops,
for instance – was seen as an activity in and for political mobilization.
Recalling the movement now, what is striking is the importance that activists
attached to practical engagements in technology development as part of their politics.
The movement emphasized tacit knowledge, craft skill and learning by doing
through face-to-face collaboration in material projects. Practical activity was cast
as ‘technological agit prop’ for mobilizing alliances and debate. Some participants
found such politicization unwelcome. However, in opening prototyping in this
way, activists tried to bring more varied participation into debates and enable wider,
more practical forms of expression meaningful to different audiences, compared
Green transformations from below? 113
social and technical aspects of alternative ways of, say, harvesting rainwater, they
undertake a practical reasoning in the politics of water supply in development.
Formal institutions have a hard time recognizing, let alone accommodating this
more political appreciation of grassroots innovation. Indeed, the whole point of
some grassroots innovation movements is to challenge and unsettle prevailing
institutions for innovation and development. When workers at Lucas Aerospace
developed an alternative corporate strategy for their company in 1976, for instance,
they were deliberately challenging not just company strategy, but also the wider
political economy of technology development. Arising through grassroots trade
union organization, the alternative plan was a novel response to management
announcements that thousands of manufacturing jobs were to be cut in the face
of industrial restructuring, international competition and technological change.
Instead of redundancy, workers argued their right to socially useful production. In
promoting their arguments, shop stewards at Lucas attracted workers from other
sectors, community activists, radical scientists, environmentalists, pacifists and the
Left. The Plan became symbolic for a movement of activists committed to inno -
vation for the purposes of social use over private profit. Supportive polytechnics,
union organizations and local governments provided resources and spaces for activists
to develop their ideas, products and argument.
The Lucas Plan, and others like it, included designs and prototypes for
alternative, socially useful products, but they also went much further. These plans
included market analyses and economic argument; proposed employee training and
the development of new technologies, such as computers, that enhanced and
broadened skills; and suggested reorganizing work into less hierarchical teams that
bridged divisions between tacit knowledge on the shop floor and theoretical
engineering knowledge in design shops.
Business and government rejected the plans. The idea that a grassroots movement
of workers, their communities and social activists had a democratic right to
participate in the design, production and marketing of goods and services seemed
simply incredible to business and government elites, or, more seriously, was
discomforting, unwelcome and even threatening. Even leaders in the trade union
establishment were reluctant to back this grassroots initiative, wary that its precedent
would challenge privileged demarcations and hierarchies. The critical point here
is that the practical process of developing prototypes – in community workshops,
for instance – was seen as an activity in and for political mobilization.
Recalling the movement now, what is striking is the importance that activists
attached to practical engagements in technology development as part of their politics.
The movement emphasized tacit knowledge, craft skill and learning by doing
through face-to-face collaboration in material projects. Practical activity was cast
as ‘technological agit prop’ for mobilizing alliances and debate. Some participants
found such politicization unwelcome. However, in opening prototyping in this
way, activists tried to bring more varied participation into debates and enable wider,
more practical forms of expression meaningful to different audiences, compared
Green transformations from below? 113