The social and material networks and flows that shape daily life in Christiania are not always benign or indeed sufficient to combat per-
sistent inequalities. While it is evident from table 1 and the discussion above that practices of home-making and parenting are less constrained by conventional capital assets (housing, utilities, income and savings/ debt) than is the case elsewhere in Copenhagen, inequalities in social capital can assume increased significance. in particular, the emphasis that direct democracy places on face-to-face oral communication puts those who lack these capabilities (whether through hearing/speech im- pairment or timid orientation) at a disadvantage.
Christiania operates without apparent ‘leaders’ and eschews a fun- damental ideology: it is made up of many discrete interest groups that live together, in conflict as well as cooperation, rather than individu- als committed to being part of a bigger group. Different communica- tion practices are talked about and experienced in ways that generate positive and negative reputations. Over time, these discursive practices alter the tone and effectiveness of participation. Consensus rests with unanimous agreement among those present at the Common Meeting rather than as a majority vote of all residents. to have any influence on a course of action it is necessary not only to attend the Common Meet- ing but also to engage in the lengthy, repetitive and frequently hostile mode of communication.41 Direct democracy, as Christianites readily admit, takes time: it operates at a slower pace and requires many more lengthy meetings than does representative democracy.42 in effect, the infrastructure of governance itself (the when, where and how mecha- nisms of participation) shapes the composition of those who actively feel involved. For example, Common Meetings begin at 8pm and they run late into the night. This practice excludes those who are caught up in the temporal constraints of child-care (notably, but not exclusively, single mothers) or those who would compromise their ability to make a living if they went without sleep (see amy starecheski’s chapter in this book).
The Christianite tn admits that she rarely attends the Common Meeting because she is intimidated by the tone of debate whereby ‘a
group of drunks in the corner shout a lot and it is quite chaotic and ex- hausting because nothing is decided or resolved’. Ct explains that she finds it easier to discuss the really contentious issues with other wom- en rather than in the open meetings. This reflects the way women-on- ly meetings have mobilised in the past to resolve conflict and to escape the ‘angry, hostile and negative’ way of communicating opinions which characterises direct democracy in the Common Meeting. By contrast, communication and participation in the women’s meetings involves ‘taking care of each other’ and focusing on the practical business of dai- ly life. From her own experience, Ct argues that those men represent- ing the ‘old guard’ who ‘monopolise’ the Common Meeting:
are more about rejecting the outside than they are creating a new inside. They are so angry, so negative; they always want to go back to what it was like before; whereas most of the women here are more practical and for them it is easier to go elsewhere and discuss something else — and we have done that several times — holding women-only meetings.
While the women’s meetings do not carry the weight of consensus, they contribute a vital form of participatory democracy. Moreover, previous success in helping the community take positive action at times of cri- sis has gained respect for commanding a ‘moral achievement’. as Ga explains:
Throughout the history of Christiania when life has become intoler- able the women have got together and sorted out a practical way for- ward — and it will be so again.
The importance of social capital to daily life in Christiania is witnessed not only with respect to structures of governance but also basic liveli- hood. This returns us to the perceived lack of transparency in the allo- cation of vacant dwellings introduced above. rM is typical of the young ‘hidden homeless’ in Christiania; he has a part-time job in Christiania City and pays rent to live in the community but he is house-sitting in
the absence of a room to call his own. he explains that while the net- works of information through which he learns about vacant dwellings function well (for instance notices posted in the free weekly newspa- per Ugespejlet / Weekly Mirror); the tacit rules and bureaucratic prac- tices employed by different local areas to decide who may or may not move in remain ‘murky’.
The sub-heading ‘habits of the heart’ employed in this chapter origi- nally stems from a cultural analysis of north american society where it is used to emphasise the way people talk and what this says about their moral commitment beyond individual self interest.43 The authors ar- gue that contemporary social problems are not only structural (relating to ‘hard’ political and economic infrastructure) but also cultural (re- lating to ‘soft’ infrastructure). a similar argument is made here for the specific case of Christiania with respect to the relative presence or ab- sence of an ethic of care in local cultures of home-making, family life, governance and livelihood.