46

SUMMARY It is often postulated that even in an age of generalized mobility, spatial proximity facilitates the creation of a social bond. The enduring prevalence in rural municipalities of dwellers who have now relationship with their neighbours leads us to relativize – after others  – this « spatial » / « social » nexus. In this regard, we acknowledged the importance of the « local », of which we consider two complementary features : the attachment to a living environment and the voluntary membership in a community. The growing interest for the « local » is however challenged by the presence of anonymous individuals, that we interpret less as an expression of a desire to live with one’s own socio-economic groupthan as an assumed choice expression of a desire to live with one’s own socio-economic.

SUMMARY It is often postulated that even in an age of generalized mobility, spatial proximity facilitates the creation of a social bond. The enduring prevalence in rural municipalities of dwellers who have now relationship with their neighbours leads us to relativize – after others  – this « spatial » / « social » nexus. In this regard, we acknowledged the importance of the « local », of which we consider two complementary features : the attachment to a living environment and the voluntary membership in a community. The growing interest for the « local » is however challenged by the presence of anonymous individuals, that we interpret less as an expression of a desire to live with one’s own socio-economic groupthan as an assumed choice expression of a desire to live with one’s own socio-economic.