Creatical Participation Beyond Social vs Political Participation

The paper will present findings from research on civic engagement for social-ecological transformation within Germany. The cases under study are Community Supported Agriculture (Solidarische Landwirtschaft), Urban Gardens and Foodsharing. The aim of the paper is to present a new theoretical approach to think these seemingly apolitical forms of engagement as political participation. Similar to ongoing attempts to re-categorize forms of political participation (van Deth, Theocharis, de Moor), we argue for an expansion of the legacy understanding of political participation (e.g. Barnes/Kaase). However, the main source of renewal are two political theories of democracy, namely Mouffe's agonistic democracy and Dewey's pragmatist understanding of radical democracy. In line with these authors, we argue that even seemingly apolitical acts of engagement such as planting vegetables or sharing food can have a political character, if they perform as part of the political, the ongoing struggle about how common affairs should be dealt with by the public. Intriguingly in this regard are the newer writings of Mouffe stress the need to re-start the Gramscian quest for cultural hegemony within all walks of life, including cultural and private spheres, given the fact of more than three decades of neoliberal hegemony. In contrast to Mouffe's emphasis of deconstructive political art work, empirical cases such as community supported agriculture provide forms of critique that try to prove that sustainable ways of live are both standing in contrast to industrial agriculture and are feasible. Hereby, we draw on Dewey's emphasis of creative action as the main purpose of participation in public which results in the suggestion to speak of critical-creative, or "creatical" participation. Given earlier debates on creativity, postdemocracy and participation (McFarland), we rely on Reckwitz post-structuralist cultural theory to argue that the phenomenon of an increasing mix of social participation and political participation is both the adjustment to the neoliberal creativity dispositif as well as a creative subversion of it. Finally, the historical divide between social (volunteering, welfare provision) and political participation (protest and lobbying) that Sennett identified with the split between specific American and European left groups in early 20th century seems to reappear in debates on the political value of phenomena such as an community garden. Against this backdrop, the main argument is that these cases should be understood as valuable forms of providing cultural-political groundwork in times of rising right-wing populism. They result in empirically identifiable "political goods" such as developing social capital, stirring conflict on the use of public goods, environmental education or the public articulation of alternative aesthetics and economic models. These goods are particularly related to material objects and spaces that are re-appropriated and transformed into material frontlines of the political conflict between different ways of life.