ICS Working Paper Nº1/2018

ICS W O R K I N G P A P E R S 2018 19 closed culture of local population; centralistic state behaviour; excessive procedure normalization; over- complicated rules for organisation formalization (Rocha et al., 2016)). This phenomenon of ‘unreflexive localism’ may derive from a perfectionist utopian vision of true sustainable local living based on a set of normative predetermined simplified ideas (cf. Dupuis and Goodman, 2005). This segregationist stance often translates into mute coexistences between CBI actors and local communities. In hindsight, this desired withdrawal may seem a valid short-term solution to avoid conflict and secure the survival of the CBI, namely on initial settlement stages when CBIs’ values or lifestyle choices may bring about some cultural clash with local communities. However, in the long run, the denial of the politics of the local hinders cultural acceptation and the potential of CBIs’ development impacts (cf. Rocha et al., 2016). This risk of social exclusion and ‘ivory-tower thinking’, has already been signaled. Among others, Fernandes-Jesus et al. (2017: 1550) argues that there is for example an inherent difficulty in the Transition movement to engage beyond highly educated, “post-materialist progressive” individuals that have both resources and willingness (consciousness) to engage in environmental activism. 3.2 Outward-looking niche There is a growing number of CBIs attributing fundamental significance to the pro-active promotion of local community engagement, involvement, and first and foremost knowledge exchange, networking and cooperation (even if only horizontal) as a basic condition to evolve (cf. Campos et al., 2016). These outward-looking CBIs believe in scale-up and transferability of social innovation practices within the wider context of socio-ecological transitions, but often don’t know how to do it or lack instrumental resources to achieve it (Santos et al., 2016). Nevertheless, even now Portuguese CBIs seem to be, willingly or involuntarily, unable to unite efforts and network beyond their thematic identity or geographical proximity as analysed above. Despite their resilience (e.g. the Transition or the Permaculture network etc.), there is yet no evidence of a nation-wide CBI network effort, nor is there evidence (i.e. events, meetings, fora) of a relevant and persistent level of interaction between them. It is nevertheless worth pointing out that a limited number of actors seem to be catalysing multiple initiatives throughout time (e.g. the CCIAM research group members). This multi-role effect (i.e. moving between science, CBIs and activism) may result from the engaged scholarship practiced by these academics, and the action-research projects that they develop (e.g. PLACARD, Adapt for Change, BASE (see Annex 2 of Appendix A for a detailed description)). Yet, these overlapping roles could potentiate a misrepresentation of the CBI dynamic and its resilience inducing the perception of a larger-than-is dynamic on the ground.