Thus, among other Jonica initiatives, we find the attempt to restore Orthodoxy in Calabria, the organization of conferences toward the renewal of interest in Byzantine traditions, the effort to enhance relations with the Greek state and improve cultural tourism in the area (Petropoulou 1995:203). The major result of Jonica’s persistent action was that on the advice of the AIDLCM, the regional law regarding Grecanico language was revised so that “the regione respects the tradition of the populations of Greek and Albanian origin, cultivates the development of historic, cultural and artistic heritage and favors the teaching of the two languages (Greek and Albanian) where they are spoken” (Regional law no. 519/56 1971).
For almost a decade, La Jonica was the main association dealing with the Questione Grecanica. Yet members of the association soon “created new associations with different political valences” and opposing attitudes (Nucera 1984/5:61). According to Elisabetta Nucera, it was the differing political ideologies between the council of La Jonica and its constitutive members that hastened the dissolution of the association. Nucera here refers to the opposing political disposition of the younger members of La Jonica who were active members of the communist party and “could not bear the fact that the administration of the association was in the hands of a fascist” (1984/5:72). Political mistrust was further coupled with suspicions of financial corruption. According to Filippo Condemi, secretary of the association, “I asked for the archives of La Jonica but they were never given to me. I also proposed to the council that we should speak in Grecanico. I find it only logical: a group that deals with the problems of the Greek minority to speak in Grecanico. It did not pass” (72–73).
Zoi ce Glossa: Other initiatives During the Period 1970–1980
Filippo Condemi founded the association Zoi ce GlossaGO (“Life and Language”) in 1974. The objective of the new association—consisting mainly of Grecanici originating from the village of Galliciano—was twofold: to rouse the migrants from Galliciano from the feeling of quotidian inferiority in relation to the rest of the Reggini and to use any possible political and social source for the “survival of Galliciano” (Nucera 1984/5:74). Yet it soon became apparent that the association would have to include Grecanici originating from the villages of Roghudi, Chorio di Roghudi, and Bova. This was a political tactic, ultimately doomed, to establish relationships with village administrators.
The policies of the first two associations were similar regarding the recuperation of the Grecanico language, culture and identity. Politically, it seemed that La Jonica had a more inclusive and international character while Zoi ce Glossa was more exclusive and localized.7 In 1984 in Reggio Calabria the majority of Zoi ce Glossa founders created a new association called Centro Studi G. Rohlfs Zoi ce Glossa (Center of Studies G. Rohlfs, Life and Language). The council of this “non-profit” (article 4 of the constitution of the association) association was organized and run exclusively by Grecanici from Galliciano, Roghudi, and Chorio di Roghudi since they “originated from villages that are still today Greek one hundred percent” (Nucera 1984/5:79), while people from Bova, Bova Marina, and Roccaforte were allowed to join as non-executive members. Briefly, the other associations of the time dealing with Grecanico, mainly based in Bova Marina, were the Circolo Culturale Greco (Greek Cultural Circle) founded in 1972 in Bova Marina, Jalo tu VuaGO (“Bova Marina”) founded in Bova Marina in 1972, Cosmo CinurgjioGO (“New World”) founded in 1975 in Bova Marina, and ApodiafazziGO (“Dawning”) also founded in Bova Marina in 1977. The majority of the founding members of the aforementioned associations were council members or ordinary members of Jonica (Nucera 1984/5; Campolo 2002). Their curricula exhibited an impressive agenda geared toward the salvation of Grecanico language and culture. To varying degrees their politics affected the operations of the Grecanico associations in Reggio Calabria since board members cooperated on common targets (Campolo 2002).
Civil Society in Italy
In his definition of civil society, Paul Ginsborg (2001:95) brings attention to the terms civil and uncivil, arguing that
It (civil society) … covers an intermediate area between family and state, but intends to distinguish between “civil” and “uncivil’ ” society, between those networks and associations which stimulate democracy and 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
