When Connection Loses Its Weight: A place-based recommitment for the year ahead

This piece is inspired by ‘Connection Grift’ by Connective Tissue (Sam Pressler), which I recommend reading: https://connectivetissue.substack.com

As we begin a new year, I’ve been reflecting on the language that is shaping our work in arts, culture, heritage and placemaking - and on the responsibilities that come with it.

I was struck by Sam Pressler’s recent Connective Tissue essay, ‘Connection Grift.’ While written from a broader civic perspective, it names something that feels increasingly familiar within place-based and cultural practice: the risk that connection, belonging and participation become currency rather than commitment.

This reflection is not a critique of individuals or organisations. It is a recommitment - one I’m making publicly, at the start of the year, because I believe leadership in this field requires us to walk the talk, especially when the language we use becomes fashionable.

When connection becomes lighter than it looks

Connection is everywhere right now. It sits at the heart of funding priorities, policy agendas, cultural strategies and organisational missions. In many ways, this reflects years of work by practitioners who have long argued that culture, place and civic life are fundamentally relational.

But moments of attention also bring distortion.

In my experience, the risk is not that we talk too much about connection - it’s that connection loses its weight. That it becomes something that can be delivered quickly, evidenced easily, and moved on from cleanly.

Place-based work teaches us otherwise. 

Thin connection and thick connection

One distinction I find helpful - and one I think our sector needs to hold more explicitly - is between thin connection and thick connection.

Thin connection is legible. It shows up in participation numbers, engagement activities, consultation moments, co-designed outputs and compelling stories. It often aligns neatly with funding cycles and reporting frameworks.

Thick connection is less visible, but more consequential. It lives in:

• who holds decision-making power

• who carries risk when things don’t work

• who stays involved when attention fades

• who is accountable to whom, and for how long

Both forms exist in most projects. But when thin connection is mistaken for depth - or allowed to substitute for thick connection - we begin to hollow out the civic potential of our work. 

Belonging without power is not neutral

Across the sector, I’m noticing a growing emphasis on the performance of belonging without sufficient attention to the conditions that sustain it.

Participation is invited, but governance remains unchanged. Communities are engaged, but agency remains limited. Connection is celebrated, while responsibility quietly rests elsewhere.

This is rarely malicious. It is shaped by institutional habits, professionalisation, and the pressure to demonstrate impact at speed. But the effect matters more than the intent.

Belonging that is not accompanied by influence is fragile. Over time, it risks becoming extractive - asking people to contribute their time, stories and care without offering them a meaningful stake in what follows. 

What place-based practice insists on

The most durable place-based, cultural and heritage work I’ve been part of - or learned from - shares a set of quiet, often unfashionable commitments.

It privileges:

• Agency over attendance

• Stewardship over engagement

• Governance over programmes

• Proximity over scale

• Endurance over visibility

It understands that civic life is not something organisations deliver, but something they are temporarily entrusted to hold.

This work is slower. It resists easy replication. It often feels out of step with the tempo of policy cycles and funding priorities. But it is also the work that leaves something behind when the project ends. 

A recommitment for the year ahead

At the start of this year, I want to make explicit the commitments I’m reaffirming in my own practice - not as aspirations, but as standards I hold myself accountable to.

What this means in practice

This year, I am recommitting to:

1. Designing for shared power, not just participation
   I will prioritise structures that redistribute decision-making - even when this complicates delivery, timelines or outcomes.

2. Staying accountable beyond the funding cycle
   I will resist models that extract connection without long-term responsibility, and be honest about what I can and cannot sustain.

3. Working at the speed of trust, not visibility
   I will privilege depth, continuity and relational integrity over scale, profile or quick wins.

4. Naming trade-offs, limits and risks openly
   I will not oversell belonging, co-design or participation where the conditions for them are partial or constrained.

5. Supporting local stewardship over external control
   I will continue to advocate for locally rooted leadership, governance and ownership - even when national or institutional models dominate.

These are not easy commitments. They require saying no, slowing down, and sometimes stepping out of alignment with prevailing trends. But they are, I believe, essential if our work is to strengthen - rather than thin out - civic life. 

Holding the moment with care

If the current focus on connection is to become a genuine moment of civic renewal rather than another passing craze, we need to be willing to hold it with care, discipline and honesty.

Connection is not a strategy. It is a practice. And practices are only meaningful when they shape how we act, decide, and remain accountable over time.

This year, I’m choosing to recommit to that discipline - and to invite others in the field to do the same, in ways that make sense for their own places, roles and responsibilities.