The Lab’s Quarterly

2020 / a. XXII / n. 1 (gennaio-marzo)

DIRETTORE

Andrea Borghini

VICEDIRETTRICE

Roberta Bracciale

COMITATO SCIENTIFICO Françoise Albertini (Corte), Massimo Ampola (Pisa), Gabriele Balbi (Lugano), Andrea Borghini (Pisa), Matteo Bortolini (Padova), Lorenzo Bruni (Perugia), Massimo Cerulo (Perugia), Franco Crespi (Perugia), Sabina Curti (Perugia), Gabriele De Angelis (Lisboa), Paolo De Nardis (Roma), Teresa Grande (Cosenza), Elena Gremigni (Pisa), Roberta Iannone (Roma), Anna Giulia Ingellis (València), Mariano Longo (Lecce), Domenico Maddaloni (Salerno), Stefan Müller-Doohm (Oldenburg), Gabriella Paolucci (Firenze), Massimo Pendenza (Salerno), Eleonora Piromalli (Roma), Walter Privitera (Milano), Cirus Rinaldi (Palermo), Antonio Viedma Rojas (Madrid), Vincenzo Romania (Padova), Angelo Romeo (Perugia), Ambrogio Santambrogio (Perugia), Giovanni Travaglino (The Chinese University of Hong Kong).

COMITATO DI REDAZIONE Luca Corchia (Coordinatore editoriale), Roberta Bracciale, Massimo Cerulo, Marco Chiuppesi (Referente linguistico), Cesar Crisosto (Sito web), Elena Gremigni (Revisioni), Francesco Grisolia (Recensioni), Antonio Martella (Social network), Gerardo Pastore (Revisioni), Emanuela Susca.

CONTATTI

thelabs@sp.unipi.it

I saggi della rivista sono sottoposti a un processo di double blind peer-review. La rivista adotta i criteri del processo di referaggio approvati dal Coordinamento delle Riviste di Sociologia (CRIS): cris.unipg.it I componenti del Comitato scientifico sono revisori permanenti della rivista. Le informazioni per i collaboratori sono disponibili sul sito della rivista: https://thelabs.sp.unipi.it

ISSN 1724-451X

Quest’opera è distribuita con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

“The Lab’s Quarterly” è una rivista di Scienze Sociali fondata nel 1999

e riconosciuta come rivista scientifica dall’ANVUR per l’Area 14 delle

Scienze politiche e Sociali. L’obiettivo della rivista è quello di

contribuire al dibattito sociologico nazionale ed internazionale, analiz-

zando i mutamenti della società contemporanea, a partire da un’idea di

sociologia aperta, pubblica e democratica. In tal senso, la rivista intende

favorire il dialogo con i molteplici campi disciplinari riconducibili alle

scienze sociali, promuovendo proposte e special issues, provenienti

anche da giovani studiosi, che riguardino riflessioni epistemologiche

sullo statuto conoscitivo delle scienze sociali, sulle metodologie di

ricerca sociale più avanzate e incoraggiando la pubblicazione di ricerche

teoriche sulle trasformazioni sociali contemporanee.

The Lab’s Quarterly

2020 / a. XXII / n. 1 (gennaio-marzo)

SAGGI

Francesca Bianchi The role of co-housing. Towards a New Model of Collaborative Housing in Italy 7

Alessandra Polidori L’accélération du rythme de vie. Une étude sur les jeunes parisiens 29

Elena Gremigni Produzione, riproduzione e canonizzazione. Le classificazioni sociali nel campo della “profes-sione docente”. Il caso degli insegnanti italiani 73

Luca Mastrosimone Globalizing sociology. Lezioni dal caso Taiwan 103

Giovanni Andreozzi L’“innesto” hegeliano nella psichiatria feno-menologica 123

INTERVISTE

Stefan Müller-Doohm

La risonanza dei cittadini del mondo. In conver-sazione con Harro Zimmermann su Habermas glo-bal. Wirkungsgeschichte eines Werks (L. Corchia, S. Müller-Doohm, W. Outhwaite, Hg., Surhrkamp, 2019). 135

RECENSIONI

Carlotta Vignali Donato Antonio Telesca (2019). Carcere e riedu-cazione. Da istituto penale a istituto culturale 141

Romina Gurashi Vanni Codeluppi (2018). Il tramonto della realtà. Come i media stanno trasformando le nostre vite 147

THE ROLE OF CO-HOUSING

Towards a New Model of Collaborative Housing in Italy

di Francesca Bianchi*

Abstract

Differently from other countries, the spread of collaborative housing is at

the beginning in Italy. In this essay, we will describe the main results of

a two case studies. We will conduct a study on two Italian groups of

inhabitants, which have been active in the advancement of this practice,

a model of collaborative housing aiming to turn urban spaces into new

social neighbourhood places. The research has been conducted through

several in depth interviews to the members of cohousing Numero zero

situated in the town of Turin and to the members of cohousing Ecosol

located in Fidenza. The study shows that people are strongly motivated

to invest resources in collective projects to realize a model of social and

sustainable life. In that way, cohousing seems to become a new model of

co-residence in everyday life with particular attention to economic, social

and ecological sustainability.

Keywords

Cohousing, urban regeneration, planning, social capital, neighbourhoods

* FRANCESCA BIANCHI (PhD) is associate professor in General Sociology at the

University of Siena. In recent years, she has been particularly studying the new forms and

practices of social interaction, participation and cooperation in urban contexts. Email: francesca.bianchi@unisi.it

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13131/1724-451x.labsquarterly.axxii.n1.7-28

8 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

1. INTRODUCTION

his article deals with experiences of communitarian life and in

particular with co-housing, a form of co-residency that is working

to turn urban spaces into new social places for neighbourhoods.

In particular the overall aim of the authors is to present the results of an

empirical in-depth study of contemporary co-housing life in Italy.

Co-housing represents a middle ground between life in apartments

and life in a “voluntary community”, where it is possible to share

intimately a common lifestyle. In co-housing people live separately in

their own apartments but share some common spaces where is possible

to meet and socialize. Essentially, we will try to answer the question

whether co-housing succeeds in offering a privileged place for people

to experience a lifestyle characterized by active participation and

sociability. One of the issues that we will try to investigate in this essay

concerns the attitude implicit in the choices of those who intend to

experiment this housing formula. Some studies have pointed out that

the prime objective of people involved in co-housing is not the idea of

fleeing or withdrawing from social life but rather rethinking it. This is

expressed in the desire to find a different balance between private and

community life by exploring a new kind of organization and definition

of living spaces (Hasell, Scanzoni 1997; Jarvis 2011). In this article we

will give particular attention to the social representations developed by

the members of two Italian co-housing units concerning the meaning of

living in the same building (that is the concept of co-residence) and their

mutual forms of interactions. In order to examine this phenomenon, a

micro-sociological in-depth study of two co-housing settlements,

Numero Zero in Turin and Ecosol in Fidenza, will be presented. In the

first part we provide a review of a recent sociological debate on the

theme of co-housing (§ 2) and of methods of research (§ 3). In the

second part we introduce our research activity, which was conducted

through two case studies of the co-housing settlements Numero Zero

(Turin) and Ecosol (Fidenza), both located in northern Italy (§ 4). These

studies were conducted following an ethnographic methodology (in

each case the researcher lived in the settlement for a week) and using a

series of qualitative semi-structured interviews (with a representative of

almost every family unit). In the last part we try to analyse the main

results of our study in the context of the most significant issues

currently being debated (§ 5).

T

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 9

2. CO-HOUSING: STATE OF THE ART

A new wave of collective self-organized forms of housing has taken place

in many European countries since the early 2000s. We can observe a wide

variety of forms and models, such as co-housing, residents’ co-

operatives, self-help and self-build initiatives, experimental work-life

communities, ecological housing communities, some types of

Community Land Trusts (CLTs) etc. Alongside the growth of grassroots

activity in this field, the number and breadth of relative research and

publications is rapidly growing. In this contribution our purpose is to refer

only to the model of co-housing as a housing practice, a term more

restrictive than collaborative housing (Lang, Carriou, Czischke 2018, 2).

What is co-housing? In western countries, attention is being given to

a way of life that under various names (co-housing, collaborative or self-

help housing in England, baugruppen or genossenschaftin Germany,

collectifparticulier, habitat groupé or habitat participative in France) was

initially experimented in the Nordic countries in the mid-1960s and then

spread, albeit with different characteristics and in various degrees, to the

major western countries between the 1980s and the early 2000s1. If

intentional communities are “groups of people who have chosen to live

(and sometimes work) together for some common purpose beyond that

of tradition, personal relationship or family ties” (Sargisson 2000, 1), then

co-housing, literally “housing-cum-neighbourhood”, is a kind of

intentional community (Lietaert 2007, 5). This is a housing practice

characterized by the three-fold need for economic, environmental and

social sustainability.

In co-housing communities residents have their own private

apartments alongside common spaces; sharing the common spaces offers

economic savings as well as advantages in terms of cooperation,

solidarity, relating and social capital (Deriu, Bucco 2013). Thus, the

common spaces represent added value for the inhabitants. Moreover, the

demand for sharing often involves collateral services that can prove

extremely useful, such as car sharing, time banks and solidarity

purchasing groups (Raffa 2012). The collective spaces are fundamental

for encouraging social practices that foster a sense of community and

social belonging (Baglione, Chiodelli 2011).

The people involved play an active part in the realization of the

housing project. During the phase of settling in they become learners as

1 The first co-housing experiences took place at the end of the Sixties in Denmark, but

subsequently the phenomenon spread to the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, France,

North America and then to Great Britain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Japan.

10 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

a group. Taking part in the realization of a co-housing project requires

close collaboration among the participants, since they have to conceive,

construct and manage life-spaces together, and therefore organizational

skills and a group spirit are fundamental (Tuckman 1965). Of course,

risks of conflict and problems in building the community are always

around the corner, since in practice the residents are involved in an on-

going interactive process, with all the risks implicit and typical in any

movement (Casby Nichols, Cooper 2011; Baker 2014). Moreover,

residents generally manage themselves using the consensus method for

taking decisions, which requires hearing out all opinions and developing

compromises that will be better than decisions taken following the

majority method (Baker 2014).

Co-housing communities are often formed by persons of diverse

gender, age and family status; however, there are also co-housing

communities specifically aimed at women or the elderly (Ibidem).

Moreover, it is possible to find considerable variety among these

communities as regards typologies, support mechanisms, productive

processes, levels of participation, types of settlements, etc. (Williams

2008, 2005). This model allows people to live independently within a

cohesive, sympathetic community that provides support and security as

well as precious opportunities for socialization and sharing resources. As

a matter of fact, co-housing is intended to foster mutual help and

conviviality not only inside the group but also with the reality of the

surrounding urban territory, with the aim of social mixité (Bresson,

Tummers 2014; Ruiu 2015; D’Orazio 2014; Bianchi 2015).

We can find many different motives for choosing to live in co-

housing. The declared intentions of co-housing are “to create living

arrangements that are not easily available in the (local) housing market”

(Tummers 2015a, 2):

These arrangements are described as representing “more than simply an

alternative system of housing” (Jarvis 2015, 102). Indeed, they intend to invent

new lifestyles based “on equality and neighbourly cooperation” (Vestbro and

Horelli 2012, 315; Roux 2014; Bianchi, Roberto 2016), female emancipation

(Jarvis 2013), or new ways of relating to nature and/or work (Cunningham and

Wearing 2013) while in any case not breaking radically with dominant social

norms (Jarvis, Bonnett 2013) (Lang, Carriou, Czischke 2018 11).

A new interest in co-housing has arisen within the frame of a return to

forms of mutual help in society (Guadagnucci 2007). This can be seen

as a result of the faltering welfare state ‘safety-net,’ which had

previously compensated for social disintegration, especially in large

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 11

metropolitan areas.

A wide range of models for the development of co-housing can be

found in different countries. In northern Europe the model is often

financed by the state, thanks to a robust system of social policies that

defend the universal right to housing (Ruiu 2015, 2016). In corporative

systems the building industry is more fragmentary, but there are greater

possibilities for speculative profits. In both cases the public contribution

of land with the intention of redistribution fosters self-promoted

building, cooperatives and other forms of non-profit building. Liberal

welfare systems, instead, are characterized by the predominance of the

private sector in promoting the development of housing construction

(guided by the market) and by the presence of large-scale companies.

Finally, the Mediterranean welfare regimes are distinguished by the

presence of small, fragmented builders, whose possibilities for

speculative profits are linked to land use regimes and to a traditional

weakness in instruments of planning (Bronzini 2014). Consequently, in

the countries of southern Europe there is ample space for the

intervention of individual citizens.

In Italy, one of the reasons for the growing interest in co-housing is

related to the introduction of new inter-sectorial planning tools, viz. the

Integrated Action Plans, Urban Reclamation and Suburbs Recovery

Programs, Recognition of Sustainable Development of the Territory,

and Participatory Experience of District Contracts (Deriu 2015). In

many cases there is a strong possibility that co-residency initiatives

have little to do with the gradual transformation of urban policies, even

though it is clear that a participatory culture is an essential condition for

the development of co-housing. In fact, the role of participatory

territorial governance, which sees territorial enhancement as an action

system involving a variety of mobilized actors (Bifulco, Borghi 2012),

has been growing since the early 1990s. This important trend should,

however, be seen in the context of many other factors that appear to

contribute to the origin of the development of co-housing.

3. METHODS

As concerns co-residency practices in the various countries involved,

discussion has mainly highlighted several relevant issues, in particular

those pertinent to the dissemination and generalization of the model. In

this regard research has focused on three aspects: 1) what kind of

community do individuals develop and how important is the socio-

cultural homogeneity of the participants for the success of the initiative?

12 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

2) are there processes of self-election or, better, is the concept of the

elective neighbourhood applied? 3) are the participants capable of

generating social capital? and if so, what kind? is it bridging capital or

bonding capital (Putnam, Goss 2002; Ruiu 2016)?

This study, conducted between 2014 and 2015, was carried out

using a qualitative approach that envisaged a series of in-depth

interviews with residents along with a detailed ethnographic analysis.

The aim of this analysis was to reconstruct the genesis of the two co-

housing experiences studied by identifying the role of the various actors

(agency), the prevalent organizational modes, and the main strengths

and weaknesses evidenced.

The cases presented here were implemented in two regions of Italy.

This choice was made for two reasons. The first is connected to the

considerable delay in the development and spread of innovative housing

practices in Italy compared to other European contexts. Consequently,

the debate about these issues is not well developed at a scientific level2.

In the second place, since this is mainly an exploratory contribution, the

choice of two cases within a single country allows us to control

variables of an institutional nature, such as the regulation of different

experiences, the presence and size of incentives and transfers of

resources to support practices, and the distribution of responsibilities

for housing policies at various levels of government.

With regard to the choice, the two cases were identified starting

from the contribution of Sitton (2016) who, based on the type of

community (intentional in bottom-up and contractual in top-down

projects)3 and on the level of sharing (minimum and maximum),

distinguished four groups. The experiences of Numero Zero (Turin) and

Ecosol (Fidenza), while having the same features as regards the nature

of the project (bottom-up), show different levels of sharing, which leads

them to occupy different positions. The comparison between these

experiences, considered by Sitton herself as successful and with a

medium-high “social value” (Sitton 2016, 178), allows us to grasp

elements of similarity and to enrich our understanding of the

2 In Italy at present there are about twenty associations involved in promoting co-

housing, located mainly in the regions of northern Italy, in addition to forty projects.

Differently from what has happened in the international scenario, in-depth studies are rare and researchers have only recently paid attention to this subject.

3A further type has been presented by Giunco (2014) who, in a publication of the

Fondazione Cariplo, distinguishes experiences on the basis of the main actor of coalition. Thus, co-housing projects can be guided by the community, the market, the public

administration or the third sector. According to this classification, the cases presented here

can be associated with the first group, i.e., those guided by the community.

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 13

differences.

Regarding the method adopted, the choice of a qualitative approach

based on case-studies4 allows us to experience more closely the

viewpoint of the subjects involved, thereby bringing to the light their

conceptual categories, interpretations of reality and the motivations

underlying their actions (Corbetta 2003). Since we are dealing with

“emerging phenomena” our aim is not to reach a generalization about

the results, but rather to highlight the role of context in the analysis of

decisions taken. Indeed, the variables at play are complex,

interconnected and difficult to measure in quantitative terms.

Furthermore, in studies of matters regarding housing, the relation-

ship between researcher and residents becomes fundamental. In order

to enter an “intimate environment” like the home and to avoid the “zoo

syndrome”, which makes the inhabitants of these new experiences feel

like objects of attention based on mere curiosity, their direct involve-

ment in collecting data and their participation in observation become

necessary to create the context of trust indispensable in leading and

controlling the interview and in guiding those interviewed towards a

critical observation of themselves and their actions.

Participatory observation has been adopted as a method useful for

carrying out the series of semi-structured interviews made with the

residents. This is a research strategy in which the researcher directly

enters a determined social group, establishing a relationship of personal

interaction with its members with the aim of describing its actions and

understanding its motivations through a process of identification

(Ibidem). This becomes especially useful in studies of communities, i.e.

in investigations that concern aspects of the life of autonomous and

territorially defined social microcosms endowed with a precise cultural

universe.

To be specific, the author lived in each settlement for a week, observing

and participating in the interactive dynamics of the members, taking

part in some common activities and conducting semi-structured

interviews with at least one representative per family (7 in Turin and 13

in Fidenza), with the goal of maximizing variety in regard to age,

gender, marital status and (previous) occupation.

4 The technique of the case study can be defined as a type of empirical investigation that

studies in depth a phenomenon in the context in which it is born and reproduced (Yin 2003).

Further discussion of comparative analysis and case studies in the social sciences can be

found in Corbetta (2003) and Gherardini (2017).

14 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

4. RESULTS

4.1. Numero Zero: co-housing as a challenge for urban regeneration

In the case of Turin, the 8 family units which started the Numero Zero

Cooperative purchased the apartments in 2009 and, after refurbishing

them, they took possession of the building in 20135. In this case, the group

independently planned and managed the entire project in an explicitly

participatory way, thanks to the presence in the group of professionals

(engineers and architects) who were able to coordinate the renovation of

the property. At the beginning the cohousers did not know each other (if

only 3/4 of them) and therefore, in order to find other members, they had

to advertise their project/venture in the local newspapers. Over time other

people have gradually joined the initial group, sharing the same values

(cooperation, solidarity, sustainability).

Participants vary in gender, age and family situations, but are

homogeneous as regards economic and cultural capital. It is interesting to

note that many of them, despite having high levels of education, such as

MAs and/or PhDs, have precarious jobs and have therefore resorted to

loans and/or mortgages to buy their apartments. For this reason the

inhabitants are fleeing from the concept of “elective neighbourhood”

implicit in the co-residence model. One interviewee explains the

phenomenon well:

[…] neighbours are not chosen, just as you do not choose the people you have

next to you in the tram ... we never said yes or no to anyone ... we have really

approached many people but there has never been selection, there was the

fact that people recognized themselves in what we were doing or not, in our

methods (Chiara).

Besides the apartments, whose renovation has followed the principles of

environmental sustainability, there are common areas such as a garden,

terrace, balconies, cellar and laundry.

All residents are members of the CoAbitareAssociation and are

involved in the many activities that this Association performs, including

a Time Bank and a Cooperation-based Purchasing Group (GAS), with the

aim of developing urban district renewal6. The interaction practices,

5 The settlement was built by renovating an existing building in Turin located in the

central district of Porta Palazzo. 6 Coabitare is a cultural and social association established in 2007 that promotes an

alternative way of living, attentive to the promotion of cooperation, sustainability and urban

participation through the regeneration of the neighbourhood.

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 15

developed thanks to the several associations present in the territory,

represent a significant source of cultural and social regeneration. In

addition to CoAbitare we should note The Gate7, a Local Development

Agency which coordinates a social housing workshop that Numero Zero

has been invited to join, the Compagnia of San Paolo, and other

institutional actors in this area. There is also Fuori di Palazzo8, a

neighbourhood association that aims to mend the social fabric through

the redevelopment and recovery of public spaces through re-launching

proximity practices.

The inhabitants of Numero Zero are successful in the management of

the complex relations that develop in the buildings and of social

behaviours ranging from requests for material aid to mutual respect for

privacy:

[…] we made the choice to have a certain type of relationship between us,

frank , unvarnished, without hypocrisies, open to reciprocal acceptance,

based on respect but also on being explicit and frank ... the degree of intimacy

which one reaches is naturally different because of sympathies, these cannot

be decided, but no doubt there is mutual respect (Bruna).

In general, the interviews reveal particular satisfaction in living there:

[…] it is a fluid and spontaneous situation, comfortable, warm, you give to

others but you also get ... it’s different compared to living in an apartment

and having the outside and the inside space ... maybe in the housing inside

you do not have big spaces but you feel at home everywhere ... there are these

spaces to share – me, for example, I never close the door here, it is open, in

Turin you cannot do this if you are in a house, this phenomenon here is very

nice (Irene).

In the Porta Palazzo neighbourhood there are only a few identifiable

stable residents, but housing demand has sharply increased owing to the

presence of people from Turin and of non-EU citizens looking for low-

cost properties. However, because of its marked multi-ethnicity, this area

is deemed dangerous by the majority of the Turin population9. For the

7 This is the Agency that inherited the pilot urban project “The Gate-living not leaving”

to improve the living and working conditions of the neighbourhood through innovative

methodologies and approaches. The project has sought to involve public and private partners by triggering the process of revitalization in the Porta Palazzo and Borgo Dora districts. See

http://www.comune.torino.it/portapalazzo/. 8 See http://www.fuoridipalazzo.org/. 9 Respondents recalled that many people from Turin have rejected the possibility of

joining the co-housing because the property is located in a neighbourhood which is

considered particularly rundown and risky due to the presence of many immigrants. Indeed,

16 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

members of the group concerned in experiencing co-residency, however,

the fact that the neighbourhood was chaotic, initially degraded and

inhabited by immigrants belonging to diverse ethnic groups (Chinese,

Moroccan, Tunisian, etc.) was a challenge to develop interactive practices

and cultural projects that could be learned and shared by the members of

the various communities in a perspective of social mixité.

The first act of the group in creating the settlement was the renovation

of the property by an important symbolic gesture -- the demolition of the

perimeter wall that prevented people from seeing inside. This was meant

to signal the group’s opening up to the surrounding territory: a gate was

put in to replace the wall, with a sign with translations into Chinese and

Arabic, informing neighbours of the renovation works going on and

apologizing for any inconvenience caused.

In 2013 an inauguration party was organized with a street lunch that

saw the participation of roughly 400 neighbours, including many

immigrants who contributed by preparing couscous and mint tea.

Since taking possession of their dwellings, the co-housers have been

actively involved in numerous socio-cultural initiatives that have had

significant effects in reducing the sense of insecurity in the

neighbourhood, improving social cohesion and, more generally, urban

life:

[…] a community in a neighbourhood like this ... needs to know, to understand

others and to integrate in the true sense of the word, which doesn’t mean

entering an already organized system, but rather being part of the organizing,

trying to find the right keys to enter (Paolo).

I like the fact of being contaminated by the things of the others too, even by

things that you probably would not experience, you would not live, certain

environments that the others possibly hang out at or certain ideas that come

to them, a situation like ours, however, it is not that we lack contamination…it

is nice to enter the worlds that you would not know, I find it beautiful and in

a very normal way, it is beautiful this thing of the neighbors who are a little

family, a little friends (Irene).

Although this co-housing has only recently been established, its

inhabitants seem to have been able to create a climate of openness by

cultivating social relationships with the other residents of the

neighbourhood, an area that had long since lost the characteristics of a

in the course of her many visits to this urban area, both during the day and the night on

different days of the week, the author witnessed many illicit activities committed there (such

as drug trafficking) and observed the frequent intervention of law enforcement officers.

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 17

community, in order to increase their involvement and civic participation

(Baglione, Chiodelli 2011; Bianchi 2015). Numerous initiatives have

been undertaken -- from football matches played on Thursday nights with

non-EU youths and adults, to exchange markets, to the neighbours’ party

organized with the support of the City Council once a year. Other ideas

that have been implemented include the preparation of community meals

using the wood-fired oven in the common room and having Maghreb

women make their traditional bread on Saturday mornings.

These important activities evidence the desire to create places and

times for mixing among the various social groups involved, for

familiarizing and finding a space to appreciate the value of differences by

re-launching particular customs, thereby showing a capacity for learning

and a growth in reflection of all the actors involved. It should also be

noted that having to deal with possible risks of conflict and/or social

marginality seems to increase the participation and empowerment of the

inhabitants.

The Turin experience therefore shows a high level of social

innovation, thanks to the choice of the inhabitants not to close themselves

off by developing interaction dynamics only within the intentional

community, but rather to experiment and promote concrete initiatives for

familiarizing with members of neighbourhood ethnic groups, with the

goal of re-qualifying the urban space. In short, the group chose to open

up and get acquainted with the neighbourhood. Whereas before the

group’s arrival in the Porta Palazzo district there was no interaction

between the original residents and non-EU citizens, ever since the

establishment of the settlement the co-housers have been cultivating

social proximity relations that have had important impacts on the

inhabitants and on the practices of aggregation and inclusion typical of

urban spaces. While it is true that in this process personal qualities such

as the sensitivity and openness of group members seem to have counted

a great deal, a crucial role has also been played by associations that are

particularly active and involved in bottom-up participative urban

regeneration. Since 2013 the Porta Palazzo district has gradually begun

to flourish once again, thanks to the role played by the various actors

involved in the network, who have contributed the availability of facilities

aimed at increasing opportunities for residents to meet and share

experiences and the sense of belonging to the territory. As a consequence,

Numero Zero seems to have taken on the role of urban change agent as

well as being a generator of widespread social capital (Musolino 2015).

Even if we will have to wait some years to see to what degree having

triggered these virtuous practices can change the image of one of the most

18 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

traditionally degraded and dangerous neighbourhoods in Turin, the

initiatives that have been implemented so far seem highly promising. It is

therefore to be hoped that local authorities, and in particular the town

council, will give its support to the activities of this settlement so as to

enhance its positive effects on the territory, in line with the first formal

act, i.e., the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in which the

local administration recognized the social value of the co-residence.

4.2. Ecosol: the role of participation and sharing values

The Ecosol co-housing project has been developed over five years

following a participatory orientation. Its first nucleus was made up of

individuals from international and local non-profit organizations

committed to creating a settlement in the newly-built urban

neighbourhood “Europa” in Fidenza. Over time other people have

gradually joined this initial group, sharing its values of cooperation, social

justice, group well-being and the promotion of economic, environmental

and social sustainability.

Ecosol members have highlighted the concept of the elective

neighbourhood. Since members cannot choose among friends, relatives

or persons already known, this process begins with perfect strangers and

then develops over time:

[…] elective neighbourhood for me means living with people you don’t know,

even if here this aspect doesn’t often happen, because it is difficult in a city of

only 26,000 inhabitants, but also from other areas when we happen to talk to

people who want to start the journey none of us thinks of saying as characteristic

the fact that you must already know people, no, you must think of a process that

begins with unknown people, too, but then develops over time and produces a

community ... where everyone has the possibility to feel good without forcing,

they arrive where they think they will arrive (Stefano).

After an initial period fraught with problems10, the property was

inaugurated in 2015. There are apartments and common areas including

balconies arranged on the three floors of the building and located in front

of the apartments, a kitchen, a vegetable garden, a laundry room and a

large salon. Although initially the salon was to count as an apartment

because of its large size, it was recognized by the city council as a

10 In 2014, owing to the bankruptcy of the construction cooperative of which it was a

member, the group decided to buy the building from the cooperative and took possession of

it when almost all the works were complete, apart from those related to the common spaces.

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 19

communal area when the group declared that it would be made available

to the whole neighbourhood.

As in the Turin experience, we can note the professional skills of some

of the participants (an architect/designer who directed the renovation

works, two engineers who assisted him during the works, and a facilitator

who has used theatrical methods to animate and strengthen group spirit).

In this property, which meets all the requirements of environmental

sustainability, there are 13 family nuclei, heterogeneous for age, gender,

and socio-occupational conditions. The socio-cultural status is high: apart

from a couple of elderly people, all the others have bachelor or master

degrees. Furthermore, since 2002 five of the families have been members

of the “Camminando” Community, which has joined the “Mondo di

comunità e famiglia” (MCF)11, an association that promotes income

sharing. From an economic point of view, incomes are low to average.

Respondents admit that even if there are conflicts in Ecosol, they do

not affect their relationships with the “Other”, a feature that, as in the case

of Turin, may perhaps be explained by the sensitivity and cultural

openness of the co-housers. As recalled by two interviewees:

[…] for us, participatory planning was fundamental ... it allowed us to form

a group, to get to know each other, to clarify our ideas, to share the

expectations that were different among us, and some expectations fell by the

wayside ... Together trust is built and it was clear that we would do what we

had decided together... we would decide together ... everything else has gone

to combine with expectations, hopes, dreams and the possibility of realizing

them (Anna Maria).

I was looking for collaboration, brotherhood, true friendships ... living in this

way is a different thing ... especially in times of difficulty ... and here we

understood each other from the first moment ... if there is good will it doesn’t

take much, and we were born as a group with this willingness to get along, to

help each other ... the co-housing group started with just these objectives, to

make a building in a certain way but above all to manage the group with

certain values ... it was to be seized on as an opportunity (Ivana).

Despite the existence of a set of rules which the group decided to adopt

to organize everyday life, it was decided to manage both the function of

spaces and collective activities with some flexibility12:

11 See http://www.comunitaefamiglia.org/. 12 Collective activities include a common meal every 15 days, baby-sitting services for

children, meetings with experts and qualified observers, movie showings, building

maintenance work every three months and building management meetings.

20 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

[…] co-housing gives you the opportunity to live peacefully in a condominium

and also have access to the common places, let’s say to take advantage of

spaces that maybe you could not afford ... we are very young, we have been

living this experiment for only two years, but for me now nothing is missing”

(Giovanna).

A goal that everyone has shared, and which will be especially focused on

in years to come, is openness to neighbours:

[…] our daily life is very normal ... it reminds me that when we came to live

here this neighbourhood saw us as a bit ‘bad’ ... the people in the

neighbourhood looked on us as a strange phenomenon ... and the township

came to our aid ... but you also need to make yourself known or else people

see you as a bit strange ...” (Anna Maria).

To this end, projects have been created to promote the exchange of skills

between co-housers and neighbourhood residents. For example, a

nursery-school teacher who teaches the children that live in the co-

housing painting and puppet-making is planning to organize open

meetings with other children in the neighbourhood. The settlement

welcomes and hosts neighbourhood groups and associations, such as

Cooperation-based Purchasing Groups (GAS), as well as individuals

looking for accommodation (for example, during the Festadeipopoli /

Peoples’ Party). The salon is used weekly by outside groups for initiatives

that see the joint participation of co-housers and district residents.

Festivals, celebrations and sports events often involve relatives and

friends of co-housers, who in turn ask to use the common spaces, thereby

further opening the community by making it a place where people

interested in learning about the model of co-residency arrive continually.

Considerable interest is also shown by associations and/or groups that

want to use the settlement for specific social activities13.

As for as relationships with the public actors are concerned, through

the Emilia Romagna Regional Coordination for Cooperative Economics

(CRESER)14, a structure that has become the main interlocutor in the

13 Regular active guests include a theatrical improvisation group, a theatre group with

psychologically disturbed participants, a Caritas youth group, a Qi-gong group coordinated

by the instructor (daughter of the architect who designed the co-housing premises), associations representing the cooperative economy (GAS, DES), a referent of BancaEtica,

and organic horticulturists. 14 CRESER unites the various actors of the cooperative economy, including the

Cooperation Business Districts (DES) and the Cooperative Buying Groups (GASs). Thanks

to CRESER, Emilia Romagna was the first region in Italy to issue a law on the cooperative

economy (Rules for the Promotion and Support of the Cooperative Economy - LR 19/2014).

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 21

Emilia Romagna Region, Ecosol has supported the request made to the

Region to recognize a new approach to the idea of housing by instituting

a discussion table specifically dedicated to the question. In 2016, the last

reference year useful for this analysis, co-housers were involved in a

project aimed at realizing social housing: indeed, there is an empty

apartment in the building that the members of the group would like to

assign to disadvantaged users and manage with the collaboration of local

associations.

What is more, at the district level Ecosol has taken on the role of

promoter of a project for participatory planning of public areas supported

by the municipality (which has allocated a budget for the residents’

project). This participatory project, called “Europa Europa”, has just

started, and so far certain important procedural phases have been carried

out15. The project has moved into the operational phase and meetings will

soon be scheduled for the realisation of the final phase.

Since this is a very recent settlement, it will be necessary to monitor

its effects on the surrounding neighbourhood and on social inclusion

practices over time. Furthermore, considering that the settlement has been

built in a new area in the town’s outskirts, the coordinating and animating

role taken on by the co-housers together with collateral associations and

the public actor will be especially crucial in determining outcomes.

5. DISCUSSION

Through participant observation and in-depth semi-structured interviews

in two co-housing communities, it is possible to highlight the experiences

of community members as they take practical steps to make their

communitarian ideals a reality. The cases studied allow us to explore

some theoretical considerations as well as to comment on the results

achieved by the co-housings’ practices.

Starting from one of the first questions in the interviews and according

to other studies (Sullivan 2015), we note that co-housers recall particular

instances of life in a communal arrangement and link this experience to

For further information, refer to http://www.creser.it/-.

15 These are the three steps: a) presentation of the settlement to the district; b)

establishment of a working group to manage the process, made up of five residents of the settlements (including Ecosol’s designer), five residents of the district extracted by lot, two

municipal councillors who sponsored the Project, the engineer of the municipal technical

office and an external facilitator; this group has met several times and acts as a link between the public administration and residents; c) administering a questionnaire to all residents with

data elaboration and presentation of results at a district assembly.

22 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

their current search for community. We learn that all the respondents

often refer to the common need to trust people and the importance of a

balance between the need for privacy and for sociality. Co-housing

communities are neighbourhood developments that creatively mix

private and common dwellings to recreate a sense of community while

preserving a high degree of individual privacy, and the inhabitants

underscore the existence of this challenging dialectic, an interesting

balance they have to get used to. Even if groups take part in every aspect

of the development of the community, including designing physical

layouts, managing sites collectively and sharing common facilities and

spaces, they have private homes and do not have a shared economic

system (Ruiu 2014). We know that people want to cooperate with others

at the same time as they want to live in co-housing units where they can

be free and independent.

From the outset we see that co-housers are seeking to re-establish

imagined close community ties16 (Spreafico 2005; Esposito 2006; Labit

2015). Co-housing units are populated by people who have chosen to live

(partially) together while searching for responsiveness and a sense of

community in their everyday lives. This is the reason why Sandstedt and

Westin (2015) criticize the categories of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

(Tönnies 1887) and propose the new concept of Bund (Schmalenbach

1977). Bund is a concept useful to explain the dynamics of all types of

these groups and life styles; it can be defined as ‘an elective form of

sociality’ whose main features are that it is small-scale, spatially

proximate and maintained through the affectual solidarity its members

have for one another in pursuit of a particular set of shared beliefs. In the

Bund it is the individual who chooses whether he/she want or don’t want

to join the others. Bund is a form of sociation that involves affective as

well as value-rational conduct and this appears particularly evident in

the two cases investigated. In fact life in cohousing presupposes a

continuous search for a balance between friendship and affectivity and,

at the same time, the achievement of some relevant objectives related

to co-residence. This seems particularly evident in the two cases

considered. Both in the case of Porta Palazzo and Ecosol, the

interviewees declared that it is fundamental to live together, to pay

attention both to the social/relational aspects and to the practical factors

16 These can be traced in many organizations dealing with volunteering, associationism

and the social economy, where individuals share goals, common values and a lifestyle which

by strengthening bonds creates positive feelings along with responsibility, reciprocal

commitment and trust (Spreafico 2005; Ambrosini 2005; Bruhn 2005).

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 23

linked to the need to pursue common goals, essential for the whole

group.

Another question concerns the concept of elective neighbourhood.

This is one of the principles on which the definition of co-housing is

based and for which it has been severely criticized. In reality, an a priori

selective orientation seems to be rare: the elective element concerns the

selection methods, but it is more an abstract principle than an actual

recruitment criterion. Both in the case of Numero Zero and Ecosol, the

group originally interested in setting up the co-housing has promoted

various forms of communication to involve the interested people. There

were no selections decided from above for those who were to join Porta

Palazzo and Ecosol. There were rather people, who, after understanding

the housing model, decided to give up of their own.

It is, however, indisputable that to join an intentional community one

must adhere to common values inspired by the principles of sharing and

economic, environmental and social sustainability (Labit 2015).

Since their appearance, the intentional communities have been

described as characterized by a certain uniformity of socio-cultural

interests, since the purpose of creating communal living entails adherence

to a common ideological basis (Ruiu 2015) – to implement the model, it

is necessary to share core values, especially those of sustainability and

mutual help. However, the arguments of those who most criticize co-

housing are in fact related to the cultural, professional and social

homogeneity of the participants (Sanguinetti 2014; Fromm 2000; Labit

2015). One of the most controversial issues for those who study co-

housing is the presumed openness or closure of the settlements, a question

that leads one to ask if they do not wind up as basically closed residential

enclaves. According to some authors, co-residence is a covert case of a

gated community17(Barbieri 2015). Others, while distinguishing some

features of co-housing from those of gated communities, inscribe them

both within the category of residential communities18 (Chiodelli 2015).

Finally, for others again co-housing is a phenomenon very different from

the enclave or closed community models (Ruiu 2014, 2016).

In the two cases we have studied we can observe a certain social and

cultural homogeneity among the participants. However homogeneity is

17 Gated communities are residential communities surrounded by walls, fences, gates or

natural barriers inside which only residents and their guests are allowed to enter (Vicari,

Haddock 2013). 18 The two types apparently belong to the same family of contractual communities, i.e.,

organisational forms based on territorial belonging (therefore linked to a specific territory),

whose members adhere to a contract signed unanimously, in view of the benefits that can

result in terms of services (Brunetta, Moroni 2011).

24 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

mainly linked to the symbolic component of shared values, indispensable

in the planning phase of these interventions, rather than to socio-

demographic characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity, income,

employment and schooling.

Another important characteristic of the cohousers is that many of

them are personally involved in the voluntary sector and/or are member

of associations. More than a specific political membership or militancy it

looks like a notable commitment in the social sphere. The cohousers of

Numero Zero and those of Ecosol are personally involved in social

networks, associative and volunteering groups operating in these area.

This is a relevant aspect that explains, in some way, the attitude of the

two groups of cohousers toward the external world and the ability to

engage socially not only the group of insiders but the neighborhoods of

the two settlements as well. If it is true that compared to Porta Palazzo,

Ecosol has yet to develop forms of exchange and interaction with its

neighbors, many interviewees recalled that opening up to the

neighborhood represents one of their next common commitments.

Finally, we come to the type of social capital originated by co-

housing. This is capital that tends to develop from the sense of community

and belonging, from support networks and mutual assistance, and from

the sense of security generated by collective social control and civic

engagement. As Ruiu observes, few authors refer to the relations between

co-housing projects and the surrounding environment; in the majority of

cases, researchers tend to show the origin of social bonding primarily as

an effect of sharing group goals and rules and of internal cohesion and

trust. But another type of social capital also needs to be taken into

consideration: that of the bridging that arises out of the desire to open to

the outside by creating amicable relationships with the surrounding

neighbourhood (Ruiu 2016). According to Sargisson, in many cases the

common aims in co-housing communities can be seen in their intention

to create a “friendly neighbourhood” that will recreate and redefine

relations among neighbourhood units (in other words, neighbourliness),

besides finding a way to escape alienated, isolated and disconnected

social life in the city (Sargisson 2010; Ruiu 2014).

To bear this out, we can often see among the initiatives considered

here the intention to activate social relations and exchanges not only

within the group but with the surrounding area as well. Residents organise

regular activities (e.g. social, educational and cultural events, exercise

classes, etc.) inside communal spaces. Often these activities and spaces

are open to the surrounding community to encourage greater integration.

This, in turn, acts as a catalyst for community development across a wider

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 25

area (Williams 2008). This does not mean that there is always positive

interaction between the settlements and the residents of the district and/or

territory, but these in-depth studies show that among the intentions that

accompany the formation of groups the idea of openness to the original

residents of the neighbourhood is always present and that it is

progressively implemented, albeit at times with difficulty. Consequently,

while in active settlements the spread of bonding social capital is a

constant thanks to the ability to create strong interactive processes within

the community through participatory processes, social contact design and

common activities, all aspects that are reported by the insiders

themselves, bridging social capital practices with outsiders are present as

well (Ruiu 2016; Bianchi 2015).

To sum up, life in co-housing should not be romanticized, but neither

should it be ignored, despite possible preconceived notions. Co-housing

provides an important alternative form of living that can meet the needs

and wants of many people in today’s society (Sandstedt, Westin 2015).

6. CONCLUSIONS

We have presented two relevant experiences within a context such as the

Italian one, where the phenomenon of co-housing is rather recent and still

not very well known.

The cases were selected on the basis of the existing literature and have

been investigated using qualitative methodologies: specifically, through

participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Albeit with some

limitations, these methods proved to be suitable for reconstructing the

profile of the culture we wished to study from the point of view of its

members, by probing the worldview and horizon of meaning underlying

their social actions. They also enabled us to identify the (sometimes

implicit) rules that govern the social interaction, reconstructing the

itinerary that bonds the values and beliefs of those who inhabit these

spaces.

Though of an exploratory nature, our research highlights some

elements common to the two experiences: i.e., the characteristics of the

participants (mainly professionals) and the role of associations as

catalysts. At the same time, however, certain differences emerge

regarding both the social capital connected to the co-housing experience

(high in the experience of Numero Zero, more limited in that of Ecolsol)

and the areas involved (central in the case of Turin, more peripheral in

that of Fidenza). These differences have a consequent influence on the

social outcomes of the two experiences. Thus, while in the former case

26 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

settling into a densely anthropized area characterized by the presence of

many different ethnic groups has over time generated forms of social

integration with the surrounding context, in the latter case this sort of

interaction is, at the time of our study, merely “hoped for”, since in fact

significant bonds with the surrounding local context are as yet lacking.

Regarding the question as to whether co-housing can be a privileged

place where it is possible for people to experience a lifestyle characterised

by active participation and sociability, the research seems to confirm what

has emerged from prior literature on the subject.

However, since these are medium-term processes (an impact assessment

will necessarily be medium-term), some questions remain open. If it does

not seem that there are any critical elements with respect to social

sustainability, the questions related to the repeatability of the experience

and the role of the local context are more complicated, since Turin is a

large city with an important bank foundation, while Fidenza is a small

city in a regional context where the regional public actor plays a central

role in economic and social planning. Thus, these contexts seem to

underscore the role of "external actors" as facilitators in the traditional co-

housing network.

REFERENCES

AMBROSINI, M. (2005). Scelte solidali. L’impegno per gli altri in tempi

di soggettivismo. Bologna: il Mulino.

BAGLIONE, V. & CHIODELLI, F. (2011). Esperienze di co-housing a

Milano e Torino. In: Brunetta G., Moroni S. (eds.) La città

intraprendente. Comunità contrattuali e sussidiarietà orizzontale (pp.

33-42). Roma: Carocci.

BARBIERI, G. (2015). Comunità recintate e flussi globali. Quaderni di

teoria sociale, 1: 95-122

BIANCHI, F. & ROBERTO, S. (2016). Le modalità del vivere urbano.

Milano: FrancoAngeli.

BIANCHI, F. (2015). Le co-housing en Italie entre rêve et réalité. Une

recherche sur les aspirations à la co-résidence. International Review

of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 3: 481-501.

BIFULCO, L., BORGHI, V. (2012). Governance, territorio, capacità: le

questioni in gioco. La Rivista delle politiche sociali, 4: 13-35.

BRESSON, S. & TUMMERS, L. (2014). L’Habitat Participatif en Europe.

Vers des Politiques Alternatives de développement urbain?.

Métropoles, 15: 1-25.

BRONZINI, M. (2014). Nuove forme dell’abitare. L’housing sociale in

FRANCESCA BIANCHI 27

Italia. Roma: Carocci.

BRUHN, J.G. (2005). The Sociology of Community Connections. New

York: Springer.

BRUNETTA, G. & MORONI, S. (eds.) (2011). La città intraprendente.

Comunità contrattuali e sussidiarietà orizzontale. Roma: Carocci.

CHIODELLI, F. (2015). Differences and Similiarities among Co-housing,

Gated Communities and other kinds of Homeowners Associations: a

Reply to Ruiu, Working papers, 22, 1-15, GSSI Cities, Gran Sasso

Science Institute.

––– (2010). «Enclaves» private a carattereresidenziale: il caso del «co-

housing». Rassegna italiana di sociologia, 1: 95-116.

CHIODELLI, F. & BAGLIONE, V. (2014). Living together privately: for a

cautious reading of co-housing. Urban Research & Practice, 1(7): 20-

34.

CORBETTA, P.G. (2003). La ricerca sociale: metodologia e tecnica.

Bologna: il Mulino.

DERIU, F. (2015). Introduzione. Le politiche della casa come un assett

strategico di investimento sociale?. In: U. Ascoli, C. Ranci, G.B.

Sgritta (a cura di), Investire nel sociale. La difficile innovazione del

welfare italiano (pp. 245-257). Bologna: il Mulino.

ESPOSITO, R. (2006). Communitas.Origine e destino delle comunità.

Torino: Einaudi.

GHERARDINI, A. (2017). L’analisi comparata e gli studi di caso. In: F.

Barbera, I. Pais (a cura di), Fondamenti di sociologia economica (pp.

1-16). Milano: Egea.

GIUNCO, F. (2014, a cura di). Abitare leggero. Verso una nuova genera-

zione di servizi per anziani. Quaderni dell’Osservatorio, 17: 5-135.

FROMM, D. (2000). American Co-housing: the First Five Years. The

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2(17): 94-109.

LABIT, A. (2015). Self-managed co-housing in the context of an ageing

population in Europe. Urban Research & Practice, 1(8): 32-45.

LANG, R., CARRIOU, C. & CZISCHKE, D. (2018). Collaborative Housing

Research (1990-2017): A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis

of the Field. Housing, Theory and Society, 37(1): 1-30.

LIETAERT, M. (2010). Co-housing’s relevance to degrowth theories.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 6(18): 576-580.

––– (2007, ed.). Co-housing e condominisolidali. Firenze: Aam Terra

Nuova.

MC CAMANT, K. & DURRETT, C. (1994). Co-housing: A Contemporary

Approach to Housing Ourselves. California: Ten Speed Press.

MUSOLINO, M. (2015). Ritorno al vicinato. Co-housing e nuova

28 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

convivialità urbana a Torino. Scienze del territorio, 3: 283-291.

PUTNAM, R. & GOSS, K.A. (2002). Introduction. In: R. Putnam (ed.),

Democracies in Flux. The Evolution of Social Capital in

Contemporary Society (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

RUIU, M.L. (2016). The Social Capital of Co-housing Communities.

Sociology, 2(50): 400-415.

––– (2015). The Effects of Co-housing on the Social Housing System:

The Case of The Threshold Centre. Journal of Housing and the Built

Environment, 4(30): 631-644.

––– (2014) Differences between Co-housing and Gated Communities. A

Literature Review. Sociological Inquiry, 2(84): 316-335.

SANGUINETTI, A. (2014). Transformational practices in co-housing:

Enhancing resident’s connection to community and nature. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 40: 86-96.

SANDSTEDT, E. & WESTIN, S. (2015). Beyond Gemeinschaft and

Gesellschaft. Co-housing Life in Contemporary Sweden. Housing,

Theory and Society, 32(2): 131-150.

SARGISSON, L. (2000). Utopian Bodies, London: Routledge.

SPREAFICO, A. (2005). La Communauté entre Solidarité et Recon-

naissance. International Review of Sociology, 3(15): 471-492.

SULLIVAN, E. (2015). Individualizing utopia: Individualist Pursuits in a

Collective Co-housing Community. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 45(5): 602-627.

VICARI HADDOCK, S. (2013). Forma Urbis. In: Id. (a cura di), Questioni

urbane (pp. 15-46). Bologna: il Mulino.

WILLIAMS, Jo (2008). Predicting an American Future for Co-housing.

Futures, 40: 268-286.

––– (2005). Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case

of Co-housing. Journal of Urban Design, 2(10): 195-227.

YIN, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd

Edition, Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.

L’ACCELERATION DU RYTHME DE VIE

Une étude sur les jeunes parisiens

di Alessandra Polidori*

Abstract

Acceleration of the lifetime: a study of young people in Paris

Il Each society with its features impress a rhythm of life on its time. If we

refer to the different social contexts in contemporary times, we can find

various authors who speak of acceleration and speed. The idea of acceleration

that has emerged in recent years and which counts among its researchers: H.

Rosa, G. Gasparini, already finds a beginning in G. Simmel who was writing

in 1903 about an intensification of relationships and meetings in the neuralgic

area of the city. And it was precisely the space of the metropolis my field of

research to analyze the configurations of rhythm and the way it is spoken and

perceived by its citizens. This article is based on a series of interviews carried

out in Paris in January 2019. I looked to young people from 23 to 33 years of

different origins and employed in different sectors. From the results, it

appears that the rhythm of life is always described with words that relate to

haste and pressure and refer, sometimes overlapping, the sphere of work. In

particular, it is clear that this acceleration come from certain factors such as:

distances and transport, social expectations over time and the need to be

productive.In conclusion, I noticed that the respondents are aware of living at

a fast rhythm but they are also able to produce de-stress strategies to protect

themselves from an intrusive speed.

Keywords

Life time, metropolis, young people

* ALESSANDRA POLIDORI è dottoranda in Scienze Politiche all'Università degli Studi di

Perugia. Si occupa di giovani ed Europa. Email: alessandrapg@hotmail.it

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13131/1724-451x.labsquarterly.axxii.n1.29-71

30 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

1. INTRODUCTION

Cet article part de la proposition que chaque société avec sa

caractéristique imprime un rythme de vie à son époque. Je propose donc

une enquête sur le rythme que caractérise l’époque contemporaine dans

le contexte de la métropole parisienne auprès des jeunes d’une tranche

d’âge de 20 à 35 ans. J’essayerais dans les prochaines pages de

comprendre la configuration du rythme de vie et la perception que les

acteurs sociaux en ont. L’importance d’une telle démarche sociologique

réside dans la constatation que les rythmes de vie typiques de la société

contemporaine sont conditionnés aux facteurs sociaux.

Pour mieux expliquer ce concept je fais referment à la distinction

entre répétition du temps cyclique et linéaire proposé par Henri Lefebvre

(1992). La répétition cyclique se réfère à la répétition cosmique naturelle,

donc à l’alternance de jour et nuit, des saisons etc. Le linéaire se réfère

aux pratiques sociales, à l’activité humaine qui crée un rythme qui se

détache des rythmes naturels. Je pense que l’émancipation des rythmes

naturels a augmenté avec le temps jusqu’à ces jours où le rythme est un

facteur largement social. L’environnement social a en fait un impact fort

sur nos rythmes biologiques et par conséquent sur notre vie. Lefebvre

affirme en fait que les enfants naissent avec leurs rythmes biologiques et

que ceux-ci sont ensuite modifiés par la vie sociale devenant ce que lui

appelle rythmes éduqués. Il y a donc une métamorphose des rythmes

naturels qui passe par la relation avec la famille, l’école, le travail, donc

les rythmes de la société.

Mon sujet de recherche sera donc la configuration des rythmes

individuels inscrits dans l’espace social de la métropole parisienne ; un

contexte qui a une grande influence sur ces rythmes.

Cet sujet est étroitement liée au déroulement du quotidien des gens, à

leurs activités dans tous les domaines. J’essayerais ainsi de décrire

l’allure moyenne des jours pour généraliser le rythme et explorer les

accélérations ou décélérations possibles. La grande variété qui caractérise

la vie quotidienne m’amène à prendre en considération avant tout l’aspect

perceptif. En fait, bien que le rythme de vie varie d’une personne à l’autre

et d’un jour à l’autre, la perception de ceux-ci semble être partagée

comme il est aussi partagé l’accent sur la vitesse.

Mes hypothèses partent de l’idée que l’une des caractéristiques de la

société contemporaine est la vitesse, qui se lie à une idée historiquement

construite, par rapport au passé, d’accélération. La sensation d’être

toujours inséré dans un rythme d’activité et de relations frénétiques. En

particulier, dans la société occidentale la vie est structurée autour du

ALESSANDRA POLIDORI 31

manque de temps et de la nécessité de faire le maximum d’activités en

une journée. Il y a toujours la sensation de chasser le temps, de ne jamais

en avoir assez. Cet accélération affecte les différents secteurs de la vie

individuelle et collective : le travail, les relations humaines, l’information,

les communications, etc.

Mes questions de recherche seront donc : comment le rythme de vie

est-il caractérisé dans la société contemporaine ? Sur quoi repose le choix

de l’allocation temporelle de l’individu et dans quelle mesure ce choix

est-il conditionné par le rythme social ? Comment ce rythme est-il perçu

par les acteurs qui y sont immergés ?

La métropole, théâtre de mes recherches, est la ville de Paris qui a été

le protagoniste de plusieurs entretiens. De plus la structure de la

métropole est également prise en compte par diverses études sur la vie et

la quotidienneté : d’abord le courant européen de la sociologie urbaine

qui dénonce les problèmes de l’urbanisme post-industriel, on peut

prendre pour exemple Simmel (1903, tr. fr. 2013) aussi, qui analyse

l’intensification des stimuli qu’il y a dans les grandes métropoles

modernes et l’associe à la fatigue et à la mauvaise humeur des citoyens.

Par rapport à la métropole le sujet de grand intérêt dans mes entretiens

est le système de transport dont j’ai constaté une grande propension à en

parler de la part des interviewés. Par conséquent, je voudrais aborder cette

question en essayant de comprendre comment cela affecte la perception

du temps des gens, en évitant de tomber dans une critique stérile.

Il ne s’agit pas de donner une image d’un contexte négatif, où le

rythme accéléré de la vie règne et aggrave la vie des gens. Mes recherches

ont pour objectif d’analyser le rythme de vie dans le quotidien, en

essayant d’analyser les effets sur les personnes, sur leur perception de la

vie quotidienne.

Avant de rentrer au coeur du thème je crois il est nécessaire d’essayer

de donner une définition du rythme de vie et de conceptualiser brièvement

le sujet dans un cadre théorique.

2. METHODOLOGIE

Le sujet de recherche a conditionné le choix du type de méthodologie :

l’entretien semi-structuré (Kaufmann 1996).

J’ai choisi de suivre deux pistes : le rythme concret de la vie

quotidienne et la perception que les sujets en ont. Avant tout, j’avais

besoin de connaître le timing et le rythme concret pour comprendre si je

pouvais envisager une accélération ; je me suis référé à la musique,

prenant cet exemple pour les interviewés, le rythme en musique est donné

32 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

par les pauses d’une note à l’autre, plus les pauses sont courtes, plus les

notes, les battements se suivent rapidement et le rythme augmente. Si on

considère les activités d’une journée comme les notes d’une chanson on

peut saisir le rythme. J’ai donc essayé de comprendre comment les

différentes activités se déroulent au cours d’une journée et si et combien

il y a des pauses entre les activités. La durée des diverses activités est

également importante parce qu’affecte souvent l’importance de celles-ci.

Je me suis intéressée ensuite, à la perception du rythme par les

interviewés, aux mots qu’ils utilisaient pour décrire la vie quotidienne,

aux émotions et aux perceptions qui les associaient ainsi qu’au choix ou

non de certains sujets.

J’ai choisi Paris comme terrain de recherche car il correspond

parfaitement à la configuration de la métropole qui ressort de la littérature

existante (voir sur ce sujet : Belloni 1984 ; Lefebvre 1970, 1974; Virilio

2003; Marrone et Pezzini 2006). Le lien entre temps et espace

géographique est en fait fondamental. Les rythmes prennent forme par

rapport aux horaires, mais les horaires sont également conditionnés par

des espaces tels que les distances et les itinéraires des réseaux urbains. Je

n’ai jamais mentionné la ville de Paris dans mes entretiens pour ne pas

influencer les interviewés avec l’idée d’un rythme parisien. Pour moi, la

métropole était le fond, la scène concrète où j’ai appliqué mes recherches.

J’ai toutefois constaté que la ville avait émergé puissamment des

entretiens avec une série de termes, de sentiments qui y étaient liés.

En cours d’analyse, j’ai procédé d’abord à une analyse lexicale des

mots qui sont été utilisés pour traduire le rythme. Mes questions de

recherche visent à comprendre la structure du rythme dans la société

contemporaine et son impact sur la vie des gens sous différents angles.

C’est pourquoi l’importance du point de vue de l’individu acquiert de la

valeur lorsqu’il est partagé par d’autres et devient une indication d’une

tendance plus générale de la société. Avec cela, je ne veux pas nier

l’importance des entretiens individuels, car c’est précisément les mots de

chaque sujet qui ont ouvert de nouvelles pistes de réflexion. Chaque

entretien a été un morceau de la mosaïque que j’ai essayé de composer

dans les conclusions. J’ai choisi les interviewés en fonction de leur âge et

de leur origine géographique, il était important d’interviewer des

personnes provenant de contextes différents afin d’avoir une comparaison

avec le rythme de vie précédent. Dans l’analyse des entretiens je

rapporterai des extraits indiquant les différents sujets avec avec le nom

Paris et la numérotation séquentielle. Au total, j’ai eu six entretiens d’une

durée moyenne d’une heure. De suite les sujets, leurs âges, leurs

provenance et raison de permanence à Paris : PARIS1, 23 ans, italienne

ALESSANDRA POLIDORI 33

à Paris pour ses études, PARIS2, 23 ans, de Strasbourg, à Paris pour son

travail, PARIS3, 33 ans, colombien à Paris pour son doctorat, en fin

PARIS4, PARIS5 26 ans et PARIS6, 35 ans, tous parisiens travaillant

dans la métropole.

3. LE TEMPS

3.1. Notes historiques sur le temps et son étude en sociologie

À ce point, une révision sur ce qu’a déjà été écrit sur le sujet s’impose.

J’ai décidé de commencer par une approche historique, puis de continuer

avec des textes de coupe critiques plus actuels.

Partant donc d’un point de vue historique, on peut diviser deux volets

: une histoire du temps, de son rythme adapté à la société et l’histoire de

l’étude et des théories du temps ; qui adopte une approche sociologique.

Il n’est pas simple de retracer une histoire du temps, d’autant plus que,

mis à part des éléments de la mythologie, les populations disparues ne

nous ont pas laissé d’éléments empiriques pour comprendre leur

conception du temps et leur rythme de vie ; mais nous pouvons partir de

la constations que le rythme de vie, en tant que dépendant de facteurs

subjectifs, est conditionné par ce qui est extérieur à l’individu. À partir de

là, nous pouvons supposer que les sociétés primitives avaient synchronisé

leur rythme avec celui de la nature. Par la suite, au cours d’un long

processus de développement technologique, l’homme a commencé à

s’émanciper de ce rythme. L’apparition d’outils de mesure du temps est

la preuve que, à un moment donné de l’histoire, l’homme s’est intéressé

à la perception du temps qui s’écoule.

Il n’est pas facile non plus de retracer une histoire du rythme, un

concept qui change de définition en fonction des innombrables contextes

dans lesquels il est traité (Fraisse et Hiriartborde 1968). Le premier à

donner une définition au rythme dans le sens du rythme de vie a été

Lefebvre (1992) qui décrit ce concept en relation à d’autres facteurs : le

rythme est le produit d’une interaction entre espace, temps, et dépense

d’énergie.

Les rythmes de vie sont indéniablement liés à l’espace géographique

où les sujets se trouvent. Les distances entre les endroits qui peuvent être

différents par rapport à la taille de la ville, changent considérablement le

rythme de vie des citoyens. Ces distances sont à leur façon conditionnées

par le territoire et les réseaux de transport, la présence ou non des routes,

l’efficience du transport public, etc. Le deuxième élément est le temps,

compris comme la période avec laquelle ces rythmes se déroulent. Le

34 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

temps est établi soit par des facteurs naturels soit par des facteurs sociaux.

Le troisième élément est l’énergie qui met en lumière l’élément concret

du rythme, le fait qu’il implique une action. Ce qui permet à l’observateur

de le saisir facilement grâce aux signes du corps qui est ainsi la référence

constante pour l’étude des rythmes.

L’étude du rythme a principalement concerné la psychologie de la fin

du 19e et du début du 20e siècle (voir le travail de Fraisse 1967) même si

cela a toujours été une étude de la perception subjective du rythme en soi,

jamais du rythme de vie. Le rythme de vie est le rythme pratique qui

s’inscrit dans les 24 heures de la vie quotidienne, mais cette division

horaire de la journée n’a pas toujours été la même ; il a varié au cours des

siècles et varie toujours d’une société à l’autre.

Jacques Attali s’est intéressé à l’histoire du temps et à sa perception.

Dans son texte Histoire du temps (1982) il attribue à l’Église

l’émancipation du rythme humaine de la nature, qui caractérisait le

monde agricole. À partir de la seconde moitié du troisième siècle, les

monastères commencent à prendre le contrôle du temps et du rythme

social. Les rythmes naturels sont relus dans une clé religieuse à cause de

la structuration des calendriers qui déterminent la longue période. Aussi

le court période, les jours et les heures, subit l’influence exercée par

l’Église avec l’intervention du moine de Nursie, San Benoit :

C’est dans les monastères bénédictins que nous devons rechercher la genèse

et la source de diffusion du type particulier de régularité temporelle si

caractéristique de la vie moderne, ainsi que l’une des institutions

socioculturelles les plus fondamentales de l’Occident moderne (Zerubavel

1981 : 32, trad. du texte original).

Il est unanimement accepté, également grâce à l’autorité des études de

Jacques Le Goff (1960) que Saint Benoît, a donné un tournant important

au rythme médiéval. En 525 il établit la liturgie des heures. Le jour est

divisé en sept moments marqués par des prières. Ce schéma commence à

s’adapter au rythme de la société occidentale au début du Moyen Âge, car

il est plus compatible avec la vie de l’époque que le rythme romain. C’est

le son de la cloche qui décide des activités, des pauses des jours selon les

règles établies par l’Eglise. Cette normalisation précise de l’heure a

facilité l’adoption de l’horloge en Europe.

L’horloge est la conséquence de l’amélioration progressive des

technologies de mesure du temps. Sa naissance coïncide avec

l’importance croissante de la ville où l’horloge est mise à la disposition

de tous. La pendule commence à remplacer la cloche dans un long

processus au cours duquel l’Église perdra le contrôle du rythme. Le

ALESSANDRA POLIDORI 35

passage de la cloche à l’horloge signifie deux choses : que le pouvoir de

décider du rythme du quotidien n’est plus exclusif de l’Eglise et que le

temps est quantifiable et acquiert, par conséquent, une valeur ; ce dernier

point deviendra de plus en plus important jusqu’à nos jours où le temps

assume une importance égale à celle de l’argent. L’importance croissante

du temps se reflète sur le travail. Selon Attali, c’est l’alignement des

concepts de travail, de temps et d’argent qui conduira au 19e siècle à

l’industrialisation de la production et à la croissance de l’esprit

d’entreprise. Pour l’auteur, la valeur du temps est donc la cause et non la

conséquence de l’industrialisation. L’importance du temps se reflète donc

dans le travail, le temps du travailleur est du gain pour le capitaliste. C’est

à partir de là que commencent les premières manifestations pour une

réduction du temps de travail qui ne seront entendue qu’après la fin de la

Première Guerre mondiale. Même la ville bat le rythme de l’usine et

l’idée de gagner du temps commence à prendre forme, marquant le début

d’un processus d’accélération qui apparaît, selon Attali, dans l’après-

seconde guerre mondiale. Parallèlement à cette attitude il commence à

s’affirmer aussi l’idée d’un rythme personnel, propre à chaque personne.

Cette idée est déclinée en sous-objets, tels que le temps de travail, le

temps de plaisir et l’idée du manque de temps. Le temps personnel

s’inscrit, cependant dans les rythmes de la ville, exactement

synchronisées partout dans le monde. Il s’agit des rythmes, selon Attali,

qui deviennent de plus en plus précis et tyranniques au point d’avoir un

impact exagéré sur la vie des individus. Comme si le rythme social

effaçait progressivement le rythme personnel.

Il est donc clair comment l’idée de rythme devient ainsi un thème à

prendre en considération dans la théorie sociologique, même si jusqu’à

ce moment le temps a toujours fait l’objet d’études de différents domaines

tels que la philosophie, la psychologie et la physique. Norbert Elias, dans

son essai sur le temps de 1986 (tr. fr. 1996), affirme qu’il n’y a pas d’étude

du temps en sociologie, car ce qui concerne le temps a toujours été

examiné d’un point de vue philosophique, même par les sociologues eux-

mêmes. De plus, l’étude du temps est une démonstration de l’écart entre

les sciences naturelles et les sciences sociales. Déjà la locution mesurer

le temps assimile le temps à un objet physique et mesurable en tant que

tel. Cette dichotomie entre sciences favorisé l’idée que le temps soit un

objet inséré dans le domaine des sciences physiques ou métaphysiques. Il

faut dépasser donc cette lacune entre discipline si on veut prendre en

considération le temps dans son intégralité. C’est la dimension sociale, le

temps inséré dans la société, qui doit être analysée.

De toute façon, les premières analyses du temps en domaine

36 THE LAB’S QUARTERLY, XXII, 1, 2020

sociologique remontent au début du 20e siècle avec Émile Durkheim,

premier sociologue à revendiquer l’étude du temps en sociologie

(Gasparini 2001b). Dans son texte Les formes élémentaires de la vie

religieuse du 1912 il considère le temps comme une institution sociale,

comme l’un des éléments de base de l’organisation de la société. Le temps

ne peut pas être un objet de l’intellect de l’individu mais il fait partie des

structures de