ILARIA GADENZ
In your book Montagne di mezzo. Una nuova geografia, you outline how, over the course of the twentieth century, Italian mountains became a tourist attraction on the one hand, and on the other, a place of widespread abandonment and marginalization, in a parable of modernity that led to deep territorial divides that now need to be rethought. I would like to start with the subtitle of the book: “una nuova geografia” (“a new geography”) . . . Is this a claim or a hope? What do you mean by “new,” and why do you feel the need for it?
MAURO VAROTTO
A new geography is a hope, or rather an attempt to reinterpret mountains using keys quite unlike the traditional and dominant ones. Montagne di mezzo (Middle Mountains) attempts to give a name and identity to mountains that have been forgotten or whose value has not been acknowledged. For this reason, a “new geography” also means imagining a new geographical relationship with these mountains, a reconnection after a rather long period—in many cases even centuries—of marginalization, abandonment, and decline. The aim is to rethink them and reconnect with proposals that combine the physical and environmental characteristics of these mountains with the cultural heritage of those who lived there and inhabited them in previous centuries.
ILARIA GADENZ
So, conversely, what are the limitations of the geography deployed in the past with regard to the “middle mountains”?
MAURO VAROTTO
The original sin is not geography, but rather the industrial development model that decreed the defeat of these intermediate territories. A model that failed to recognize the value of mediation between various activities and functions and simplified the mountains in terms of production and therefore exploitation of their primary resources, through intensive farming and agriculture, quarries, the extraction of raw materials, and so on; or in most cases, especially at high altitudes, a model that moves toward tourist monoculture, where the mountains are merely at the service of tourism yet are in fact just as poor, because they do not interact or fit into contexts with other activities and functions. Hence, the problem is the general impoverishment of the cultural and environmental frameworks of the mountains and their moving toward a single-function model. In this sense, the theme of the middle mountains is proposed as an alternative to the models of standardization, specialization, and concentration, both in terms of production and tourism, which often characterize the mountains or the Alps.
ILARIA GADENZ
In addition to economic models, how much have cultural images of the mountains as unspoiled spaces influenced the unresolved nature of the middle mountains?
MAURO VAROTTO
The mountain is undoubtedly the victim of a major polarization process that has effectively separated mountainous-ness and mountain-ness, which has meant that, even culturally, the word “mountain” has become equivalent to the word “nature” in the common imagination. However, this is a form of nature that has expelled man from its conception, and so mountains have become synonymous with wilderness, with an uncontaminated world, thus on the supposition that human beings are themselves no more than a contaminating factor.
From this perspective, nature is always seen in an uncritically positive light, as a salvific Eden, but this fails to take into account the complexity of issues relating to the management of natural territories. Human beings are an integral part of nature; they are not only an impactful element but can also be a factor in control, management, care, and even the creation of biodiversity. It is thought that biodiversity is richer when humans are not present and do not interfere with the environment, but we know that humans have in fact been agents of biodiversity for centuries, contributing to the diversification of alpine landscapes, the differentiation of crops, and the distinction of breeds of farmed animals. Of course, they have also reduced wild biodiversity, but on the other hand, through terracing and domestication, they have also created niches for new forms of biodiversity. The picture is very complex, and the aim is to shift away from this kind of polarization.
ILARIA GADENZ
You mentioned two very important terms, mountainous-ness and mountain-ness. Could you elaborate on these two concepts? How can we bridge the gap between this idea of the mountain as an imaginary concept and the possibility of imagining a new middle mountain?
MAURO VAROTTO
In geography, mountainous-ness refers to everything related to the physical aspects of mountains in relation to two factors in particular: altitude and slope. Altitude determines particular climatic conditions, because as you climb higher, the environment changes. Slope is a very important factor in the articulation of physical and environmental conditions because it generates different exposure to the sun.
Mountain-ness is the cultural response to these characteristics and means managing resources with attention to their articulation and distribution, the ability to build systems that coexist and cohabit with natural environments, but transforming them, modifying them, and further complicating them through activities such as agriculture, grazing, logging, and so on. This does not mean eliminating the characteristics of mountainous-ness, but establishing a dialogue between the human presence that must live in these environments and the environments themselves.
How can we break free from the stereotypical and sometimes sugar-coated or trivialized idea of the mountains as nothing more than a beautiful landscape? The only remedy is to live there. Living there means coming to terms with all aspects of it, maintaining a relationship with the territory that is neither episodic nor superficial. It means coming to terms with a multifaceted situation.
Living there does not mean remaining constantly and perpetually sealed off in an Alpine valley, but entering into a deeper relationship and a certain frequency with these situations. Tourists are not necessarily a negative presence, but they become so when they demand a mountainside tailored to their needs. We need to educate tourists, in some way inviting those who wish to visit the mountains to inhabit them. The two things are not in contradiction—you can inhabit a mountain even as a tourist, but you need to establish a relationship of listening, attention, support, collaboration, and alliance.
I am thinking, for example, of the first sections of the CAI (Italian Alpine Club) at the end of the nineteenth century, which supported the production chains of wood and mountain products.
ILARIA GADENZ
So we are talking about a transition from living in the mountains in an intransitive way to living in the mountains in a transitive, i.e., more conscientious manner?
MAURO VAROTTO
Yes, exactly. In the book, I distinguish between those who live in the mountains and those who inhabit the mountains. Those who live in the mountains may simply be residents who find themselves forced to stay in a certain place, but who are not interested in establishing any meaningful relationships with that environment. Simply moving there is not enough to create mountain dwellers. In many cases, people live in small mountain towns just as they might live in any other town in the world. Inhabiting the mountains, on the other hand, means coming to terms with their specific characteristics, both from an environmental and a social point of view. It means taking responsibility for these areas with commitment, attention, and even activities that can ensure their maintenance. In fact, we often forget the inherited landscape of the middle mountains is the result of constant care and maintenance; the middle mountains are the most domesticated mountains on the planet. If maintenance is neglected, the mountain landscape changes and it becomes even more complicated to manage the livability of such areas.
ILARIA GADENZ
In many Italian cities, we are witnessing a crisis of people seeking models not only for living but also for staying over time. Do you see a crisis of traditional categories of space, akin to that in mountain valleys?
MAURO VAROTTO
We can certainly talk about multifaceted crises that have affected the mountains—for example, the crisis of a certain model of development and lifestyle, the climate crisis, and the pandemic crisis that has led to processes of resettlement. It is a crisis caused by stress, overload, and excessive exploitation of resources and, at the same time, of human beings. People turn to the mountains in search of an alternative, but that does not necessarily mean they will find it. In many cases, we are talking about utopias, but in many others, the mountains can accommodate a different, more sustainable model that is in contact with nature, but also with less inflated social relationships.
At the University of Padua, we are fostering paths to accompany those who decide to return to live in the mountains, and we believe that the search for an alternative way of life should be supported for two reasons. The first is that the mountains need people to live there precisely because of the need to care for and maintain a precious heritage. The second is that the mountains can inspire these new inhabitants to live a more sober life, projecting a different ecological and economic model that is more sustainable than urban ones.
I don’t believe the mountains should necessarily be considered a suburb. We could reverse this paradigm and perhaps one day consider the city as the suburb that provides services and the mountains as the center of gravity. In other words, I could visit the city a little like homo alpinus did in medieval and modern times, in terms of a life that was functional but had its center of gravity in rural areas that today, however, are much more interconnected than in the past.
ILARIA GADENZ
How would you describe this kind of future that lies ahead or that you hope for?
MAURO VAROTTO
The hope is that the mountains can inspire polysemic and multifunctional ways of life and forms of economic activity. This is, after all, the tradition of mountain life: a range of activities. Mountain dwellers do not normally engage in a single activity, precisely because they have to deal with different resources, environmental characteristics, and needs.
I think this polysemic and multifunctional dimension of mountain life is the goal we should bear in mind. Perhaps it is also a way of expanding our relationship with time because, in fact, returning to the mountains also means slowing down, or rather alternating moments of speed and rapidity with moments of stillness, rest, and slower rhythms. This also means expanding our own time, one which is very focused on the here and now and on the logic of simultaneity, immediacy, and results.
This is obviously a utopian notion; not all trajectories of return to the mountains fall within this framework, but there are some that choose formulas of self-consumption; short supply chains; enhancement of local resources; more frugal, more attentive, and less consumerist lifestyles. The future will show whether these ingredients may succeed in steering the trajectories of the middle mountains in a virtuous direction or whether they will be outclassed by a rush to the mountainside linked to greater heat and the flight from the city. The effects are quite evident: there are mountains or valleys where tourism is so predominant that it makes the area uninhabitable—just think of the high cost of accommodation (the Cortina model). In other cases, less frequented mountains become spaces where it is possible to build something that is not solely for the benefit of tourism.
ILARIA GADENZ
Are there any virtuous examples that you are following as a university?
MAURO VAROTTO
Right now, we have a course with the University of Padua called RIMONT – Riabitare la montagna (Re-Inhabiting the Mountains), which takes place in three areas: Val Posina, in the Vicenza Prealps; the lower Val di Zoldo (the upper part is linked to the ski circuit, so it’s a completely different model); and Carnia, along with the Comeglians area. In all three situations, there are resettlement dynamics that create a new alliance between the city and the mountains with intermittent patterns of frequenting them that are a far cry from hit-and-run tourism. In this intermediate dimension, I believe there is also a third way between those who live in the mountains all the time and those who only go there for occasional tourist visits. In this new way, I see the future of these valleys and of the realities that are currently deemed more marginal.
ILARIA GADENZ
What do you mean by intermittent patterns of frequenting the mountains?
MAURO VAROTTO
Intermittency means that those who return to live in the mountains do not necessarily stay there every day. There are multi-home inhabitants, who may spend three or four days a week in the mountains and then come down for work reasons. Or, thanks to teleworking, they can live in the mountains for most of the week. Or there are those who come and go on the weekends, not as tourists but as inhabitants returning to their chosen place that they feel to be more their own. Their commitment, attention, and therefore connections to the place of these trajectories are very unlike those who experience these places as outsiders.
ILARIA GADENZ
In this case, can we consider intermittent re-frequentation a positive model of anthropization and as a means of safeguarding the territory?
MAURO VAROTTO
Yes, that ought to be the case. The goal remains the care and maintenance of the territory, and not simply its exploitation by outsiders and strangers. Living in the mountains, not just staying in the mountains.
ILARIA GADENZ
What’s the difference between landscape and territory?
MAURO VAROTTO
The word “landscape” has a meaning that is less closely linked to simple economic or administrative aspects. “Territory” is very often primarily linked to issues of economic production or political control, and is a word that often evokes power dynamics. The word “landscape,” on the other hand, includes other aspects and values: historical, environmental, and cultural heritage, and also takes on affective, emotional, aesthetic, and sentimental connotations. Those who live and reside in the mountains perhaps relate to a landscape in a way that goes beyond interest to include an emotional and affective dimension.
ILARIA GADENZ
It seems to me that political rhetoric about territory has to do with controlling and defending authenticity and identity. It has very little to do with emotion . . .
MAURO VAROTTO
Generally speaking, regional policies and those who administer mountain areas view the territory as a place that first must be economically viable and do everything possible to attract resources, funds, people, tourists, etcetera. This is a legitimate, necessary, and fundamental requirement, but it must be balanced with other needs such as environmental sustainability and the promotion of cultural identity. I am thinking here, for example, of ski resorts, which lead to an increasingly wasteful and unsustainable economy in the face of global warming, but the main interest remains limited to the economic chain with hotels, related jobs, and so on.
Sustainability, livability, and balance are dimensions that must be reintroduced into the equation, and the diversity of terms we use—landscape, territory, place—gives an idea of the polysemy of the spaces we must inhabit. Indeed, it is a way of living that is polysemic, insofar as those who live in a place need many things: they must feel happy there, and they must do more than just go to work and earn money. Earning a living is bound up in the fundamental dimension of survival, but this is not enough. We must also orient earnings and the economy toward sustainability and a better quality of life.
