---

ABSTRACT

The idea that civil society is a key player in spatial planning processes is certainly not new for the planning academic circle (Friedmann & Douglass, 1998). In Europe, in particular, the importance of looking at planning as an endeavour engaging not just institutional decision- makers supported by trained professionals is currently gaining increasing scholarly attention (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; Gerometta et al., 2005; Healey, 2006; Meijer & Van Der Krabben, 2018; Mello Rose, 2022; Moulaert & Mehmood, 2020; Ročak, 2019). Overall, the literature often focuses on ways in which civil society can or should relate to planning authorities. Possibilities range from collaboration (Healey, 1997) to co-production (Albrechts, 2012), from political conflict (Inch et al., 2024; Swyngedouw, 2014; Marris, 1983; Wates, 1976) to resistance and/or self-organization (Savini, 2023; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011). Overall, such a wide range suggests that seeking a single ideal model for how civil society should engage with public authorities may be futile, as the most appropriate approach can vary by context and evolve over time. What planning literature often overlooks, however, are the specific characteristics of civil society that enable it to make a meaningful or legitimate impact. Only a few years ago, by looking at some political events in the last decade – such as the Arab spring, new forms of mass demonstrations all around European cities, the Brexit referendum aka the largest democratic vote in British history –, urban scholars have identified civics’ ‘political’ nature as the central and most desirable feature (Swyngedouw, 2014). Yet, others highlight that only a small segment of the population appears actively and fully engaged in these conflicts (Jager & Borriello, 2023) or the fact that civil society seems rather trapped in a prolonged crisis, where what is assumed to be political action is often monopolized by actors who lack a strong democratic mandate and grassroots base (Bevins, 2023).

As a consequence, on the one hand, we need to question the assumption that civic organizations – such as associations, non-profits, and voluntary groups – are inherently committed to the common good or capable of promoting meaningful change in ways that are desirable and legitimate. On the other hand, it might be worthwhile to begin a specific search for the specific conditions or features that make civil society in the position of making that change.

According to Gramsci (Gramsci, 1975), civil society is, by definition, the ensemble of organizations and institutions, such as schools, churches, media, etc. that are not “the State” but still play a fundamental role in shaping ideology, values, consent (and space, we might add). So, it is the place where, simultaneously, hegemony is at play but counter-hegemony could be nurtured. Along the same line, more recently, Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito (Esposito, 2020; Li Destri Nicosia & Saija, 2023) has conceptualized civil society not as a stable sphere of social organization between the State and the individual, but as a fluid and contested space where power, subjectivity, and political forms are continually reconfigured. He uses the concept of ‘instituting force’ to refer to the ongoing struggles to find collective, inclusive, representative dimensions that can still respect individual specificities. Using Esposito’s instituting paradigm one can ask: what is an instituting civics? What are the traits of a civil society that is likely to collect, organize, and express collective demands while becoming able to push public authorities to really act in the face of the contemporary socio-ecological crisis? Specifically, from a planning perspective, what makes civic organizations and non-State institutions able to deal with the tension between individuals’ needs and aspirations and the collective dimension of a demand capable of impacting spatial decision-making and planning authorities?