The Grecanici of Southern Italy. Stavroula Pipyrou

pluralism, and those which do not. Civil society, in this definition, is not a catch-all area broadly equivalent to the English term “society,” but rather an area of interaction which fosters the diffusion of power rather than its concentration, builds horizontal solidarities rather than vertical loyalties, encourages debate and autonomy of judgment rather than conformity and obedience.

      Ethnographic research in Italy has highlighted the multiplicity of meanings incorporated in terms such as civil, civic, uncivil, civility, and civil society (Herzfeld 2009a:182). Discussing the term civiltà (civilization, also including civic), in Umbria Sydel Silverman (1975:8–9) notes the class overtones associated with a celebration of urbanity, however Antony Galt (1991) in Locorotondo in Puglia, shows that peasants express an open condemnation of the urban ways of life. In its political dimension, civiltà demonstrates a communal capacity for economic and political self-government and autonomy (Silverman 1975:3; Pipyrou 2014c:536). Palumbo (2003) examined the relationship between civic and civil in more general terms. He talks of civic identity “as the collective pride enmeshed in familiar traditions of governance which feeds on strong sentiments of local attachment and an attachment to one’s ‘own’ ” ways of doing business. Palumbo (2003:371) moves away from the civil/civic dichotomy and focuses on the two different meanings embedded in the civic—the local and the universal, the first emphasizing civility—a culturally embedded value in Italy—the second assuming that ideals of good governance will have little to do with cultural peculiarities (Herzfeld 2009a:336).

      In Rome, Michael Herzfeld (2009a) argues that the opposition between civil and civic is often remarkably strong. He notes that civility is often associated with urbanity and simultaneously conceals and displays arrogance, power, and hierarchy, thus subverting formal rules of governance. This implies that on occasion “civil” may include corruption. In this sense a range of actors, from corrupt association presidents to members of illegal (criminal) organizations, can lay claim to “civil society”—“not to be sure in the sense that nongovernmental organizations are often so labeled, but still with a powerful implication of providing a morally coherent alternative to official, bureaucratic norms” (Herzfeld 2009a:182). In Lombardy, Andrea Muehlebach (2012, 2013) associates civic engagement with morality in what she terms the new “ethical citizenship,” which substitutes public systems of social security with voluntarism and collective caretaking (see also Pardo and Prato 2011). According to Muehlebach (2012:6–7), since the 1980s the neoliberal state has invested into areas “seemingly untouched” and “unpolluted” by market ideology. Usually passive and dependent citizens have been marshaled into volunteering, allowing them to purchase some sort of social belonging at times when their citizenship rights are under threat. Here state government and civic governance overlap in the area of civil society that is infused with ideals of moral duty. The government rhetoric regarding the installation of power to the people gives the impression that power can be harnessed from below with the potential to transform the state (2012:62).

      In light of the above discussion I need to draw attention not only to the terminology employed when actors talk about civil society but also to those terms that are not present. First, Grecanici do not refer to the civic associations as civil society but simply as “associations” or “cultural associations.” Second, terms such as civil, civic, and civility are not employed in discourse. Third, actors do however emphasize associazionismo (associationism) in terms of participation, belonging, mentality, and morality (see Herzfeld 2002: 147–49, 2004:33). Associationism at once encapsulates the desire to participate in often exclusive understandings of governance (such as ’Ndrangheta, often referred to as an association in a similar sense), that would conflict with democratic ideals developed in older definitions of civil society (see Putnam 1993).

       Poly-Antagonism

      What characterized the first Grecanico associations (and continues to this day) were the local antagonisms and accusations of a different mentalità (mentality) between and within the association boards. The following testimony of Nino, an engineer and former member of La Jonica who lives and works in Reggio Calabria, further illustrates this antagonism. He first makes it clear that he no longer belongs to any of the associations “that claim to fight for the Grecanico cause” since “there is not such a thing as a Grecanico cause. There are only personal causes,” In relation to Jonica he maintains that

      things got worse when the Bovesiani (from Bova) entered the club. You see they imported their corrupt ideologies and had their minds on money. When they founded their associations in Bova Marina, they managed to implicate a number of local politicians promising them electoral support. Of course the issue was not to promote the Grecanico cause, but theirs. They utilized the votes of the association’s members for personal reasons.