What we know, what we do not yet understand well enough and where others can contribute.
Syntrociety grew from Sulitânia’s experience in southern Portugal. Everyone who writes brings their own background, education, resources and opportunities. That position influences the questions we ask and the experiences we readily recognise.
Our starting point also shapes what we miss. Other people and places can reveal questions our experience has not yet reached sufficiently.
These topics are not yet developed sufficiently in our texts. They need others’ experience and research. We name them so you can see where additions are needed and where you could contribute.
Class and privilege within regenerative communities.
Who can buy land, start an initiative or wait a long time for results? Resources, income and access to land influence who can take part. Our texts do not yet make those differences sufficiently visible.
Colonial history of the land we work on.
Sulitânia began at Quinta da Fornalha and is now seeking a new place. Every place raises questions about the history of land ownership and access: who used the land, who could stay and who had to leave? The relationship between that history and our work needs more research.
Gendered care work.
Who cooks, cares, mediates and maintains relationships? How are those tasks distributed and valued, and what role does gender play? Our texts on governance and the economy do not yet explore this sufficiently.
Unequal power between partners.
Communities, public authorities, researchers and entrepreneurs have different powers and resources. Those differences affect their cooperation. Our texts need to show more clearly how they shape conversations, decisions and dependencies.
Failure modes of the strategies we propose.
Working with existing institutions can open opportunities, but also bring exhaustion, dependency or loss of the original purpose. Our texts describe the chosen direction more fully than the circumstances in which it could fail.
Risks within initiatives and institutions.
Regenerative initiatives can also face dependence on leaders, group pressure or financial exploitation. Institutions can protect their own interests and create unnecessary barriers. We must investigate these risks, even when they are close to home.
Dependence on founders and on the first Lab.
Syntrociety builds on one first Lab. Knowledge, infrastructure and initiative therefore sit with a small circle. We need to develop further how responsibility can be shared and what is needed if people leave.
The texts show how we currently understand the work. Other experiences may prompt us to revise that understanding. Contributions to our living documents are welcome: questions, sources and experiences help reveal gaps and investigate them further.
Is a question or perspective missing? Bring it in. This list is open to additions too.
Truth and Openness are Charter principles. In our own writing, this means being clear about the experience we draw on, open questions and claims needing further evidence.
We update this page when new insights or contributions give us reason to change the limits described.
Each essay explores a question further. Read them with the limits above in mind. They welcome contributions; the version and date show which text you are reading.
Research, theory, and the federation's position in the tension between government and regenerative communities. Why two parties who need each other rarely speak the same language.
An open consideration of whether the Friends programme constitutes a role in itself, beyond the four helix actors. Forthcoming.
The tension between regenerative communities and academic knowledge: how both sides have contributed to a gap that SYFERS attempts to bridge. Forthcoming.
The list expands as new essays appear. The foundational texts are public too. Proposals to amend the Charter, Practice or a definition follow their own decision-making process; a contribution does not automatically change the current text.