"Community - arianism"
Chapter Six: Community lost? Networks, neighbours and the social
fabric
Communitarians often assume or assert that the spirit of community needs
to be rebuilt. They see and regret that (post)modern people are fundamentally
and perhaps irretrievably privatised. Etzioni (1994 p116 ff) explicitly
affirms his debt to Tonnies for the paradigm of Gemeinschaft / Gesellschaft
and shares his sense of loss which results from the transformation between
traditional and modern forms of social life. This reading of history suggests
a continuing process from the traditional/ folk / rural society through
the modern / industrial urban form to the rapidly changing post industrial
or postmodern, information based world of today. The crucial periods for
loss of community would be seen as the rapid urbanisation of the nineteenth
century and the communications explosion of the second half of the twentieth.
Of course this reading of history can be critiqued as an ideological construct
of capitalism entering a period of global crisis, as based on false nostalgia,
as faulty in its periodisation, as ignoring the contribution of and oppression
of women, and as re-imposing Tonnies's conservative values on concepts which
he would have preferred to see as ahistorical ideal types of social organisation.
However, most of the 20th Century sociological discussion of "community"
has explicitly or implicitly taken this framework, which largely rests on
the old Tonnies' duality as a starting point. Indeed it has proved a fruitful
paradigm for empirical research. Whether the methods used have been participant
observation, sample survey or social network analysis the recurring question
is whether Community has been "Lost", "Saved" or "Liberated".
(Craven & Wellman 1973; Wellman 1979, Willmott 1987, Bell & Newby
1971 & 1973).
The community lost hypothesis is the "commonsense" or rather received
wisdom one, that there is no sense of community any longer, that in the
old days everyone helped each other and left their front doors open without
fear of crime. It is extremely difficult to evaluate from historical data
whether such images amount to anything more than romantic nostalgia. Yet
recent neighbourhood studies in urban areas so seem to indicate such perceptions
are widespread among older residents. There is also some evidence that contemporary
neighbourhood interaction and solidarity is limited, and researchers speak
of "communities of limited liability" (Janowitz 1967). Sometimes
in contrast the "community saved" hypothesis is brought to bear,
when empirical work seeks to show that neighbourhood and kinship based helping
and support networks remain strong in a particular locality (Gans 1962).
More usually though ambiguous findings in urban research push the researchers
to argue for the "community liberated" hypothesis, which on the
one hand recognises that neighbourhood networks may not be very strong,
while people generally are far from isolated, and maintain a wide range
of supportive and enriching relationships. Mobility and telecommunications
has allowed the growth and maintenance of geographically dispersed networks
of friendship, kinship and practical support, which is based more on community
of interest, shared ethnicity or religious belonging.
Social network analysis
Many of the recent studies of the community question use the powerful analytical
tool of social network analysis as a way of clarifying patterns of human
relationship (Scott 1992, Craven & Wellman 1973). Using this technique
analysis can move beyond the level of the individual and aggregated data.
Using questionnaires and/or observational methods researchers can map the
patterns of interaction and communication, their density, intensity, geography
and significance across a whole social system. The notion of a web of relationships
can be applied to individuals or larger social units, such as companies
or voluntary organisations. For example work in progress in Newham is seeking
to map the linkages between religious groups, and the referral patterns
between voluntary sector caring agencies, in an attempt to evaluate the
added value of networking in urban mission and community work. It can also
take account of varying strengths of relationships, as well as different
types of link, such as buying, giving, talking to, friendship or kinship.
The basic concept of social network analysis was picked up from the sociogram
technique used by psychologists in small group studies mapping friendship
choices. It was introduced to social anthropologists by Elizabeth Bott (1957).
She studied families in London and suggested that the best explanation of
degree of segregation between the lifes of men and women in couples, was
the "connectedness" of their networks of relationships. Broadly
speaking if all one's friends, neighbours and kin knew and related with
each other it was much likely that spouses would tend to lead separate lives
and have clear role divisions in household tasks and roles. Couples with
less connected networks were more likely to live shared social and domestic
lives. Barnes in a study of a Norwegian fishing village (1954) was the first
to make a connection between the concept of social network and the branch
of mathematics called "graph theory", and renamed Bott's concept
of "connectedness" as "density". A whole school of social
anthropologists centred around Barnes and Mitchell at Manchester university
developed the techniques in the process of researching urbanisation processes
in various parts of Africa. (Mitchell ed. 1969). Sociolinguists such as
Milroy in Belfast (1980) and Gal in Austria (1979) used network analysis
techniques to predict linguistic variation and language choice in bilingual
settings.
In sociology Network analysis was used in empirical studies of the "small
world problem" (Travers and Milgram 1969). It transpired that most
people had networks which enabled a communication to be passed to an unknown
named individual on the other side of the USA in no more than half a dozen
links in a chain of personal contacts. Granovetter (1973) showed how weak
ties had a strength of their own, particularly in gathering information
by word of mouth. For such tasks as job search it was better to have an
extensive network of casual acquaintances than a dense close knit network
of relatives and friends. Network analysis was also used to examine the
interlocking directorships of major companies in particular industry. Access
to markets and thence profitability was shown to depend on very much on
who you know.. In other fields network analysis methods have proved a powerful
technique for mapping the diffusion of innovations, or the spread of disease
such as HIV/AIDs through a population (Klovdahl 1985).
As computer power increased, and mathematical sociology became popular in
North America, the techniques began to make research reports incomprehensible
to all but the specialist. Computer programs such as Structure and Ucinet
have been developed to handle large data matrices in which relationships
between actors, or affiliations to organisations are entered as spreadsheets
(Burt 1991, Borgatti, Everett & Freeman 1994). The programs can identify
components, clusters and cliques in the networks, calculate densities of
relationship within the whole or part of the data set, measure distances
and describe paths between any pair of connected individuals, and indicate
which individual actors are key nodes or powerful gatekeepers in the network.
One program Krackplot can even turn the matrix data back into visual representations
of the familiar sociogram type! Scott (1992) is a good general introduction
to the method and its possibilities, while the collection edited by Freeman,
Romney & White (1989) is impenetrable to the non-mathemetician and best
serves as a warning for anyone tempted to seduction by the techniques.
It is important to point out that the concept of network is used far more
often in the literature than the actual method of mapping relational data.
Most of the studies mentioned in the next section in fact rely on survey
data collected at the individual level, and references to networks are often
no more than a listing of contacts given as significant others (alters)
by each respondent (ego). It is only where information about relationships
between two or more alters is available that true network analysis procedures
can begin.
Network analysis in community studies
Frankenberg (1966) was probably the first scholar to integrate the notion
of social network into the genre of community studies, and his attempt to
construct a sociological theory of local community. But for a while the
idea lay dormant except in the discipline of social anthropology. Then research
work in Toronto by Wellman and associates brought local community studies
back on to the agenda, using network analysis as a valuable tool (Wellman
1979, Wellman & Wortley 1990, Wellman & Wellman 1992) . Wellman's
work generally tends to support the community liberated hypothesis and shows
that most people do have extensive social support networks even if they
are scattered across the urban area. However, it is worth raising the question
as to whether this is a function of the high level of motorised mobility
typical of North America, and whether his optimism is shaped by a value
system based on individual liberalism. The approach has been replicated
in other North American settings. For example Oliver (1988) uses Wellman's
approach as a basis for a very insightful study of the black community in
Los Angeles, and Cohen and Shinar have carried out a similar study in Jerusalem
(1985). In Britain there seems to be little current interest except in Bridge's
study of gentrification processes in Sands End, West London (1993a, 1993b).
The theme of neighbours, neighbouring and local networks has been developed
in the UK, mainly in the context of community care. The research programme
headed by Philip Abrams in the late 1970s - early 1980's (Abrams/ Bulmer
1986). The focus in this work was the evaluation of neighbourhood care schemes
and a study of the social basis of community care. Abrams helpfully distinguished
concepts of neighbouring as the actual pattern of interaction in a neighbourhood,
and neighbourliness as the positive and committed relationship between neighbours,
a form of friendship. The research showed that only in a minority of atypical
neighbourhoods were informal networks strong enough and "neighbourly
enough" to form the basis of adequate reciprocal care. Even in such
situations it was based more on kinship or friendship than on neighbouring.
The social policy implication is that resources and organisation for neighbourhood
care schemes need to be found from public funds, as one cannot rely on informal
networks and altruism to meet all the needs. Other academics in the field
have drawn similar conclusions (e.g. Clarke 1982). Peter Willmott has also
worked on the theme of friendship, and neighbours as helping networks in
the context of community care policy with a literature review (1986) and
a survey in Edgware, North London (1987). The main thrust of his findings
are similar to Abrams, but the main surprise is that while middle class
people maintain active networks of geographically dispersed kin and local
friends, stereotypical working class community networks were hard to find.
Indeed a minority of working class people had neither relatives nearby nor
local friends, and lacking such support were vulnerable to stress and breakdown.
However the notion of network is not fully developed by either Abrams or
Willmott since there has been no attempt to gather or analyse truly relational
data. Even Wenger's recent research and typology of the networks of older
people is based on individual social work cases (1994, 1995). The network
data is ego-centric, and even references to the role of mutual aid and self
help groups do not involve the analysis of relational data.
Neighbourhood networks: a case study
One recent piece of research along these lines conducted by the author in
East London tends started from the community lost hypothesis which is frequently
expressed by local residents (Smith unpublished). Background knowledge about
the are such as its ethnic diversity, gives further weight to the view that
community is likely to be fragmented, if not altogether absent. (Smith 1994,
Griffiths / LBN 1994). Other typical "inner city problems" such
as unemployment, racial violence, high crime rates, homelessness and high
rates of physical and mental illness are also found.
A questionnaire asking about support networks of kin, neighbours and friends
was designed and a survey of 67 Newham residents was carried out in 1993
with the help of a group of medical students. The sample of respondents
was recruited by a networking process starting from contacts suggested by
voluntary sector and church workers in the area. The snowball sampling procedure
itself showed that for many people the number and strength of their local
network ties was extremely limited. Of 90 people contacted only 29 (32%)
were able or willing to recommend names of relatives, friends or neighbours
in the locality who could be approached for interview and who they thought
were likely to be at home in the day-time during the week. A detailed examination
by network analysis techniques of the interrelationships of 118 people recorded
in this sampling procedure revealed only one small group of four old people
who formed a clique of mutual referral, and three cases of reciprocal referral
by pairs of female kin. This low level of connectedness is even more striking
given the fact that the original sampling lists represented contacts belonging
to a small number of membership organisations.
Responses to questions about community identity, belonging and participation
produced some ambivalent answers. Nearly 70% liked living in the neighbourhood,
but only 11% saw it as a strong friendly community. Only a third belonged
to more than the one community group through which they had been contacted.
Interestingly in an earlier larger and more representative local survey
replies to these questions were very similar, and people were more likely
to say they went to church (30%) than to pubs (28%) or sporting events (19%)).
However almost all the respondents with children reported their children
had been involved in some local community activity. For adults, and especially
older people the preference for a quiet privatised lifestyle is clear.
Personal networks did not appear to be very extensive, dense or strong.
Respondents reported they were in touch with an average of 3.6 kin (outside
their own household), 3.3 friends, and 2.9 neighbours. However, 18% of respondents
could list no friends and 20% knew no neighbours well enough to list them.
Indeed only one person in three said they knew their neighbours very well.
Older respondents had considerably more kin and neighbours, but less friends
than younger respondents. Only a third of the relatives mentioned were living
in Newham, compared with 70% of the friends. Only 37% of the relatives were
seen at least weekly. Friends were likely to be of the same gender, and
age group as the respondent. Inter ethnic friendship was rare and almost
unheard of among the older respondents.
Network connections between the significant others mentioned by respondents
were rare with the exception of mutual contact between kin. 60% of respondents
said all their listed kin were in touch with each other, compared with 44%
who said all their listed neighbours knew each other, and 25% who said all
their listed friends knew each other. Of course none of this information
purports to measure strength or frequency of relationship. Although the
vast majority of friends mentioned were living locally and seen at least
weekly there appeared to be little interlinking between respondents friendship
networks. In fact of 210 persons named as friends by the 67 respondents
detailed examination of the identifying variables in the data suggests that
they were at least 196 different individuals. The scarcity of duplicate
mentions suggests a very low density of friendship networks connecting respondents
in this urban neighbourhood.
The patterns of personal support and helping relationships experienced by
the respondents differed little in quality from those reported by earlier
research. (Abrams/Bulmer 1985, Willmott 1987). Only about one in ten of
the respondents were receiving regular help from professional sources, although
over a quarter of them had received nursing type care from friends or more
usually relatives. Kinship obligations, especially for heavy and personal
caring, remain strong, even if the people involved live far apart. In Newham
as elsewhere they usually fall on female kin. Over half the respondents
felt they could turn to relatives and/or friends for routine help or support
of more than one type, compared with only 20% who could turn to neighbours.
Even for the proverbial "borrowing a cup of sugar" less than one
in five had recently been helped by a neighbour and only another one in
five thought they could approach a neighbour.
Indeed neighbours seemed relatively insignificant to most people and only
10% of the ones mentioned ever came inside the respondent's home. This is
not really much of a change since even in the "good old days"
in the East End it was a rare privilege for a neighbour to cross the threshold
(Young & Willmott 1957). Indeed one common expectation of neighbours
in British culture is to keep a respectful distance while being friendly,
and helpful in emergencies (Abrams/Bulmer 1986). In contrast friendship
is a matter of choice and centres on mutual interests and general sociability,
leading in the best friendships to emotional support and intimacy.
Most people expressed high levels of contentment / happiness satisfaction
with their lives, despite living in a deprived urban area. The highest scores
came from older long term residents, and from those who had lots of friends.
On this albeit imperfect measure, integration into local friendship and
neighbour networks seems to have some social and psychological benefits.
In the absence of longitudinal data, and with the prevalence of nostalgia
in reports of life three or four decades earlier, it would be unsafe to
suggest that this research supports conclusively the community lost hypothesis.
Further more very different, and quite possibly stronger networks of social
support might well be found in a similar survey of the Asian communities,
many of whom live in neighbourhoods less than a mile away. However even
these limited findings are an indication that neighbourhood community, at
least for the people interviewed, is marked by its relative absence. There
is no reason to suggest these findings are untypical of British urban neighbourhoods.
Networks are far from dense and ties especially between neighbours are far
from strong.
Building neighbourhood community
If similar research findings can be produced from other contexts the pessimistic
view of the communitarians will be endorsed and their case for strategies
to rebuild community will be strengthened. If however the optimistic community
liberated hypothesis can be widely substantiated then the empirical evidence
for the communitarian project will be that much weaker.
The moral questions posed by communitarianism interact with the empirical
work on personal networks at a number of points. Communitarian concerns
with family responsibilities, and the importance of parenting are confronted
with clear evidence of dispersal of extended families. Projects to improve
parenting skills and support through praoctive building of networks are
already under way. (Cochran et al. 1989). But are communitarians going to
call for the "gathering of the clans" demand that extended families
stay or relocate in a single locality? This would fly in the face of economic
and cultural forces and could reinforce sexist assumptions about women's
caring role. Or are they going to advocate and build local community networks
of support and care on the basis of mutual aid? While baby sitting networks
might be viable, the research evidence seems to show that for intimate personal
care, most people are reluctant to allow anyone other than kin, or medical
professionals to intervene in such a private sphere of life.
The communitarian concern with children and schooling is also significant
here. Indeed children, with their limited mobility, and involvement with
local peer groups in and out of school may be the best hope for those who
want to see neighbourhoods as centres of solidarity and mutual help (Henderson
ed 1995). Schools can often be a major focus for local community building.
However increased parental choice in schooling, can detract from this as
children commute further, and families where both or the only parent(s)
are in paid employment, are unlikely to have much time or energy for involvement.
Even more damaging is parental fear of allowing children out in the street
unsupervised, which contrasts so grimly with their own experience as "baby-boomers".
Growing motor traffic is a major factor, and the private car is also implicated
in the lack of contact with neighbours, the anonymity and mobility of urban
society and the culture of "stranger danger" which parents inculcate
in their offspring (Hillman 1993). In consequence parents spend a high proportion
of their life as taxi drivers, and even children come to be involved in
friendships with selected others rather than in neighbouring relationships,
with whoever happens to live on the block.
The question of neighbouring may be a crucial one for communitarianism.
Normally individual neighbours are not chosen, even by residents who are
rich enough to purchase a home in a specified type of community from which
people unlike themselves can be excluded. One piece of empirical work from
Edmonton Canada, in the Wellman tradition suggests that existing social
networks play little or no part in dissuading people to move neighbourhoods.
Quality of housing and environment were much more important. (Kennedy 1984).
Communitarian values in contrast suggest, that one should take responsibilities
for good neighbourliness very seriously. Yet, increasingly significant personal
relationships are typified not by neighbouring, but by friendship and friendship
usually comes about by choice. If attitudes derived from consumerism are
becoming dominant in residential location choice and even in intimate networks
of belonging and identity, the challenge of community building in privatised
and fragmented postmodern societies is immense indeed. Generic neighbourhood
community associations rarely engender great enthusiasm or high levels of
participation, at least in the UK. Although they may do better in North
America, in both cultures communities of identity and special interest are
more likely to flourish, as we shall see in the next chapter.
Key books for chapter 6
Scott J (1992) "Social Network Analysis", London, Sage
Abrams P / Bulmer M., (1986) "Neighbours, the work of Philip Abrams"
Cambridge University Press