"Community - arianism"
Chapter : The future of community; values and praxis
The main thrusts of this book have been:
- to remove some of the confusion around the concept of community as
it is commonly used;
- to evaluate some of the policy concerns raised by communitarianism,
and the practice of community development;
- to introduce some of the methods used by social scientists in studying
community and neighbourhoods, and highlight their key findings;
- to consider some trends of the postmodern period in terms of their
impact on the concept and practice of community.
In this final chapter the main arguments and conclusions are summarised,
before moving on to sketch a philosophy and practice for enhancing community
life that may rest on a sounder base in reality than many of the simplistic
and nostalgic formulations and slogans of popular communitarianism.
Clarifying the concept
Deliberately no attempt has been made to give a definition of community.
In exploring the use of the concept we have noted that there are hundreds
of definitions and numerous usages on offer and that they cover three key
themes, locality and scale, community feeling or solidarity, and patterns
and networks of social interaction. We have noted how the term is used ideologically,
by governments wanting to avoid expense and responsibility and in opposition
by oppressed, excluded and marginalised groups. We have also noted the nostalgia,
utopian idealism and normative emphasis in many formulations of community.
It has been argued that the most common mistake is the re-ification of community,
when an analysis of the processes in overlapping networks with closely knit
core components, which are sometimes but not usually geographically centred,
corresponds more closely to reality. But in face of the frequent popular
and political usage of the term we have not felt able to abandon it altogether.
At the very least it presents a useful and important problematic.
Policy
Communitarianism we have argued can be seen as a the search for a middle
way between the harsh, divisive and dysfunctional nature of free market
economics and the bureaucratic state collectivism that has evidently failed
to deliver its promises. While we have seen much to commend in the emphasis
on subsidiarity, democracy, participation and civic responsibility, it has
been necessary to approach it with ideological suspicion, and not simply
because it comes from the USA. Caution is needed because it has been taken
up quite eagerly across the political spectrum, which is arguably moving
overall towards the Right. We have noted some key questions that communitarianism
does not yet seem to have adequately addressed, such as economic structure
and inequality, social exclusion, the non-local aspects of community, ethnic
diversity, feminist demands and global environmental issues. The assumption
that all conflicts can be settled on the basis of democratic debate based
on common core values in post modern plural society is probably unsustainable.
The moral tone of communitarian statements about the family is also questionable.
This is not so much because it expresses a preference for marriage and stable
two parent families over libertarian sexual attitudes, but because it opens
the way to stereotyping, blaming and stigmatising single parents, and advocating
welfare cuts which will make successful childrearing even more difficult.
We have also in Chapter Two looked at the growth of community delivery of
services, and the practice of community development. Again we have found
much to commend in terms of participation, accountability, relevance to
local people and even value for money. But we have noticed also that many
projects and models of community care are used to mask retrenchment of state
welfare services, or to buy off or co-opt local opposition. Community development
when sponsored independently of, or in opposition to, the state and using
Freirian techniques can have a powerful emancipatory and educative impact.
In contrast state led community development is full of inherent contradictions
which impose serious limits to what it can achieve.
Social analysis
In various places in the book we have discussed how social scientists from
different disciplines have approached community and local studies. Geographers,
Planners and the Chicago urban sociologists, offer sophisticated techniques
of quantitative and spatial analysis based on Census or survey data for
local areas, but struggle to capture the aspects of community that transcend
place. The functionalist tradition of community studies is instructive,
but finds it hard to move away from the accusation that such studies are
one off, atheoretical and not very good at dealing with conflict and change.
Qualitative and interpretative sociology is useful for exploring the meaning
of community for various types of people. Anthropology offers ways of looking
at culture and ethnicity as well as what is probably the most powerful tool
of all, social network analysis. This technique is excellent for mapping
relationships, both between individuals and organisations, and even the
electronic linkages of cyberspace. Its Achilles heel may be its mathematical
abstraction, and not simply because it repels the less numerate. Intrinsically
it is hard to capture in mathematical form the variation in the nature of
different relationships; while intensity of contact between two people can
be measured it is much harder to quantify the levels of affection and/or
hostility and the relative importance of a kind word to a neighbour as opposed
to lending money or twenty four hour caring for an incontinent elderly relative.
It is out of such acts of reciprocal exchange and altruism that the networks
of personal relationship and ultimately the quality of community life is
built.
Historical trends
Despite many reservations about conservatism and nostalgia we have found
it hard to dispense with the Tonnies paradigm of the transition from Gemeinschaft
to Gesellschaft society, and the contention that through the processes of
urbanisation, modernisation and globalisation, something in the nature of
community has been irretrievably lost. The nature of, and especially the
value attached, to this loss is a matter for debate. Some remnants of traditional
Gemeinschaft community do, despite everything, persist. There is also some
force in the argument that individuals have been liberated from the constricting
bonds of traditional community, and can enjoy the freedom of constructing
networks and communities of whomsoever they choose. However the long term
process seems clear, and electronic networking takes it a stage further.
Privatisation leads to atomised and fragmented local social systems, while
global communication and economic interdependency favour remote and massive
institutions. Human life appears to the individual as compartmentalised,
fragmented, normless and meaningless while at the same time society is organically
unified on a global scale as never before. It is not surprising that so
many people long for the rebuilding of community, however misguided their
nostalgia, or however undesirable some of its unforeseen consequences might
be.
The future of community
In order to enage in debate on future trends and policies we need to refer
to the factors that might favour or hinder the rebuilding of community as
advocated by communitarians. In an age when the rationality of the Enlightenment
has burnt itself out it may be nigh on impossible to retain objectivity,
even if this were desirable. In the discussion we will find many complexities
and contradictions. In the changing contemporary world are features which
in turn alarm and excite those who value the notion of community. It will
be extremely difficult to impose a coherent analysis on what is happening,
for there are many different perspectives which may throw light on the
subject. But it is precisely this, the impossibility of grand narratives
and unambiguous theories that is a feature of the present age and the central
"big idea" (sic.) of those who call themselves postmodernists
(Baumann 1992, Wagner 1994, and Lyon 1994).
One key national and international trend is the growing polarisation of
the haves and the have nots. With the idolatry of market forces it is no
accident that poverty is growing in urban Britain and a new class of the
excluded is emerging all over Europe. Clearly such polarisation is detrimental
to world peace, social cohesion at the national level and in a climate of
acquisitive individualism to the possibility of solidarity and mutual care
at the local neighbourhood level. Indeed any serious analysis of these patterns
of social injustice brings into question the very notion of community, with
its implied valuing of consensus and the common good. A more critical form
of sociology, based on assumptions of inherent conflict in global society,
such as Christian emphasis on the imperfection of humankind, the emphasis
on class struggle seen in Marxism and its derivatives, and the critical
social analysis of feminist and black writers may have much to offer.
Social polarisation inevitably has political consequences. While it may
be possible for the market to keep at least two thirds of the population
in the growing affluence to which they have become accustomed, and therefore
politically compliant, a substantial number are counted among the excluded.
For these people the image of a postmodern world where all imaginable choices
are possible is a cruel fantasy; they may have time to spare but leisure
is a commodity they cannot afford to buy. A basic welfare safety net, coupled
with increasingly repressive surveillance and policing, and the fragmentation
of this "underclass" into ethnic and lifestyle sub groups may
be enough to stave off their political mobilisation, or uprising. But the
result will certainly not be a society at ease with itself.
One feature of the polarisation process may modify the picture. There is
growing evidence of increasing geographic segregation of the "underclass"
population from affluent neighbourhoods. As deprivation becomes concentrated
in regions of economic decline such as former coalfields, in public housing
estates on the periphery of major cities and in the ethnic minority "ghettos"
of the inner cities, people struggling with poverty, and with limited access
to transportation, are more and more likely to have social networks consisting
mainly of people like themselves (Green 1994). The silver lining from a
communitarians perspective is that there are in these circumstances increased
possibilities for economic activity based on rules other than the market,
for the growth of communal solidarity and socio-political mobilisation.
Thus in an unexpected way the very thing that communitarians fear, the breakdown
of social cohesion may lead to the rebuilding of local oppositional and
marginalised communities.
Whether such communities can ever become self sufficient even at a subsistence
level, or whether they will remain dependent on the largesse of mainstream
society depends on political choices which will not be easy for governments
to make. It seems unlikely, given the circumstances of postmodern western
culture, with its apolitical fragmentation, that community mobilisation
of excluded people can emerge spontaneously. It would need a substantial
input of radical community organisation, of the kind that capitalist states
are least likely to sponsor or fund to transform resistance from sporadic
sniping at the system to effective mass action. Either way there is likely
to be suffering and conflict both for their members and society as a whole,
and more defeats than victories along the way.
Despite all this community values continue to put up a low level resistance
to market forces, across the social spectrum. We have described earlier
the process of commodification, by which every single good or service comes
to have a price, and can be evaluated in monetary terms. Increasingly market
values come to dominate sectors which previously were seen as non-commercial,
not for profit, such as health, education and the voluntary sector. Even
the classic British example of the gift relationship, blood donation (Titmuss
1970), seems to be under threat as discussion takes place on offering payment
per pint, while human organs, semen and processes such as in vitro fertilisation
or surrogate motherhood have already been offered in the market place. However,
commodification can be resisted in some areas, and needs to be held back
if communitarian values are to prevail.
One area which continues to hold out to the incursion of market forces
is domestic labour and family care, where unpaid labour (usually by women)
is still the norm. In this case, despite feminist demands, and the growth
of paid child-minding, the market mechanisms are less than perfect, for
the monetary costs would be immensely beyond what the resources of the
state, or the profitability of capital could bear. Many people are not going
to stand idly by and see their children and elderly relatives, and by extension
their friends, neighbours and even homeless strangers neglected, simply
because they cannot afford to pay for basic care. A minority of people will
continue to offer generous help as individuals, and to organise together
to form baby sitting circles, collections for medical charities, neighbourhood
care schemes, luncheon clubs and night shelters. The withdrawal of the state
from such services leaves a great opportunity for such community activity.
While most of the people involved will recognise that this is second best
to the whole community of a nation state making adequate provision for welfare,
such projects will be essential for social well being, and a powerful witness
to the moral bankruptcy of post-modern individualism.
The same rationales apply to almost all of the community sector, where voluntary
unpaid effort is both economically essential and central to the ethos.
Running the local scout group, sitting on the management committee of the
community centre, or being active in local politics, will be among the
last activities to warrant a pay packet. The principle of voluntarism in
local communities is certain to survive, and as information technologies
enable worldwide communities of interest to coalesce more easily there will
be many new opportunities. But for community activism to flourish it needs
to be underpinned by a philosophy that goes beyond considerations of cost
saving and individual duty.
Values for an alternative communitarianism
While the sociological debates about modernity and postmodernity can give
us useful insights into the nature of the social world in which the processes
of community takes place, the philosophical approach of postmodernism is
likely to prove barren. The pick and mix approach to life also extends from
the candy counter to the realm of values. In the New Age environment where
all is relative, even religion or belonging to a community becomes a matter
of consumer choice (O'Neill 1988). In philosophy, sociology and literature
"all that is solid melts into air" in Karl Marx's phrase, into
a plethora of narratives and images, drawn from a treasure chest of earlier
styles, and stuck together in a meaningless collage, where the possibility
of a unifying truth or universal aesthetic is discounted. (Kellner 1988,
Baumann 1988). A postmodernism which merely revels in the fragmentation,
enjoys pick and mix culture, and indulges itself in electronic global networking
is no answer for the excluded and marginalised people of places like Newham.
Indeed one of the strongest critiques of postmodernist thinking is that
it lacks any firm ethical base, or notion of social justice on which social
and political action might be built.
The communitarians are right about the importance of values as a pre-requisite
for community. But the ground is less firm when they seek to specify the
common core of these values. Etzioni lists commitment to democracy and the
Bill of Rights, and respect for other groups, as being basic to the United
States community (Etzioni 1994 p157). However, the limited political and
cultural context in which these are set, together with their vagueness make
them useless as a general framework for community life. Instead we will
sketch some core values around which people of many faiths and none might
engage in community development and organising. For some these values will
have a religious basis, for others they are those of socialism or common
human decency. But they could be endorsed by most who see community work
as a worthwhile task. They should not however be seen as democratically
derived consensus or lowest common denominator values which can become the
shared basis of national life. It is at this point that they distance us
from the communitarian project of Etzioni, and the pragmatism of Alinsky.
For these values are likely to be in conflict with the dominant culture,
especially when put into practice. The nature of community they engender
is largely an oppositional rather than a consensus one. They have in them
the seeds of an alternative form of communitarianism, that begins from the
bottom up, that challenges the status quo, and could offer a degree of liberation
from enslavement to market forces and political vested interests.
The first of these values is the importance, one can even say sacredness
of the human person. People matter, indeed they matter more than things
or money. An alternative communitarianism therefore needs to value the dignity,
potential, opinions and contribution to society of every person however
imperfect, and to resist the trend to be dominated by the market.
The second key value is that of solidarity, community or mutuality (Holman
1993). People are not by nature isolated individuals but only find meaning,
purpose and fullness of life in relationship with others. An alternative
communitarianism therefore values building relationships, sharing resources,
collective life and group action for its own sake while recognising the
ambiguities, compromises and conflicts which community entails. At the same
time it must resist the temptations to romanticise and absolutise community,
to accept closure of the boundaries of particular communities and to impose
community values and standards on unwilling individuals, other than in the
extreme case of antisocial behaviour where legal sanctions might apply.
The third value is that of neighbourliness. An alternative communitarianism
presupposes some value in the Judaeo-Christian concept of neighbour love.
Whether this remains purely on the basis of self interest and mutual obligation,
or extends to self sacrificial altruism, neighbourliness reaches out to
others, especially to those in need. "Who is my neighbour?" demands
an answer which goes beyond the end of the street and transcends natural
friendship or in-group loyalty. The parable of the Good Samaritan remains
relevant, although it needs to be guarded from idiosyncratic interpretations
such as Thatcher's homily on wealth creation! The point of it is that care
and responsibility must extend at some personal cost and risk across social
boundaries to all whom we encounter.
The fourth key value is that of Justice and Equality. Alternative communitarianism
is based on the doctrine that all people are created or born equal and
looks forward to a world, or is guided by a utopian dream, where everyone
will have a fair share of resources and an equal opportunity to flourish.
The poor and the weak would not be excluded from participation, and there
would be no discrimination based on race, class, gender or any other given
or ascribed characteristics. However, distant the prospect this radical
equality should remain a goal at local and global levels. Therefore anti-racism,
anti-sexism and other aspects of social justice are central to the enterprise
today, although the details of policy must remain open to debate and political
resolution.
Finally a longing for harmony between all people and the peaceful resolution
of conflict must guide this alternative communitarianism. As long as human
beings remain imperfectly human, social and political life takes place in
the arena of conflict. While on the one hand concern for justice often polarises
conflict, on the other a concern for neighbouring and the very notion of
community pushes in the direction of harmony. It is obvious that alternative
communitarians will take different ideological positions over the role of
conflict, and that even an individual may respond in pragmatically different
ways in specific conflicts (e.g. only confront on "winnable issues").
However, in all but the most extreme cases most will prefer to explore democratic,
negotiating, constructive strategies before embarking on confrontations
which have the potential for violence and destruction.
Strangely these values seem premodern, irrational and unmarketable, therefore
ill at ease in a modern world. In a postmodern world, they may be more at
home if only as nostalgia for the imagined communities of yesteryear, or
as harbingers of the New Age. They seem at the same time both conservative
and revolutionary. Perhaps their true significance is that they are of eternal
value, being drawn from a book inspired by one who was there in the beginning
and will be there at the end of time.
Our alternative communitarianism has numerous affinities with the model
of dialogical communitarianism advocated by Frazer & Lacey (1993). Their
feminist reading of political and social theory rejects both liberalism
with its stress on individual autonomy and standard communitarianism with
its relatively naive view of homogeneous and consensual social structure.
Instead they work from a relational concept of the human subject, (persons
in community if you will) and an understanding that social process and practices
as well as social structure have an effect on social reality. Here they
draw in part on Giddens notion of structuration (1984). Their approach seeks
to be interpretive in valuing the experience and accounts of people, but
also critical or evaluative in recognising that inequalities and oppressions
violate ethical norms. They recognise the pluralism and fragmentation of
post-modern life, but hold that it is still possible for individuals to
remain integrated persons, even when engaged in intra-personal dialogue
and overlapping networks of relationships. Although the oppression of women
is for them a key issue it is by no means the only one, and their practice
of politics would involve alliances with other marginalised groups in struggle
for transformation. Such change would be sought at the levels of language
and culture, of the distribution of power and economic outcome, and across
the illegitimate divide of public and private life. To such a praxis for
change we now finally turn.
A strategy
Alternative communitarians will need to develop a praxis based on the values
outlined above. They will be eager to be involved in community life, in
community development and political action. They will wish to live and organise
according to their values, in collaboration with others who share all or
part of their vision. They will have strong and distinct views, which will
not always be politically popular, but they will resist the temptation to
become fundamentalist and sectarian. Honest open debate, and accountability
to the widest possible constituency will be very important. This has serious
implications for those who are in any sense producers of culture and ideas;
writers, artists, politicians and intellectuals. They will be less concerned
about their personal contribution, reputation and freedom of expression,
but more conscious that they and their products are inter woven with the
social fabric which covers their nakedness! They will therefore want to
acknowledge and support the role of ordinary people in community in shaping
ideas, art and policies.
Alternative Communitarians will accept the need for a distinct lifestyle
as active members of face to face communities. For most this will mean seeking
to live as households in neighbourhoods, rather than as private individuals
in anonymous residential estates. It will imply taking responsibility for
the welfare not only of partners and children, but of extended family, of
neighbours and friends, and of any fellow human being in need. Many alternative
communitarians may find strength from belonging to a local religious congregation
or faith community, where a sense of shared values and heritage binds people
together, provided that such a group is not sectarian and inward looking.
An alternative communitarian lifestyle might also imply some self imposed
restrictions on consumer choice, for example choosing to live in a place
because of closeness to personal networks rather than because of amenities,
convenient location or status. It could mean cutting down on the time spent
in employment, commuting and international conferences, not to mention
computing, for the purpose of giving more attention to other people's needs.
For high earners at least, in a society where taxation no longer attempts
to redistribute wealth towards the poor, there is the challenge to turn
down high salaries (Holman 1993), or at least to give away that which is
surplus to basic needs.
An active life as an alternative communitarian would demand a commitment
to encouraging others in voluntarism and community involvement. Time would
be spent seeking to enable more people to become involved in the existing
active networks of community life, and developing a wider range of groups,
projects, organisations and structures for voluntary involvement, with an
emphasis on serving, empowering and articulating the needs of the socially
excluded. It would be recognised that some networks or organisations would
be formed on a residential neighbourhood basis, and others on the basis
of common interest with people gathered from a wider catchment area. Some
such groups would inevitably develop into professionally run voluntary sector
service agencies but the dangers of being co-opted by the state or seduced
by the market need to borne in mind. Many community groups can be viable
and effective without needing to take on bureaucratic formal management
structures or paid staff, and will be best advised to stay in the world
of the jumble sale and the informal chat over a cup of tea.
Finally alternative communitarianism entails moving beyond community development
to political action. It involves solidarity with the socially excluded and
entering into their struggles for social justice. Where possible it means
working for grass roots communities to be democratically and effectively
represented in the local power structures such as the City Councils, Health
Authorities and Urban Development Partnership programmes. Often there will
be a need to campaign effectively from outside the structures, with lobbying,
petitions and direct action such as boycotts and demonstrations. Many such
campaigns will be local or single issue movements, and it may sometimes
be difficult to choose between competing causes and conflicting marginalised
groups in struggle. However, alternative communitarians will not ignore
global responsibilities. Social analysis which points to international causes
of oppression, will need campaigns and action at the global level. Here
perhaps information technology may have a role to play, as it aids networking
and coalition building, enables sharing of experience and could build international
solidarity as never before.
The agendas of this alternative communitarianism are modest, especially
in comparison with those of the communitarian platform of Etzioni and his
network. However, they are I believe less open to sloganising and ideological
highjacking, and more solidly rooted in social analysis of the postmodern
condition. They fully recognise the messy and conflictual nature of human
society and yet are informed by some of its nobler aspirations and ideals.
While the fulfilment of such hopes is unlikely to be seen this side of Kingdom
come, simply by engaging in the struggle one bears witness to two timeless
virtues, Justice and Love. It is on these pillars alone that real community
can be built.