Позитивные изменения. Том 2, №4 (2022). Positive changes. Volume 2, Issue 4 (2022)

5. Formal membership or season ticket statuses vs. Open solidarity community of residents and supporters of the movement.

For an economically sustainable and socially subjective institution of the neighborhood center, it seems correct to develop a range of social statuses, formalized by various tools — from subscriptions for extra functionality to symbolizing the engagement through merchandize. Symbols of engagement in varying degrees of public or private manifestation may be sufficient for a broader movement, as, for example, in the practice of working to retain and increase the number of supporters of major charitable foundations.

6. Prioritizing the local agenda vs. Prioritizing the federal agenda.

It seems clear that in order to maximize the engagement of the neighborhood residents, it is important for the neighborhood center to establish and promote a local development agenda, in contrast to a movement, which has become primarily a response to a global challenge with local gaps in addressing these problems.

7. Prioritizing strategic solutions vs. Prioritizing “urgent” issues.

For the purposes of developing and/or transforming current practices, it is logical to shape the transition to “long-term” project and/or model solutions. Despite the seemingly obvious situation and immediate demands of the residents (especially in social networks and neighborhood community chats), and the specificity of work that is mostly aimed at helping “right here, right now,” the communities must be able to see the roots of problems and potential solutions based on the center and movement, to test solutions and further scale across the fabric of cities. In addition, they could change the scale from the local neighborhood level to citywide or greater, to discover and develop their own theory of positive changes for the entire region.

Table 1. Comparison of the model positioning of the neighborhood center and the clubs by the #WeAreTogether movement

8. Emphasis on unlocking everyone's potential (plus social stigma prevention) vs. Emphasis on the existing core team.

This ranking is meaningful both for implementing the neighborhood center model and for a movement, funneling the growth status of each resident and assuming that everyone has the potential, talent, and peculiarities. This will ensure the widest possible engagement and establish conditions for the improvement of living standards in the local area, including all forms and directions of entrepreneurial initiative in the broadest sense, while reducing the risks of latent social problems surfacing.

9. Prioritizing social projects vs. Prioritizing commercial projects.

It is important to note in advance that the juxtaposition of the two extremes on this scale. These stereotypically polar positions have one common ground, which is fundamentally important for both neighborhood centers and a movement: entrepreneurial initiative. It does not matter what field the entrepreneur's initiative will take place in, at the given time and location — it is more important that its implementation be more successful thanks to the capital of the community-based centers and/or movements. In other words, the key is for the citizens to be able to identify themselves as actors, subjects of social and economic processes, agents and leaders of positive change.

10. Values of openness to new things, innovation vs. Values of conservatism.

The last ranking is a kind of test of readiness for sustainable development — through positive change, learning, openness to new solutions, the ability to accept new problems, changes, technologies, views of the world and its possible development trajectories. The importance of prioritizing this value may seem obvious, but when the online survey of movement-based clubs asked about the need for training and development interests, most of the responses expressed lack of such demand, which shows obstacles for transformation, but does not change the essence of identifying proximity and the possibility of transforming current social demands, including those formalized into movements, into a demand for the establishment of neighborhood centers.