This is a CTP of initiative: Shareable‐ShareableAthens (Greece)
The Critical Turning Point (CTP5) consists of the last (third) of a series of meetings for drinks in order to organise, structure and establish the Ouishare Athens group. The meeting happened on 26th April 2014, at the co-working space The Cube, in Athens. The description of the event was on Facebook was as follows: “Are you interested in sharing economy or collaborative consumption? Let's get together for sharing Ideas and more. You wanna get involved and wanna share your collaborative project (any stage of the process is welcome)? Feel free to contact us”. The programme of the event included short presentations of projects going on in Athens and Networking and Drinks and Networking in a Bar, after the end of the scheduled programme. The response to the event was very low, and only a limited number of people attended. This result was very disappointing for the organizers, the core team, who were trying to motivate people to structure the network, and they decided to stop trying and quit the idea of creating Ouishare Athens.
Despite the disappointment, the team realized that it was not the right timing to develop and grow a network such as Ouishare in Athens. In France, Germany, Spain Ouishare is established, respected, and participates in government projects. However, in Athens the conditions were different, people were reluctant on formal approaches coming from abroad, and more inclined towards solidarity-oriented, self-organized but more autonomous initiatives.
They kept on focusing on the teams and initiatives in which they were already active, and left the idea of Ouishare. In May 2016, they still believe that Ouishare would not be able to succeed in the Greek context. The socio-economic crisis is only becoming bigger, with additional issues such as the refugees looking for asylum in Greece adding to the conditions of urgency in the country. Initiatives like Ouishare would be in general beneficial, however in different contexts that have excess financial and social capital to invest in such ventures.
This event consists a Critical Turning Point as it highlighted the fact that the approach in Greece is more practical, more traditional, and not so innovative. “Sharing economy” and “solidarity” are perceived as two different things, sometimes contradicting each other: the first is driven by a personal feeling of responsibility, while the second one by uncontested demand and personal integrity. Representatives and groups from the two sides do not always trust each other. Moreover, there is a lot of suspiciousness and disregard towards new ideas that do not clearly reflect the identified needs of society.
The people who made this Critical Turning Point happen were the members of the sharing / collaborative / solidarity economy scene of Athens, who clearly expressed their lack of interest in participating in a possible Ouishare Athens network.
On the other hand, the team of organizers consisted of the Greek initiator and a number of people from his circles, as well as a Greek-German connector from Ouishare who actively supported all the attempts and the whole process of establishing Ouishare Athens. The initiator was looking for support in the decision making process, as well as in managing and organizing the way forward to make the network a reality. However, he felt that he was the only one really interested in organizing the network (in his own words, he was “the only one interested in the tech side, or the “top-down approach”), according to the distinction presented in the “contestation” part of this Critical Turning Point).
In addition, the local connector of Ouishare in Athens (originally from the USA/UK) also supported the process, by providing contacts and helping out in the organization of the events.
An interesting observation is the fact that the main people involved in this (as well as the previous) Ouishare events are not of Greek nationality. This can be explained by the fact that “people coming to Greece from abroad are usually much more active than the Greek people. They have / bring new ideas and perspectives from their own culture and context, and this allows them to be easily able to do something new, fresh, different that looks interesting and innovative in the Greek context. It is something reasonable, and very easily justified”.
Moreover, the location where the event (as well the previous Ouishare events) were hosted also played a role in this Critical Turning Point to happen, as they provoked suspiciousness to many of the sharing economy, and especially the solidary economy, groups. These events were not hosted in open, free, public locations but in co-working spaces were usually users have to pay. Even though the space was provided for free for some of the Ouishare events, this did not change the perception of the audience, who would appreciate a less business related location, preferably also a not for profit one.
Finally, it should be highlighted that back in 2013-2014 sharing economy in Greece was perceived very differently than it does now. The people who were interested considered it more as an entrepreneurial venture for investing in tech startups, not as a social venture. This created confusion to both “sides” regarding setting up a network as Ouishare: the sharing and solidarity side. For the sharing side it did not make a lot of sense to participate in such a network, as their objectives were oriented towards establishing businesses. For the solidarity side, the network was not relevant to the Athenian context as it did not reflect everyday needs and demands of people in need and vulnerable social groups.
The event is closely related to the previous two meetings that were arranged for the same reason, in order to organize the Ouishare Athens. The first event (22nd April 2013) was organized in order to present the international Ouishare network, along with the themes of collaborative consumption, the maker movement, crowdfunding, and open/P2P/collaborative business models. The second event (8 July 2013) aimed at discussing Ouishare Greece whereabouts and future plans/goals.
In addition, it is related to the long previous connection that the main Greek initiator had with the space and administrators of The Cube. He had worked there for a few months in the past, even when it had a previous name, before it was renamed to The Cube. This is an interesting part of the Critical Turning Point, as it seems that for many people, the fact that the event was organized as The Cube (that is an entrepreneurial venture, a company) and is usually not provided for free was a factor for not trusting the network under development. However, in this case the space was provided for free, something that was not known or clear to the people who were invited.
People would prefer the events to be organized in more collective spaces, there are many such locations in Athens. They would feel more comfortable in joining events and discussing in a space that is not considered “private”. However, this reveals the ideological differences that led to the failure of establishing Ouishare in Athens: manifested in using a startup incubator or the Art Foundation (where the second meeting was held) as a meeting space instead of a squat or a solidarity location.
No later events were evoked by this Critical Turning Point. Actually, it acted as a determining factor for the people of the organizing team. The main initiator, a person who had been very active in sharing economy initiatives in the past, is now convinced that the Greek context is a deterrent factor for such ventures. The current political and economic situation in Greece makes it very difficult for this kind of initiatives to develop, and he would not try again to organize collective action as a lead person. However, he would be happy with being a member in any similar network that may develop. But he did not want to start another stand-alone initiative, as the many that already existed in Greece. The only possibility to decide to be active as an initiator would be in another country, another socio-economic context.
This Critical Turning Point did not involve much contestation: all members were disappointed and did not want to keep trying. The only issue that they discussed and scrutinized were the reasons why the attempt did not succeed. It was more a moment for the realization of the characteristics of sharing economy in Athens at that time, than a moment for contestation.
The reasons that the team identified for this complete lack of interest included the fact that there were already a lot of initiatives that had been established, but not many people who would be willing to take an active role to develop something new, even if it would be able to improve the reach-out, connections and knowledge of their group. It was clear that the ideas of Ouishare were not able to unite people at that moment in Athens.
In addition, there seemed to be two very different directions. One was the “top-down” approach: being involved in a startup that you invest in, trying to develop, see as an entrepreneurial venture that will either succeed or not. This approach was mostly related to technological innovation, platforms, applications, new ideas, and also income. People (or startup companies) following this approach were more competitive, although there was also space for cooperation, mainly being promoted by co-working spaces and startup incubators like The Cube. It has to be noted that most of these sharing economy tech startups were (and are still) moving abroad, outside of Greece, if they managed to make a successful first step and develop to a young promising company.
The second direction was the “bottom-up” approach. Initiatives without financial resources, based entirely on volunteering, focused on dealing with social needs with everything that their members are able to offer. These initiatives constituted the majority of the self-organized groups in Greece. However, they seem to be very vulnerable and prone to failure or to short term success. Their main problems are that many times their members can be narrow-minded, and the group ends up being very dependent on specific members, who may not be able to dedicate the same amount of time and energy to the group as years go by. Moreover, another issue is the big number of such initiatives having very similar activity. If they would join forces and cluster they could be more effective and more successful. As a result of the large number of initiatives, it is difficult to organize and ensure consistency in their activities: they are like fireworks that soon disappear. According to a member of Ouishare, “this has been happening throughout all these years, groups do not last for a long time”.
The decision to stop trying to set up an Ouishare group in Athens was perceived as a Critical Turning Point by the organizers, at the moment it happened. They realized that the lack of interest was such that they had to take a definite decision. They had suspected that the third event would not be very successful, due to the low number of people attending the second event. However, they wanted to try to arrange a third meeting and not quit until they were sure that this was the correct decision. Therefore the team put a lot of effort to invite people, and organize an interesting event.
The gradual loss of interest is also obvious by looking at the statistics of the events on Facebook:
However, for the other groups the fact that this initiative would not succeed was anticipated from the beginning. People were suspicious and not able to understand the proposal of Ouishare people.
Later in time, this point is considered less critical than it had been perceived initially. The fact that Ouishare was not able to continue did not affect the overall development of the sharing economy networks in the city. On the contrary, groups and initiatives have managed to form smaller or bigger, formal or informal networks through which they manage to satisfy their needs and act effectively.
The members of the organizing team continue being active in their fields of interest (tech startups, innovation, solidarity networks) in the wide spectrum of the sharing and solidarity economy.
This Critical Turning Point just revealed that Athens was not ready for a network such as Ouishare at that moment. This is understandable as the process of the network creation did not follow the desired “bottom-up” course that it had followed in other countries. In Athens, the initiatives were different, their connections were established in specific ways, and they did not understand the need of a new network in order to connect them. Especially the need of a network that seemed to have different ideological background, not fitting very well to the Greek society at that moment.
In the future, as social conditions change, it is possible that Greek initiatives will grow interest for the networks, and there may be a new attempt that will succeed. This possible Critical Turning Point is currently anticipated for the distant future, as the group of Ouishare Greece on Facebook is in principle inactive but some of the members manage to keep it alive.
The disappointment for the failure of this idea was bigger for the Greek members of the team. Specifically for the initiator of Ouishare Athens, the main lesson learned was that he should be more realistic, and pay attention to the “messages” he gets from the people around him. Unjustified optimism based on personal interests and motivation can lead to failure as what you want to achieve is a collective goal that demands the active support of others. However, as this support is by no means guaranteed, one should carefully try to identify the how much people are willing to offer, and how far they are willing to go, from the beginning. This skill could have helped him save a lot of time and energy, and also protect him from the final disappointment.
In addition, it became obvious that Ouishare can function in communities where there are already a lot of innovative and tech initiatives established, where there are loose networks that already exist but are in search of their “identity”, name or setup. For example it can succeed in cities like Paris where many groups are very active in activities such as open source, alternative currencies, etc, and also very open to the public, organizing a lot of events, promoting their activity without restrains. In these cases Ouishare works as a connector between all these initiatives, inviting them to explore how they can coordinate and collaborate in an efficient and creative manner.
In Athens, this had not happened yet. Hackerspace Athens is an exception as it organizes events every week, has a lot of members and grows steadily. The same can be argued also for The Cube. However, this is actually a business, so it can be considered a different case.
However, the event may have had a positive contribution for sharing in Athens, in the sense that maybe some people were inspired or influenced and started other initiatives, or became involved in sharing/collaborative initiatives. This is something we do not know, however it is reasonable to guess that any collective action has an impact (positive or negative) on the participants. The interviewees were optimistic and believed that there was no negative effect of these meetings, and that arranging the drinks and going through this process was overall a positive action.
“Overall, a network such as Ouishare would be able to bring a different way of thinking, a change of perspective in Greece. It is something that is missing and it would be beneficial in order to discuss issues on a more theoretical (or just a different) level. However, this will never happen if the mentality of society does not change”, as a member of Ouishare international and active member in the sharing economy scene noted. As he highlighted, “for this (the change) to be achieved, we cannot expect that the established beliefs of people will change (this is almost impossible). The only expectation we can have is to get new minds entering the scene, or young minds developing towards the desired direction”.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
