Reflecting on (Social) Creativity, Approaching Real Utopias in Lisbon

Soraia Silva, CEG, IGOT – ULAna Estevens, CEG, IGOT – ULAndré Carmo, CEG, IGOT – ULIsabel André, CEG, IGOT – ULMário Vale, CEG, IGOT - UL

AAG Annual MeetingNew York February 24-28, 2012

Project RUcaS(FCT-PTDC/CS-GEO/115603/2009)

Agenda

1. Intro

2. The study

3. Key concepts

4. Lessons from the case studies

5. Further questions

1. IntroStudy: Urban Creativity in the Region of

Lisbon (2010-2012)(ordered by the CCDR-LVT: Coordination and Regional

Development Commission of Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region)

Research project RUcaS: Real Utopias in Socially Creative Places (2011 - )

2. The studyWP1 - Concepts and perspectives on urban creativity (Survey paper)

Extensive Analysis

WP2 - BenchmarkingWP3 – Urban creativity analysis –

profiles and dynamics of the creative sector

Case studies

WP4A Creative Places

WP4COrganizations

WP4B Cultural events

WP5 – Policy recommendations

3. Key conceptsSocially creative places

as a condition and a result of creativity

Diversity and pluralism

Tolerance and acceptance

Collective learning and critical thought

3. Key conceptsSocial innovation

“satisfation of alienated human needs through the transformation of social relations” (Moulaert, 2009)

Responds to social exclusion

Is path dependent and contextual

Has a very marked territorial expression

3. Key concepts

Social creativity

Social recognition (and transformation)

Social innovation

Collective learning

and critical thought

Diversity

Tolerance

Participation

Leadership

Collective memories

Threats Risks Challenges Opport.

3. Key conceptsThe role of the arts in social creativity

Pedagogy

Identity

Social development

Citizenship

3. Key conceptsThe role of the arts in social innovation

Power of communication

Appropriation (empowerment)

Contestation and resistance

3. Key concepts

Social creativity

Social recognition (and transformation)

Social innovation

Threats Risks Challenges Opport.

Arts

Instrume ntal

Strategic

3. Key conceptsAchievable utopias (Friedman, 2000)

Are born from a collective insatisfaction;

Appear after a solution/technique to the insatisfaction is already known;

Are ‘achievable’ if there is a collective consent (to the application of the solution)

3. Key conceptsAchievable utopias (Friedman, 2000)

The existence of a critical group (limits to community dimension)

Communication and access to info are crucial elements

To priorize the collective over individual is worse than highlighting the importance of each individual to the collective

There are no universal utopias

3. Key conceptsReal Utopias

Result from a process of social innovation

The process itself is the technique necessary to promote a real utopia

Are contextual and mostly with a territorial expression

Tend to be egalitarians as organizations (critical group), but admit multiple layers of governance

3. Key concepts

Social creativity

Social recognition (and transformation)

Social innovation

Arts

Instrume ntal

Strategic

Real Utopias

Contextual and territorial

Public policies

Threats Risks Challenges Opport.

Othe r real utopias

Layers of governance

4. Lessons from the case studies

4. Lessons from the case studies

Cultural events

Visibility

Associativism / Leadership

Public support

Promotion of critical thought

Socially creative milieux

DocLisboa

Amadora BD

Festival de Almada

4. Lessons from the case studies

Organizations

Path dependency

Leadership

Public policies

Arts: pedagogy, citizenship, identity and social development

Appropriation

Social Innovation

TocáRufar

Teatro do Oprimido

Orquestra Geração

4. Lessons from the case studies

Creative Places

Associativism

Solidarity

Collective learning

Collective memories

A real utopia!

Cova do Vapor

4. Lessons from the case studies

Creative Places

Self – esteem

Collective learning

Rebuilding identities

Social innovation

Mouraria

4. Lessons from the case studies

Creative Places

Creative milieux

Collective learning

Networking

Controled environment

Rebuilding identities

Hardly a process of social innovation

LXFactory

4. Lessons from the case studies

Creative Places

(Municipal) Leadership

Collective learning

Collective memories / heritage

Self – esteem

It may be seen as a paternalist utopia

Óbidos

5. Further questions• Do/will public policies support social and artistic

initiatives self-acknowledged as innovative but not recognized as such by the ‘whole’ society?

• To what extent the sucess of social innovation initiatives (real utopias?) may didacte their own end?

• If innovation initiatives largely depend on public financing, how can we ensure ‘critical thought independency’ in a context of austherity based in neoliberal policies and social contesting control?

• What can we learn from the failure cases?

References• André, I., Abreu, A., 2006, Dimensões e espaços da inovação

social,Finisterra, XLI (81), 121-141• André, I., Malheiros, J., Carmo, A., Le rythme des arts dans la ville

(socialement créative), Presentation, Montreal, UQÀM, April 2011• André, I., Abreu, A., Carmo, A., forthcoming, Social Innovation

through the arts in rural areas: the case of Montemor-o-Novo• Friedman, Y., 2000, Utopies Réalisables, Les Coiffards, Éditions de

l’éclat• Gertler, M., 2004, Creative Cities: What Are They For, How Do They

Work, and How Do We Build Them?, Ottawa, Canadian Policy Research Network

• Moulaert, F., Social Innovation and community development – Conceps, theories and challenges, in Moulaert, F., Maccallum, D., Hillier, J., Vicari, S. (eds), 2009, Social Innovation and Territorial Development, Farnham, Ashgate

• Musterd, S., Murie, A. (eds), 2010, Making competitive cities, West Sussex, Blackwell

Thank you for your attention!

soraiasilva@campus.ul.pt