‘Transitioners’ share ideas and reproduce their sense of common identity
through open-access wiki websites and blogs (Scott-Cato and Hillier, 2010).
However, tensions are emerging between such standardization, and the diversity
and flexibility needed for local initiatives to flourish in their particular settings. Some
local initiatives find the hierarchical relationship with network organizers overly
restrictive and controlling. Connors and McDonald (2011) suggest that a ‘cultish,
top-down culture’ may be developing that will restrict the ability to attract new
adherents and spread as a democratic, bottom-up movement. While successful in
replicating itself, the movement is struggling to increase its impact through building
wider alliances (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). In this respect, it can be argued that
the Transition Network might be undermining its own avowed aims to attract as
many people as possible to share its vision and values, towards green transformation
from below. Again, then, we see potential for green transformations, but emergent
tensions between vibrant local agendas and the wider institution-building required
to scale up globally.
Where there is no green movement
The cases we have discussed so far have had their origins in very particular
social–political–cultural moments and milieux. Are green transformations generated
from below through forms of collective action possible where there are no green
movements, modelled in the style familiar in western Europe, North America and
parts of Latin America and Asia? In places that do not have these traditions emerg -
ing from struggles against colonialism or dictatorship or in democratic societies as
responses to an overbearing state or extractive corporate capitalism, what happens?
Is it necessary to create new movements that can take up the struggle, or are other
forms of quieter, more hidden, less confrontational mobilizations possible, resulting
in similar effects?
Here we can turn to eastern Europe and the countries making up the former
Soviet Union and China for examples. While hugely different, they all have notable
agroecological and sustainable food-growing and provisioning activities ongoing,
often on a large scale. Very often not visible as movements, although sometimes
supported by projects from NGOs or the state, they may involve the changing
practices of millions of people towards more sustainable production and consumption. Smith and Jehlic ˇka (2013) term this, in the context of Poland and the Czechia,
‘quiet sustainability’, which they define as ‘widespread practices that result in
beneficial environmental or social outcomes and that do not relate directly or
indirectly to market transactions, but are not represented by their practitioners as
relating directly to environmental or sustainability goals’ (2013, p1). This is based
on sharing, mutual aid, reciprocity and solidarity within communities, but not
necessarily with an explicitly ‘green’ or ‘alternative’ framing. It is just what people
do, and is valued as such for its intangible, non-market and social benefits.
Reflecting on the people involved, they comment:
128 Melissa Leach and Ian Scoones
through open-access wiki websites and blogs (Scott-Cato and Hillier, 2010).
However, tensions are emerging between such standardization, and the diversity
and flexibility needed for local initiatives to flourish in their particular settings. Some
local initiatives find the hierarchical relationship with network organizers overly
restrictive and controlling. Connors and McDonald (2011) suggest that a ‘cultish,
top-down culture’ may be developing that will restrict the ability to attract new
adherents and spread as a democratic, bottom-up movement. While successful in
replicating itself, the movement is struggling to increase its impact through building
wider alliances (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). In this respect, it can be argued that
the Transition Network might be undermining its own avowed aims to attract as
many people as possible to share its vision and values, towards green transformation
from below. Again, then, we see potential for green transformations, but emergent
tensions between vibrant local agendas and the wider institution-building required
to scale up globally.
Where there is no green movement
The cases we have discussed so far have had their origins in very particular
social–political–cultural moments and milieux. Are green transformations generated
from below through forms of collective action possible where there are no green
movements, modelled in the style familiar in western Europe, North America and
parts of Latin America and Asia? In places that do not have these traditions emerg -
ing from struggles against colonialism or dictatorship or in democratic societies as
responses to an overbearing state or extractive corporate capitalism, what happens?
Is it necessary to create new movements that can take up the struggle, or are other
forms of quieter, more hidden, less confrontational mobilizations possible, resulting
in similar effects?
Here we can turn to eastern Europe and the countries making up the former
Soviet Union and China for examples. While hugely different, they all have notable
agroecological and sustainable food-growing and provisioning activities ongoing,
often on a large scale. Very often not visible as movements, although sometimes
supported by projects from NGOs or the state, they may involve the changing
practices of millions of people towards more sustainable production and consumption. Smith and Jehlic ˇka (2013) term this, in the context of Poland and the Czechia,
‘quiet sustainability’, which they define as ‘widespread practices that result in
beneficial environmental or social outcomes and that do not relate directly or
indirectly to market transactions, but are not represented by their practitioners as
relating directly to environmental or sustainability goals’ (2013, p1). This is based
on sharing, mutual aid, reciprocity and solidarity within communities, but not
necessarily with an explicitly ‘green’ or ‘alternative’ framing. It is just what people
do, and is valued as such for its intangible, non-market and social benefits.
Reflecting on the people involved, they comment:
128 Melissa Leach and Ian Scoones