Martian Sandy®

‹ Terug

This essay focuses on the phenomenon commonly referred to as ‘Community Renewable Energy’. The term refers to a multitude of different projects which are similar in that they are about the local implementation of a form of renewable energy. They are different in their way of organization, the collection of relevant actors or stakeholders and the involvement of the local community. The use of community generally refers to all inhabitants of a village or neighborhood, in which a renewable energy project is initiated. This project is either initiated by external companies and/or some of the inhabitants of the village or neighborhood, the latter being the participants in the community renewable energy project (or ‘CRE’).

 

 

A good example here is the Moel Mologan wind farm in North Wales, Great Britain (Walker et al. 2010, 2660). In this case 3 farmers erected 3 wind turbines and the project was sold as being a community project, while the benefits mostly went to the farmers. A discussion eventually led to a rupture in the relations between different groups and individuals in the community and the questioning of the intentions of the farmers (Walker et al. 2010, 2661). In order to tackle such issues in CRE – projects a community approach is upheld by governments and institutions (Walker et al. 2010, 2655). Such a community approach is about referring to community as being a factor to include in decisions, like in the context of LEC’s (Local Energy Cooperatives; a form of CRE) described in a report by Dutch research institute TNO. LEC’s are characterized by a group of local inhabitants, of for example a municipality or village which wants to realize a form of renewable energy locally by and for local inhabitants.

 

 

In my fieldwork I will focus on the concept of community in the context of a Dutch LEC called Lochem Energie, as the success of most CRE - projects is dependent on the amount of local inhabitants the participants can mobilize to join the project. Although community is deemed important, a clear definition is not included in reports by Lochem Energie and TNO. A better understanding of this term could contribute to a better approach towards tackling issues regarding the identity of participants in the community1 and the social acceptance of the project by the community. 2 A similar windfarm project of Lochem Energie like Moel Mologan will be the context of my own field research, as both projects are portrayed as being for the community. However the issue in both cases that not every inhabitant thinks the same about their community

 

 

The theoretical problem of this essay is therefore about how the issue of mobilization for social movements like LEC’s can be understood from the perspective of how and why different communities form among concerned actors in a CRE – project. To understand this problem this essay will discuss the meaning and use of the concept community, as it remains used among community projects like CRE despite its limited analytical value for scientists (Amit 2012, 3; Meijl 2011, 144). The concept community cannot describe the social and cultural diversity within a community, but for most people in their daily lives the term is still ‘good to think with’ (Amit 2012, 4). I will argue that the term community in the case of CRE – projects relates to a group of people with a shared interest and cause, which can be seen as a social movement. This social movement aims for the local production of renewable energy in their community, but other groups within the community can have a different understanding of the need of a project. A short discussion of what energy means for people is helpful in explaining this difference in understanding.

 

 

Energy as resource

Community renewable energy may be an unknown phenomenon for anthropological and social science research, as the title of Benjamin Sovacool’s 2014 article indicates: “What are we doing here?1 … (Sovacool 2014, 1).” Sovacool discusses the contribution of social science in energy studies, in which she mentions anthropology as able to answer questions regarding the link between cultural lifestyles and consumption (Sovacool 2014, 19). Most anthropological literature focuses on this consumption of or demand for energy and divergent cultural views on energy use (Sovacool 2014; Wilhite 2005; Sovacool et al. 2015). Willhite states that “ … energy is of little use in and of itself. It must pass through a socio-technological system in order to reach the site of its intended use (Willhite 2005, 1)”. It means that energy is only meaningful through the objects that require its power, which have to be relevant for people in their daily lives.

 

 

 

Energy is thus not a neutral thing and what kind of meaning and value people attach to their use of these electrical objects might be culturally different. An example is how Norwegians warm their entire house to achieve coziness or koshliget, while in Japan often only one room is heated (Willhite et al. 1996; in Sovacool 2014, 18). Both examples indicate how a difference in lifestyle influences the way energy is used in daily life. At the same time a threat to this lifestyle might emerge, when the ability to use energy is open for change. Perhaps a threat to lifestyle is part of the reason for discontent in the Moel Mologan project, in addition to the disapproval of the farmers ’actions by the rest of the community (Walker et al. 2010, 2661).

 

 

Energy remains in its essence a resource that enables the use of objects and the subsequent exercise of activities by using these objects, like charging your phone. Being able to do the latter is part of a lifestyle, but changing one’s lifestyle costs money or causes uncertainty. The example of the Moel Mologan shows how the activities of one group might impact the economic condition and subsequent lifestyle of another group. It is essentially a question of who has the power to access and distribute energy, while also being about the socio – cultural politics of energy (Powell 2013, 61). It means that how energy is or should be used is open for debate, as different groups in the same community can have a different understanding about its use and attach a different meaning to the role energy plays in their lives.

 

 

Anthropologist Dana Powell therefore proposes that anthropologists should study “… contested meanings and socio-cultural systems surrounding energy infrastructure … “(Powell 2013, 62), as an addition to the main focus in energy studies on technology and design. Anthropologists Nader and Beckerman argue that energy lifestyles can underlie social and cultural organization in every society (2010, 235). If a certain energy lifestyle influences the way a society is organized, a change in the energy infrastructure might lead to a conflict or discussion between groups in different socio – economic conditions and with particular lifestyles about the impact of change. The way energy is used is connected to a certain lifestyle, which is connected to certain groups. A change in the use of energy can lead to a social change in lifestyles, which can lead to a difference in socio – economic conditions between groups in the same society.

 

 

The ambiguity of Community

Above is suggested that energy is contested. It is a resource that can be become contested when a change in its infrastructure enables a renegotiation of relations between groups and individuals. Although there is a difference in models of ownership and funding among CRE – projects in the United Kingdom (Walker 2008, 4401), as well as in the Netherlands, in every project the community plays a role. Walker et al. state that “… communities can be transient and dynamic and fracture as events unfold and relationships evolve (2010, 2658)” in the context of every CRE - project. In the context of these projects the term community can refer to either only the participants and/or the wider community of the local inhabitants. Thus before being able to mobilize people for a CRE – project in a community, it has to be understood what the community exactly is.

 

 

Anthropologist Meijl has written about community development projects among a certain group of Maori tribes in New Zealand. The argument Meijl makes is about an issue that is in a lot of ways similar to that of CRE – projects: “…‘community development’ is usually based on a conception of community that bears little resemblance to the diverse and dynamic socio-cultural contexts described in recent ethnography … “ (Meijl 2011, 133). He show how such a conception does not explain the diversity of interest and groups within the location of Maori tribes. Benefits from the community development projects only reached certain persons and often reinforced existing hierarchies (Meijl 2011, 137). The other part of the story is that the perceived solidarity of the Maori tribes eventually led the government into starting these community development projects. The argument of Meijl is built on the idea that the term community cannot cover the complexity of relationships that extend beyond fixed places (Meijl 2011, 135). The discussion of the following authors will however show the continuing relevance of the concept.

 

 

An important view on community is that of Benedict Anderson. Anderson sees the nation as a typical imagined political community (Anderson 1991, 6 – 7). He looks at community as a connection between people, although most people have never met all people in their community. In this way the concept is imagined and has its boundaries, and Anderson emphasizes that it is based on horizontal comradeship and it motivates people to act on these limited imaginings (Anderson 1991, 7). In a way communities in a CRE – project are also imagined. In the resource dispute around the Moel Mologan wind farms, different groups tried to make bounded groups by referring to their Welsh identity and using this as a base for action (Walker et al. 2010, 2661). An imagined idea about community was used, which united people in a group against others.

 

 

The case of Moel Mologan indicates that the idea of an imagined community is applicable in understanding relations between people, even while not on the level of the nation as seen by Anderson. Anthropologist Amit criticizes Anderson by saying that his theory about community is solely based on extraordinary events like national conflicts, and focuses herself on the everyday or quotidian (Amit 2012, 10). Amit argues that despite the ambiguous nature of the concept community, people use it in their daily lives. This should motivate anthropologists to focus on the interaction and association between people, and see community as something that is ‘good to think with’ for people (Amit 2012, 4). This instead of trying to find one definition of the term. Amit consequently suggests to work towards a framework about community, by focusing on “… three strategic, intersecting points at which such ambiguities necessarily arise: (1) joint commitment; (2) affect or belonging and (3) forms of association (Amit 2012, 6).” These ambiguities are about the interests and intentions of others, as well as the trust between the organizers of a CRE – project and local inhabitants (Walker 2010, 2655).

 

 

However in order to understand community, it is necessary to understand how it motivates people to act on limited imaginings (Anderson 1991, 7) in everyday life. Fantasia (1989) has described class consciousness among American workers in different cities in the United States of America. He links the class consciousness of workers in several industries with their protests against their unfair treatment by the factory owners. Fantasia sees these protests as cultures of solidarity: “… a cultural expression that arises within the wider culture, yet which is emergent in its embodiment of oppositional practices and meanings (Fantasia, 1989, 17).” Solidarity within the groups is formed through the belief in a common cause, leading to the protests. However these groups only exist because these people experience something that might challenge their interests; discontinuity or rupture in the group might still arise later on (Fantasia 1989, 14). These cultures of solidarity can also be seen as a form of community, as their joint commitment (Amit 2012, 6) for a cause is based on the imaginary that other group members share the same conviction for a cause.

 

 

What remains unclear in the work of Fantasia is how and why the workers eventually decided to work together. Of course it is a common interest, but what motivated them to belief that others might have had the same conviction remains uncertain. The work of Baumann on the inhabitants of Southall, a neighborhood in London, discusses another view on community. Southallians actively use two different discourses on culture, of which the dominant one sees community as connected to culture, ethnicity and nature (Baumann 2009, 16). This is a fixed view on culture, seeing community as having one distinct culture or (energy) lifestyle. The other discourse is called demotic, which is about culture as fluid and open for change (Baumann 2009, 13). This work suggests that ideas about community are always used for a certain purpose or cause, open for change at any moment. In the case of CRE, in which the mobilization of a sufficient amount of participants is important, the view of Baumann might give insight in why some groups in the same local municipality or village are not mobilized when a CRE - project is labeled as a community – project. Discourses on community can be used to mobilize a certain group in the community, but exclude other groups.

 

 

So although the term community cannot cover the complexity of relations and interests within a group of people, the term itself is used by people for a certain purpose. Amit therefore says that it’s better to “… view community in terms of mobilization and attendant issues of coordination and interdependence (Amit 2012, 28)”. Its use can mobilize people for a collective effort and lead people to make use of a discourse on community or a limited imagining, despite the uncertainty of someone else’s intentions. At the same time there a lot of other factors that enable people to achieve their collective effort. The field of social movements is a good way to look at these.

 

 

Mobilization by Social Movements

To achieve its goal a social movement is depended on all kinds of material resources and other factors. At the same time a social movement may aim to some kind of social change, or the cause that it aims for might lead to some sort of (social) change. Sociologists Edwards and McCarthy state that “… mobilized movements in any society are more likely to reflect the social change preferences of its better-resourced constituencies than its less well-endowed ones (Edwards and McCarthy 2004, 120; see also: Nash 2005, 22).” This means that marginalized groups, whose position in society is already not good, are often not able to acquire the resources to improve their position. Such an insight is perhaps a way to understand why CRE – projects are successful or not, as well as a reason why other (marginalized) groups in the same local municipality or village do not share the same concern for renewable energy or (social) change as the participants if it does not improve their position.

 

 

Edwards and McCarthy state that the link between resource redistribution and the possibilities of mobilization and collective action should be central to a discussion of social movements (2004, 142). The mobilization of these resources depends on all kinds of factors. A network helps to mobilize funding and other material resources or support for example. Leaders can inspire people to join a collective effort (Morris and Staggenborg 2004, 171). A model of development or organization of a CRE – project might determine whether funds are received or not, as funding agencies often determine what is good practice (Edwards and McCarthy 2004, 123; Walker 2008, 4402). Another factor Edwards and McCarthy emphasize is the use of a collective frame, which is needed in order to translate the concern of one group in a language that appeals to the concerns and interpretation or recognition of a cause by other groups and/or individuals (Edwards and McCarthy 2004, 120; Kurzman 2008, 6; Rapport 2012, 168). Rootes however points to a difference in concerns between environmental movements, of whom the participants are often highly educated, and the concerns of local (marginalized) groups (Rootes 2004, 618).

 

 

These marginalized groups are the main subjects of anthropologist Nash (2005), who is a prominent scholar in the field of social movements. She describes how such social movements organize themselves against processes of globalization, as global industries impact the daily lives of local residents. Such a process leads these social movements to organize themselves against global players, and the movements cling to values like more autonomy and social justice (Nash 2005, 21). Comparable statements are made in relation to CRE – projects, which aim to achieve “… self-sufficiency, local determination, engagement and empowerment (Walker 2008, 4401)”. Such values, which relate to the idea of community of marginalized groups, are perhaps different than the values about community of other groups or actors within the context of a CRE – project or an industrial company from outside the community.

 

 

A case about the restoration of the Florida Everglades gives a good example of an outside influence, influencing local communities to become social movements. In this case industries from outside the region were attracted to restore the Florida Everglades to their original natural beauty, but communities voiced their concern despite being actively subverted by government policies and the interest of (global) industries (Kirsch 2005, 208). These communities also distrusted environmental organizations from outside, who do not uphold the same values and interests as the locals (Kirsch 2005, 209). This example shows the reaction of local communities towards outside actors that might influence their interests. It is an important insight, as CRE – projects might be distrusted in the same way by local groups.

 

 

At the same time these local groups might have less resources than the group of participants in their community, who perhaps work together with external stakeholders to set up a CRE – project. These local groups are however not always as powerless as might seem from the above discussion, when they are approached to join a CRE – project or community development project. Olivier de Sardan (2005) has done research among international development projects, which can be compared with the context of the community development projects as described by Meijl (2011). Just like CRE – projects, international development projects and community development projects are initiated by organization from outside the local community. Oliver de Sardan shows how local groups use their own local codes and strategies to influence intergroup conflicts, which are the result of a division with the community of how to divide the resources distributed by outside organizations (Olivier de Sardan 2005, 187).

 

 

Although mentioned briefly throughout the essay, power and politics are an important factor to understand the success of one group or social movement over the other. The perspective of Olivier de Sardan is a helpful starting point for my fieldwork, as it is described in a context that shares characteristics with community projects like CRE. Social movements are not always successful, as they can also be marginalized groups that experience the impact of (possible) social change in their community instead of aiming for it themselves. As CRE – projects are portrayed as being local or for the community, a consideration of the impact they might have on other groups is important. It might give insight in why some groups cannot be mobilized in joining the CRE – project, as it conflicts with their idea of the community they live in.

 

 

Conclusion

 

A concept of community is used by different groups and individuals in CRE – projects for the promotion of a collective effort. The success of such a collective effort is depended on the ability to mobilize all kinds of resources and people, for which the latter need to be convinced in a way that speaks to the understanding of the cause of renewable energy and the impact it might have on the community. Not every group has the same access to resources and therefore form their own communities in response to the actions of other groups. How the collective effort of social movements and other local groups is connected to a conceptualization of community as used by these groups, is the question of my fieldwork: How do the interest and values about community of a social movement in a CRE – project interact with the interest and values of other groups and/or individuals in the same community?

 

 

Bibliography

 

Sovacool, B.K. 2014. What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science 1: 1 – 29.

 

An employee of a big Dutch Energy Grid Manager (known by the author); personal communication, September 2015. Participants in the CRE – projects are being labeled as ‘elite’ members of the community.

 

Tekelenburg, T. et al. 2012. Met Frisse Wind: Een eigen – wijze kijk op lokale windenergie. Lochem Energie.

 

Altema, R. and Paradies, G. 2014. Rapportage WP3 Handelingsperspectieven, STEM Programma TNO. Topsector Energie: RVO Nederland.

 

Amit, V. (2012). Community as ‘Good to Think With’: The Productiveness of Strategic Ambiguities. In: Community, Cosmopolitanism and the Problem of Human Commonality. London: Pluto Press.

 

Amit, V. 2012. Consociation and Communitas: The Ambiguous Charms of the Quotidian. In: Community, Cosmopolitanism and the Problem of Human Commonality. London: Pluto Press.

 

Amit, V. 2012. Disjuncture as ‘Good to Think With.’ In: Community, Cosmopolitanism and the Problem of Human Commonality. London: Pluto Press.

 

Amit, V. and Rapport, N. 2012. Prologue: The Book’s Structure. In: Community, Cosmopolitanism and the Problem of Human Commonality. London: Pluto Press.

 

Anderson, B. 1991. Introduction. In: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, New Left Books.

 

Bauman, G. (2009). Contesting Culture: Discourses of Identity in Multi-Ethnic London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1-36

 

Edwards, B. and McCarthy J.D. 2004. Resources and Social Movement Mobilization. In: The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

 

Fantasia, R. 1989. Culture and Consiousness in Action. In: Cultures of Solidarity: Consciousness, Action and Contemporary American Workers. Berkely: University of California Press.

 

Kirsch, M. 2005. The politics of Place: Legislation, Civil Society and the “Restoration” of the Florida Everglades. In: Social movements: an anthropological reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

 

Kurzman, C. 2008. Introduction: Meaning – Making in Social Movements. In: Anthropological Quarterly 81 (1): 5 – 15.

 

Meijl, Toon van (2011). Community Development as Fantasy? A Case-Study of Contemporary Maori Society, In: Musharbash, Yasmine & Marcus Barber (eds.): Ethnography and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge: Essays in Honour of Nicolas Peterson, Canberra: ANU ePress, pp. 133-46.

 

Morris, A.D. and Staggenborg, S. 2004. Leadership in Social Movements. In: The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

 

Nader, Laura and Beckerman, Stephen. (2010). Energy as it Relates to the Quality and Style of Life. In: The Energy Reader. Oxford: Wily – Blackwell.

 

Nader, Laura, Cesarino, Leticia and Hebdon, Chris. (2010). Introduction. In: The Energy Reader. Oxford: Wily – Blackwell.

 

Nash. J. 2005. Introduction: Social Movements and Global Processes. In: Social movements: an anthropological reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

 

Olivier de Sardan, J.P. 2005. Mediations and brokerage. In: Anthropology and Development: Understanding Contemporary Social Change. New York: Zed Books.

 

Oliver de Sardan, J.P. 2005. Arenas and strategic groups. In: Anthropology and Development: Understanding Contemporary Social Change. New York: Zed Books.

 

Powell, D.E. (2013). Reflections on Teaching an “Anthropology of Energy.” In: Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 35 (1): 60 – 63.

 

Rapport, N. 2012. Cosmopolitan Planning: Anyone, Society and Community. In: Community, Cosmopolitanism and the Problem of Human Commonality. London: Pluto Press.

 

Rootes, C. 2004. Environmental Movements. In: The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

 

Sovacool, B.K. 2014. What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science 1: 1 – 29.

 

Sovacool, B.K. et al. 2015. Integrating social science in energy research. In: Energy Research & Social Science 6: 95 – 99.

 

Walker, G. et al. (2010). Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. In: Energy Policy 38: 2655 – 2663.

 

Walker, G. and Devine – Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: What should it mean? In: Energy Policy 36: 497 – 500.

 

Walker, G. (2008). What are the barriers and incentives for community – owned means of energy production and use? In: Energy Policy 36: 4401 – 4405.

 

Wilhite, H. 2005. Why Energy Needs Anthropology. Anthropology Today 21 (3): 1 – 2.