Natalia Beatriz Quiñónez Portillo

Group Dynamics and Transformative Learning – ERASMUS Master’s Degree on Sustainable Territorial Development 2018/2020

TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF HABITAT PROCESSES:

THE CONTRIBUTION OF HOUSING COOPERATIVES ON THE REVITALIZATION OF SAN SALVADOR’S HISTORICAL CENTER

At the Historical Center of San Salvador, the capital city of El Salvador, an integral revitalization process in the area is soon to
take place. The current situation of the Historical Center is the result of three decades of profound abandonment and physical
degradation that has no short-term, immediate solutions. Many inhabitants from the Center’s mesones1, who have been
organized in housing cooperatives for over a decade, have advocated for the State to address the Center’s problems by
putting their own proposals, concerning access to urban land and adequate housing through affordable funding mechanisms,
on the discussion table. A few years ago, said proposal was designed by the State into a pilot program that aims to recovery
of the housing purpose and public spaces from the Center’s historical perimeter, with the participation of housing
cooperatives at the lead. Only a few months after its implementation took off, nevertheless, some questions might arise: how
can ‘participation’ take place and be shaped by a dialogue and decision-making process with stakeholders who are in very
different positions of power? Can such a pioneering program –in terms of participatory design, formulation and
implementation– give space to transformative learning? If not, is there a chance for other kind of ‘learning’ to be produced
and acquired from this on-going experience?

El Centro es de quien lo habita: main stakeholders and core aspects of the program

From the second half of the XX century onwards, the Center has become a bustling urban casque that reproduces social and
economic inequalities at the expense of the ones inhabiting and revitalizing it daily. It is the mesones’ inhabitants, mainly low-
income families who have endured systemic exclusion and impoverishment throughout multiple generations, the only people
remaining at the heart of its gang-controlled streets, commerce-fueled plazas and progressively decaying buildings. In the
early 2000’s, a local NGO and a Uruguayan social organization decided to act upon the problem2 and work in tandem with
the people to find bottom-up solutions to it. This is how, in 2005, people from mesones and other precarious settlements
started to organize in housing cooperatives and to collectively advocate for their human right to decent housing.

In 2010, the five housing cooperatives already constituted moved a step forward and formed the Salvadoran Federation of
Housing Cooperatives by Mutual Aid (FESCOVAM). This organization pushed the advocacy efforts of the movement into a
higher level: direct representation of the most vulnerable people in multi-sectorial discussion spaces regarding the recovery
and development of the Center. Its work has been mainly focused on advocating for State’s support and recognition of
housing cooperatives as people’s organizations with the capacity to control and administer, under the principles of
democracy, solidarity and cooperation, the production and assignation of affordable and secure housing to its bases.
Nowadays, there is a total of 13 housing cooperatives inhabiting the Center, two of which have built their housing complexes
and hence turned into remarkable experiences of an alternative, people-based modality of solving housing precariousness.
In a 70 % of their membership, these cooperatives are mostly upheld by women. By witnessing the strength of the housing
cooperative movement for involving directly in the Center’s recovery process, is how the State, through the Viceministry of
Housing and Urban Development (VMVDU), decided upon supporting their proposals and elevate them to the public policy
platform in 2012. This is when the Italian Government resolved on providing the Salvadoran State with a loan for the total
amount of USD$12 million, in order to fund a socioeconomic and cultural revitalization program for the Historical Center
(“Social, Economic and Cultural Requalification of the Historical Center and its Housing Purpose”, in English), with the leading
participation of housing cooperatives.

1
Mesones constitute a relatively important type of informal rental market since, as a housing typology, they are sheltering the 95
% of low-income families within the Historical Center of San Salvador (FUNDASAL, 2005a: 65).
2
In 2004, a process of knowledge transfer and exchange of experiences between the Uruguayan Federation of Housing Cooperatives
by Mutual Aid (FUCVAM) and the Salvadoran Foundation of Development and Social Housing (FUNDASAL) began, with the purpose
of replicating FUCVAM’s experience and housing cooperative model as an alternative for solving the housing deficit problem among
the population’s poorest segments (FUNDASAL, 2017: 1-2).
Now, within the framework of this pioneering program, specifically the housing component is meant to be led by housing
cooperatives designing, self-managing and executing the constructive processes for their own housing complexes, targeted
to provide for nearly 352 cooperative households. In terms of defining some innovative guidelines for housing policy in the
future, the principles of the housing cooperative model on collective property, mutual aid and self-management are key. If
the program concludes and succeeds, a groundbreaking experiment on scaling a specific process of implementing a social
production of habitat process3 up to a public policy discussion platform, would have been achieved.

A map of housing cooperatives’

presence on the Historical Center
of San Salvador: blue, precarious
settlements inhabited by housing
cooperatives; red, housing
complexes already built by housing
cooperatives; green, an urban
organic garden installed
collectively by housing cooperative
families; and in purple, land plots
identified by the VMVDU for being
developed by housing cooperatives
within the Program.

Some secondary
stakeholders that should
be taken into
consideration are the
Municipality of San Salvador, in representation of the local government authorities and the National Congress, given their
competencies on determining the magnitude and types of institutional resources to be allocated in favor (or against) the
program’s implementation. In 2014, for example, the program reached the Congress’ Treasury and Budget Special
Commission in need of its avail, before its main Plenary could decide upon the acquisition of a loan by the Salvadoran State
before the Italian Government, since this kind of State engagement must be studied and approved by the Congress. A few
years later, in 2018, the Congress approved a bill that allows public land transfer, as much as a stratified subsidy structure for
funding allocation, to housing cooperatives, within the framework of this Program. In contrast, the Municipality’s efforts have
been strongly oriented towards the ‘touristification’ of the Historical Center, provoking sparked confrontations with people
who subsist from the economics taking place at its public spaces and streets, its inhabitants included.

From the previously explained scenario, specifically from the perspective of housing cooperatives, there are some enabling
and challenging factors that have an unavoidable influence in how this program might develop and leave the way for a social
production of habitat process to take place, with all its participatory and transformative learning potential. At this point, it is
important to recall the basic principles and mechanisms housing cooperatives put into practice to function, work and achieve
their goals, given that this model’s initiatives have been considered exemplary as social production of habitat processes (HIC-
AL, 2018).

The Center’s housing cooperatives have learned and developed skills to carry out: (a) self-managed democratic processes of
decision-making that fundamentally rely on direct deliberation and participation of families, in spaces where the Assembly
defines the cooperatives objectives and roadmap; (b) mutual aid systems that generate peer-to-peer learning and help create
more cohesive networks for sharing and working collectively towards the same cause, be this the construction of a housing
complex or another common goal; (c) the defense of collective property as a mechanism of protecting tenure over land,
housing and the community’s common spaces for all cooperative families from privatizing and speculative attempts; and (d)
complement their work with the technical assessment of other organizations that ought to contribute for the strengthening
of the cooperatives’ organizational, constructive, financial and administrative skills.

3
A political proposal largely debated during the seventies that has its roots on people getting organized for learning how to self-
manage resources and direct processes of building their own habitat and making it prosper, as a practical example of endogenous
development (Ortiz, 2012: 73).
Considering all that has been mentioned above, the Center’s housing cooperatives have accumulated a level of knowledge
still waiting to be put into action when it comes to project implementation. Their high level of collective awareness on the
importance of the program as a scalable experience in the future for housing policy discussion is also an asset, as it happens
with the technical assistance that the VMVDU will guarantee. While going in depth on what the VMVDU is willing to provide,
the fact that a close coordination and dynamics of teamwork exist between the State institution and FESCOVAM in regards
of the program implementation, remains a clear indication of the Salvadoran Government’s political willingness to support
the housing cooperative model overall.

Housing cooperatives participate in a peaceful demonstration at the

National Congress facilities, in July 2018, to advocate for stratified
subsidiary structure and land transfer in their favor.

However, there are also other factors that might put at

risk the development of the program in all its
potentialities: before the project started its
implementation, it is possible to identify a relative
decrease on participation levels of cooperative
members in the movement’s activities and processes,
due to a generalized sensation of uncertainty and lack of
conviction over the reliability of the program’s results.

There is some external phenomenon that has reinforced

this perception and decisions on cooperative members: the forthcoming period of elections in February 2019 for El Salvador,
and therefore a change in VMVDU’s leading positions, poses a threat to the already defined goals, roadmap, strategies and/or
methodologies of the program. Important changes could ensue in order to fit the velocity of result-oriented priorities, like
the sole construction of the houses. In fact, due to political and institutional impasses, its implementation has already
undergone several delays in its implementation starting date since 2012. Up to this date at least, it is still in its preliminary
stages (land plot transfer, allocation of funds to housing cooperatives for execution). In consequence, VMVDU’s interest on
controlling how funds should be executed may conflict with the rhythm of the housing cooperatives’ learning processes and
self-management.

Within this context, it is easy to imagine a diverse array of possible scenarios on how participation and transformative learning
might be hindered at the different stages of the program’s implementation. It is important to discuss briefly the ones that
could arise, as much as on how differently stakeholders could react, in order to elaborate a couple of ideas on how a social
production of habitat process can always be carried out, despite the obstacles that emerge.

The future of the housing cooperative model as a participatory process of transformative learning: a latent discussion

To oppose the capitalist paradigm of private property and to stand in defense of human rights, such as adequate housing, is
not a challenge for anyone. In this sense, the housing cooperatives’ experience based at the Historical Center of San Salvador
should be recalled as an interesting landmark of resistance against neoliberal precarisation of the housing situation for the
lowest-income population. To stand still after ten or more years of cooperative work and perseverance, while living in highly
insalubrious and unsafe conditions, is a firm demonstration of a type of conviction preceded by a significant change of mindset
and life goals, both on a personal and collective sense. It could be asserted that most housing cooperative members have
undergone different processes of transformative learning throughout their life experiences as cooperative members, even
more as part of the directive boards at some point. Now, what could have been the key drivers of such a transformation?

According to Illeris (2003), transformative learning comes with “personality changes (…) characterized by simultaneous
restructuring the cognitive, the emotional and the social-societal dimensions”, which are very demanding processes. On a
voluntary basis, not everyone is willing to undergo such a process unless, Illeris states, they experience “a crisis-like situation
caused by challenges experienced as urgent and unavoidable”, one that induces a “break of orientation” in the individual’s
learning. This is the kind of process that the most committed and perseverant housing cooperative members and leaders go
through: before a critical situation of housing precariousness and the lack of decent solutions to their problem, the
opportunity of being part of a housing cooperative emerges as the only one that is feasible and accessible. Yet, being part of
a housing cooperative from the Historical Center requires an active participation in multiple training and organizational
processes: to understand the roots and actors involved at the housing deficit problem, how collective organization can be a
tool of resistance and advocacy for the most vulnerable, and what kind of changes on a personal level are required to be part
of it. The housing cooperative model works best when, at a certain stage of awareness on the need for getting organized and
acting as a collective being for solving many people’s housing problem, a behavioral and societal scheme of values and actions
transcend from individualism and competitiveness towards solidarity, unity and cooperation.

It might be difficult that these transitions derive only from theoretical discussions and attending more than one training
course, even if facilitators have a right methodological approach. Before learning occurs, people have also resisted to change
their customary interaction patterns (shyness, suspicion of the other’s real intentions, skepticism on the solution) or their
perspective on how their housing problem should be achieved best (wouldn’t it be best to have individual contracts as private
owners of our houses, or to hire workers instead of getting ourselves involved in the construction?). As a self-defense
mechanism also mentioned by Illeris, resistance can nevertheless have a strong potential for transformative learning. In the
case of the Center’s housing cooperatives, the act of practicing cooperative values and getting involved in their processes has
thus been a fundamental trigger on their transformative learning experience, and this is where participation becomes highly
relevant. But what is the kind of participation that takes place at the core of cooperatives –a project-based, more institutional
type of participation or an empowering one that describes how endogenous development models unfold?

As Tufte and Mefalupopulos (2009) would name it, dynamics and values of housing cooperatives promote and depend on a
series of participation methods that lead to the empowerment of cooperatives as collective subjects with an autonomous
voice, who are entitled to be part of the high-level discussion of solutions to their problems with their own proposals at hand.
It is in the heart of the open discussion spaces that these housing cooperatives have created between directive boards, leaders
and base members, such as Assemblies and meetings, where people have the chance to listen and realize how common their
problems are. Construction of consensus ensues throughout the process of discussing not only ideas and concerns, but also
proposals that can arrive from all directions; housing cooperatives have also offered the chance to share and re-create
knowledge from horizontal exchange of ideas between peers, between compañeros/as. When crucial decisions must be
made, while standardized criteria of ’50 % plus one’ or ‘two-thirds’ might still apply for the more operational aspects, matters
related to the social well-being of members or political statements are addressed in a way that consensus is worked on
further, even if it takes more time. So far, the Center’s housing cooperatives are a living proof of all these processes.

Later, when the construction phase finally arrives, and everyone must participate as labor force, the development of both
hard and soft skills is put to task: generally, housing cooperatives organize in working committees in charge of different
administrative, financial, managerial and constructive activities. This is when one of the most intimidating moments of putting
theoretical learning into practice takes place, but also for many, this is when real transformative learning begins and takes
real form: the working methodology of mutual aid makes sure that everyone learns to do something and participate
effectively in the process. Finally, after concluding the construction of the housing and entering the collective inhabiting and
conviviality phase, cooperative families will face maybe the toughest but most rewarding challenges of all: learning to live
together, as a permanently organized community that remains united to advocate for the majority’s well-being. It is until this
stage that most cooperative members and leaders concretize a remarkably advanced of transformative learning.

After having delved further into the insides of housing cooperatives daily lives, if we go back to the case of the Center’s
revitalization program, there is one question that remains unanswered: will all these valuable assets so intrinsic to how
housing cooperatives have been operating and interacting with other key actors be put at stake, if the Center’s revitalization
program is managed under the sole purpose of building houses instead of more sustainable communities that are exemplary
to the society, from the perspective of housing as a human right? Most probable. Again, when analyzing the political
circumstances today, it is possible to detect a great amount of pressure the present governmental administration is going
through, the more the next period of elections approaches4. This situation has been noticeably influencing the VMVDU’s

4
According to most surveys conducted by massive media outlets, in February 2019, the only left-wing political party in El Salvador,
the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), might lose after a ten-year long governing period.
decisions that concern the program’s preparation and implementation, since the tangible results that it would produce in
such a politically contested place as the Center would make a perfect asset for campaigning purposes, no matter the cost.
FESCOVAM has had to deal with this debate and dilemmas for a lot longer than expected and has been able to resist without
giving up much, although real and concrete participation of its bases has decreased qualitatively, at least throughout the
process of stating priorities and firm standpoint over ‘the unnegotiable’: enabling conditions for collective property, mutual
aid work and self-management processes to take place for the housing complexes to get built.

But there are still plenty of strategies that can be put in place in order to avoid unnecessary amounts of debris, both by local
allied organizations or even the VMVDU’s technical assessment teams that supervise and monitor the program
implementation, but most necessarily by the housing cooperatives themselves and FESCOVAM. One would be to change the
scope and methodologies on the training processes that housing cooperatives are now being obliged to undertake, as a
mandatory requirement for being entitled to a house subsidized by the Government: people have started attending to courses
and get overloaded of new contents and knowledge because “if I don’t attend, I won’t get the house for my family even if I’m
a cooperative member, and all these years of struggle would have been in vain”, but how much learning is being elaborated
from an abruptly implemented training process that is not allowing space and time for essaying the practicality? This is what
the ‘aprender haciendo’ facilitation methodologies try to guarantee.

Nevertheless, this is a constant pattern in the Government’s program implementation tradition that will continue to appear
in the forthcoming stages for designing the architectural proposals and building the housing complexes under the guidelines
of the housing cooperative model, if its core principles are to be respected. FESCOVAM and the cooperatives are already very
aware of this challenge, and they should discuss promptly how to prepare accordingly, if different implementation scenarios
emerged: shall prepare all strategies for advocating in favor of the program’s implementation in all its previously agreed terms
and conditions, without leaving anything important behind. And what might not appear as ‘very important’ at this politically
critical moment, from a more pragmatic point of view, are housing cooperative mechanisms of functioning democratically by
direct participation and allowing time and space for transformative learning to take place. It is these two crucial processes
however the ones that have produced a strong social movement behind a remarkably sustainable idea of urban revitalization
for the Historical Center, by providing an alternative solution to the housing problem for the poor in the urban (and rural)
areas of El Salvador. If what has been achieved by housing cooperatives until this day is what is meant to be replicated and
later scaled as a public policy proposal, they shall also be respected and adapted to the program implementation strategies
and methodologies.

References
FUNDASAL (2005) Hábitat en el Centro Histórico de San Salvador. Libros de FUNDASAL. San Salvador, El Salvador.
FUNDASAL (2017) The Housing Cooperative by Mutual Aid Model. San Salvador, El Salvador.
HIC-AL (2018) Utopías en construcción: experiencias latinoamericanas de producción social del hábitat. Rosa Luxemburgo Stiftung.
México DF, México.
Illeris, K. (2003) Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. Int. J. of Lifelong Education, vol. 22, no. 4 (July –
August 2003), pp. 396 – 406.
Ortiz, E. (2012) Producción social de la vivienda y el hábitat. Habitat Internacional Coalition (HIC). Mexico DF, Mexico.
Tufte, T., Mefalopulos, P. (2009) Participatory communication: a practical guide. The World Bank. Washington DC, US.
VMVDU (2013) Recalificación socioeconómica y cultural del Centro Histórico de San Salvador y de su función habitacional mediante
el movimiento cooperativo. Government of El Salvador. San Salvador, El Salvador.