Developing radically new meanings through the collaboration with radical circles

Abstract

Purpose The importance and complexity of proposing radically new meanings are well-established in the literature. However, a limited number of contributions have analyzed how they can be developed. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the development of radically new meanings at the basis of the Slow Food movement to contribute to the topic. Design/methodology/approach In order to better understand how social movements can propose radically new meanings and how companies can take inspiration and build a competitive advantage by leveraging the proposed meanings, the authors deeply analyzed the genealogy of Slow Food, interpreted as an inspiring case study; the authors adopt a narrative approach. Findings The analysis of how Slow Food emerged and evolved into an international movement reveals an alternative way to develop innovative meanings in collaboration with groups of radicals. The authors identify three main phases in the evolution of innovative meanings: generation, institutionalization and development. Practical implications In terms of managerial implications the authors contribute highlighting the importance of a new type of collaborative innovation: the collaboration with radical circles and social movements in their early stage. Social implications From a societal point of view, if the authors acknowledge the importance of social movements in contesting and actively changing institutions, the authors can see the importance for policy makers to create loci and opportunities for the emergence of radical circles and their experimentations. Originality/value The authors propose that new meanings are frequently the result of small groups of individuals gathering in radical circles. The core attribute of such circles is group validation. The group supports the Slow Food leader in refining the meaning and confronting the dominant paradigm.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.