Network in Nepantla: A Relational Approach to Transition/ commoning/ how we share /
- 21 hours ago
- 8 min read
Anna Maria Ranczakowska
"Nepantla is the site of transformation, the place where different perspectives come into conflict and where you question the basic ideas inherited from your culture." (Anzaldúa, 2002)
Nepantla is a word from Nahuatl, the language spoken by the Nahua peoples of central Mexico, including the Aztecs. The term means “in the middle” or “in-between.” Chicana theorist Gloria Anzaldúa reactivated it to describe a liminal, transitional space between worlds, identities, or systems, a condition of ambiguity, contradiction, and potential transformation. Nepantla refers not only to personal or cultural in-betweenness but also to collective states where dominant paradigms are unsettled and alternative ways of relating begin to take form. Dwelling in Nepantla means staying with discomfort and complexity, resisting premature closure, and remaining open to becoming otherwise (Anzaldúa, 2002).
We often ask ourselves what kind of network we are. What precisely is our structure, our offer, our value? In this reflection we do not seek to answer definitively but to explore openly, from the position of curiosity and from within the messy, uncertain reality of transition. Our guiding question emerges from this uncertainty: What kind of network is needed now?
Across tensions and complexities: network as a holding space
To be a network in transition is to exist in Nepantla - a state of uncertainty, friction, and questioning. This state resists definitions, specific models, metrics, or predetermined outcomes. It is lived rather than theorised, experienced as something between becoming and unbecoming, between who we thought we were and who we begin to see we might become.
Yet, being a network in Nepantla means recognising that transition is not about superficially adopting new frameworks. It demands deeper internal shifts. It requires embracing trouble, contradictions, and friction rather than smoothing them over. It asks difficult questions about complicity, about the systems we unintentionally uphold even as we critique them, and about what we might need to let go. Such processes are not comfortable, easy, or necessarily productive. Friction can stall progress, even reinforce harmful patterns if not consciously engaged.
Through our network’s ongoing conversations between a constellation of cultural workers, organisers, and entrepreneurs, we increasingly understand ourselves as a dynamic, relational field rather than a stable entity. We see ourselves continually reshaped by who is present, who is absent, and "who might yet arrive "(Tsing, 2015). This relational orientation, characteristic of Nepantla, often feels uncomfortable, particularly within entrepreneurial contexts that assume efficiency, scalability, and clarity. Such discomfort, however, is crucial: it reveals the gap between dominant entrepreneurial logics and the relational practices we strive to cultivate.
Nepantla’s tensions permeate our daily interactions. We come to view these not merely as obstacles to overcome but as lived realities holding potential for new insights. Entrepreneurship, therefore, becomes a pluralistic practice where care, interdependence, and resilience coexist with visibility pressures, survival anxieties, and institutional demands.
Commoning - what we share
This pluralistic practice brings us to commoning. Commoning, in this Nepantla state, is not nostalgic but an active practice of collective living. It places equal value on maintaining and creating, viewing knowledge as collectively held rather than privately owned (Federici, 2019; Singh, 2017). Our ongoing inquiry is clear: What exactly do we hold in common, and how do we care for it?
The commons here are relational rather than resource-based. They manifest in our communication, disagreements, and honest dialogues. Commoning involves imperfectly making space for diverse voices, a process inevitably involving friction, time, and occasional failure. Through this friction, we learn responsibility - to ourselves but also toward the very conditions enabling continued connection. However, commoning practices themselves remain fragile, easily exhausted or marginalised without adequate support.
Our network deliberately embraces a pluralistic identity, a mix of multiple voices and practices. Contradictions naturally arise, and friction becomes inevitable. Rather than seeing friction as a flaw, we learn to regard it as fertile terrain for transformation. Nevertheless, friction alone does not guarantee beneficial outcomes; it requires careful, ongoing negotiation.
Explicit structural tensions are also inherent in our Nepantla state. Our global ambitions contrast with our predominantly European base, with decision-making often reflecting European geography and perspectives. Cultural humility transparently acknowledges this imbalance, aiming for accountability rather than justification (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012). Yet humility alone proves insufficient without concrete changes in decision-making processes and resource distribution. This remains a persistent, unresolved challenge.
What this means for a global network of creative entrepreneurs
Increasingly, the cultural sector is tasked with contributing to systemic transitions. We find ourselves positioned as potential agents of change, influenced by discourses of regeneration, circularity, and sustainability. Yet, beneath these new narratives, deeper structures perpetuating inequality and ecological collapse remain fundamentally intact (Dragona, 2023; Mould, 2018). Dominant entrepreneurial frameworks, still grounded in growth and competition, often are at odds with systemic transition. Funding structures prioritise quick deliverables, measurable outcomes, and visibility over slower processes of relational care and maintenance. One network member described transitioning from working out of love to suddenly being labelled an entrepreneur. For many, entrepreneurship does not signify innovation or growth but survival and mutual support. It is messy, uneven, and typically unsupported. Paradoxically, entrepreneurial logics, despite their troubling alignment with individualism and extraction, can also foster resilience and resourcefulness (Banks & O’Connor, 2021).
Anzaldúa’s concept of Nepantla captures the essence of our transitional network. It positions us in the uncomfortable, transformative spaces between identities, certainties, and worlds. Nepantla does not promise comfort or clarity. It offers movement, friction, and continual questioning, all essential conditions for genuinely meaningful relationships to emerge.We now realise that being a network, an infrastructure, is inherently relational and effective. It holds us together when resources diminish, perspectives clash, and goals diverge. It provides no promises of harmony; instead, it enables us to remain present within complexity (Berlant, 2016).
Ultimately, the transitions we confront are deeply relational. They challenge us not only to appear transformative or act upon transformation superficially but genuinely to inhabit this transitional state. Transition therefore is not something we complete, because it becomes a condition we continually inhabit, where friction is a resource and contradiction strengthens rather than undermines connections.
This is not presenting any model for transition. We present here only our shared inquiry, sustained by refusing to abandon complexity when it becomes inconvenient. This is the entrepreneurship we advocate for: rooted in survival, solidarity, and the patient labour required to build futures that are about to emerge.
References
Anzaldúa, G. (2002). Now let us shift... the path of conocimiento... inner work, public acts. In G. Anzaldúa & A. Keating (Eds.), This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation (pp. 540–578). Routledge.
Banks, M., & O’Connor, J. (2021). A plague upon your howling: Cultural policy after the creative industries. Cultural Trends, 30(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2020.1840966
Berlant, L. (2016). The commons: Infrastructures for troubling times. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(3), 393–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816645989
Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. L. (2012). Theory from the South: Or, How Euro-America is Evolving Toward Africa. Paradigm Publishers.
Dragona, D. (2023). Commoning the commons: Affective infrastructures and the role of art. In Radical Pluralities: Culture and Societal Transitions.
Federici, S. (2019). Re-enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. PM Press.
Mould, O. (2018). Against Creativity. Verso.
Singh, N. (2017). Becoming a commoner: The commons as sites for affective socio-nature encounters and co-becomings. Ephemera, 17(4), 751–776.
Tsing, A. L. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton University Press.
Yúdice, G. (2003). The Expediency of Culture: Uses of Culture in the Global Era. Duke University Press.
Comment 1
Anna Maria Ranczakowska’s work presents very clear and compelling arguments. I come from the fields of arts and communication, and I have an interest in anthropology, however, I had never engaged with these concepts before. I found the author’s purpose to be clearly conveyed, especially regarding this specific perspective of the human being as a cultural being.
Ranczakowska introduces us to the Nahua peoples and their language, Nahuatl, with particular attention to the word Nepantla, later establishing a relationship with the concepts of communing and entrepreneurship, and offering a contrast between the Eurocentric mindset and that of Central America. Drawing from these elements and the experience they generate, it becomes possible to reflect on how they shape our networked existence beyond individual identities–and how the former impact the latter. It prompted me to reflect on how coexistence can be shaped by vulnerability. I agree with the author when she mentions that ‘tensions’, ‘frictions’, and ‘imperfection’ are essential elements for meaningful dialogue and personal or collective growth. In my opinion, the same applies to the process of creating an artwork.
This reflection opens the door to another one–that of entrepreneurship, especially within the cultural and creative sectors, and the idea of becoming ‘agents of change’. It presents a new understanding of entrepreneurship, one that had not occurred to me before: ‘survival and mutual support’ and ‘solidarity and patient labour’ stand in contrast to the constant pressure for ‘innovation or [material] growth’. It is a work with strong potential for further, more in-depth development, and it invites a wide-ranging discussion on these spaces and networks of transformation and transition–and on how they impact the self, the community, and the process of artistic creation.
Comment 2
1. Clarity of expression
Is the work accessible to someone outside its specific discipline or medium?
The text starts off with a rather philosophical literature review, to approach a definition of the ancient term “Nepantla” – which I really like. At the same time I am missing a brief introduction of: “the network”, “we” and a contextualization of these terms, to understand the main question around current needs.
Does it communicate its intent, feeling, or idea in a way that resonates beyond technical detail?
Definitely, yes, the introduction as well as the further “dramaturgy” of the argumentation got me hooked. Also taking in a “we” perspective in authorship matches the text generally, just still needs a little refinement, so the reader can imagine a face to it.
2. Originality & Insight
Does the contribution bring a fresh perspective, question, or experience?
The conflicted relation of networks or fields and structures // relational dynamics and efficiency is not necessarily new, but accessibly and nicely used to describe this tension also from a perspective highlighting the lived experiences and ethical struggles of the individuals involved, forming these networks or fields.the text therefore reasons to embrace the discomfort, and offers “commoning” as a practice to create space for a productive handling of friction, ambiguity, and common participation within structures.
Does it challenge or unsettle established ways of thinking or creating?
If you read text on organizational and institutional theories in the cultural fields, the thoughts itself are not that new, but the text reads a bit like a manifest, bridging theory and lived experience.
3. Connection Across Fields
Does the work build bridges between artistic and academic ways of knowing?
>> see 2.b
Does it open space for dialogue between different languages, ontologies, or cultural frames?
Yes. The balance of scientific language use, referencing, and the descriptions of consequences in practice is well done and might indeed spark reflection in more empirical research again. While scientific experts from organizational theories might miss some seminal work, this still kind of works in the context of the network striving to favor lived experience over predefined outcomes in their practice.
4. Engagement & Resonance
Does the piece invite reflection, dialogue, or further exploration?
The language, as mentioned earlier, has something idealistic, like a pamphlet. I feel curious about exploring the network and their work further. While there is a lot of talking about common practices and lived experiences, as well as structures and processes holding space for Nepantla, i would be curious to further also read interviews or such, where the involved individuals, not the network as a “we”, share their experiences, and maybe even some critical notes.
How did it affect you as a reader/viewer/listener (emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise)?
Since I did quiet some reading on organizational theories within the cultural economics field, I feel inspired to read more into socio-cultural perspectives on the friction of agency and structure.
5. Contribution to Radical Creativities’ Ethos
Does the work embody or align with the journal’s aim to de-confine traditional knowledge production?
>> see below.
Does it expand what counts as legitimate knowledge, expression, or critique?
Definitely, because it describes more dedicated internal goals and guidelines of a specific network, which, through lived experieces, tries to offer forms of practices challenging the economic or entrepreneurial standards, rather than remaining on a theoretical level.
Comments