The niche is all the rage in the context of sustainability. Whether understood spatially or metaphorically as a place of retreat - legal historian Johanna Rakebrand and sociologist Jedrzej Sulmowski talk about its appeal in this interview.
Repair cafés, community-supported agriculture and eco-villages are just a few examples of community-based initiatives that often see themselves - or others - as paving the way to a sustainable future from a niche. You have both been working on this as part of the "Transformation through community" research project team for the past three years and recently dedicated an entire conference to the appeal of the niche. What makes it so special?
Rakebrand: The idea that there could be a small, somehow different world within the world: that's the appeal. What interests me most about this figure of thought is the difference that this distinction opens up: here the small niche that is supposed to set a good example for a sustainable future, and there the rather sedate, almost trite mainstream. The niche concept is used in sustainability research: The Federal Environment Agency, for example, declares certain initiatives as good examples and as niches - with transformative potential for society as a whole, at least that is the narrative. I am concerned with the question of what this distinction entails. At our conference, for example, the question arose: Is the general lying fallow if we are so interested in the niche? And who is actually being emphasised? These were the questions that attracted me to the project.
Sulmowski: The niche offers room for associations. Many see it as a protected space in which something new can unfold. Ecology, on the other hand, defines the niche less in terms of its protective function and more as a condition for the survival of species. When people talk about niches in the field of sustainability, they usually mean the former: niches are protected spaces within which innovations are created that allow greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced, for example. It is striking that the theory always locates such innovation-rich niches at the social micro level.
Does this mean that niches alone offer the opportunity for innovation?
Sulmowski: In theory, such as the well-known transition approach, that is the case. According to this approach, innovations begin on a small scale, in niches, and are then scaled up or adopted by larger players. But I have not yet found a clear answer to the question of whether this is the case.
And social niches in this sense have not only existed recently...
Sulmowski: There are many historical examples in which such spaces have emerged, such as enclaves of people who have escaped oppressive conditions, where different rules applied and oppression was lifted. In the 17th and 18th centuries, more and more communities were formed that set themselves the goal of organising coexistence or economic activity differently. In the post-war period, a socio-political approach emerged in which the aim was to realise change less through major reforms and more through concrete projects. At the same time, the self-image of the individual in society has changed in such a way that, alongside or instead of collectives such as trade unions, which are based on the principle of interest representation, individuals could certainly promote social developments.
So are niches also an expression of individualisation?
Sulmowski: They offer individuals the opportunity to experience their effectiveness and live a mission of social change. That may ultimately be illusory, but that is the function that the niche fulfils, and that is what makes it so attractive.
Rakebrand: However, it is important to bear in mind how many prerequisites this requires: in order to be able to "enter the niche" yourself, many socially created framework conditions must already be in place. I would say that this is precisely what characterises modern societies. They offer the opportunity to see oneself as different, to set oneself apart. This openness is an achievement of civilisation. This was not always possible and is not possible everywhere today.
Does society want to reinvent itself out of niches, or does the declaration of niches rather contribute to the status quo remaining largely the same? If something wants to or should have a transformative effect, would it have to leave the niche at some point?
Sulmowski: In research funding, the focus on niches is associated with the hope that the new practices developed there can be imitated and scaled up. In the light of the theory mentioned, innovations should diffuse from there into society.
Rakebrand: It's not at all clear whether other people find this worth imitating, whether they actually want to live the way it's being modelled. That was also part of the research project. You can also ask who actually needs to be shown something. Historically, for example, rural life in the 19th and early 20th centuries was mainly hyped by the urban middle classes. Magazines focussed on certain types of nutrition and healthy lifestyles in contrast to what was considered unhealthy and in need of improvement. It is interesting to see the distinctions that are made.
If you look at it from this perspective, do you also take a critical look at the research funding itself?
Rakebrand: You are part of this phenomenon, you help create it. But you can also use this knowledge of your own involvement for research.
Sulmowski: We have repeatedly asked ourselves and also argued about the extent to which we allow ourselves to be captured by a certain political agenda that is interested in smaller phenomena instead of using the large levers that are also available in a democracy to bring about change: If you take the niche route, aren't you forgetting the usual political means of change? Are we diverting attention away? Or is it an expression of the helplessness of politics? This was a recurring topic within the team.
Rakebrand: What's also appealing about the niche is that a fact like climate change can supposedly be transformed into a mode of action - and then in such an energetic, vivid way. This is of course highly attractive for research and research funding: there is something concrete to see. The imponderables, the political responsibility, the classic, rather cumbersome and far less descriptive means of dealing with problems - all of this was also part of the project.
Is there a niche you like to be in?
Sulmowski: As a concrete space, the library is my favourite niche on the campus of the University of Oldenburg. But looking at my own life through these "glasses" is something I haven't actually done before.
Rakebrand: Another thing that comes to mind in light of corona is that the pandemic-related "mixing" should soon come to an end!
Interview: Deike Stolz
