The Term Community Development - Essay Example

10-04-2007 Community Development C.J. Galpin coined the word "community" in relation to delineating rural communities in terms of the trade and service areas surrounding a central village (Harper & Dunham, 1959:19). A number of definitions had been put forward thereafter. Some on a group of people living in a particular place; and others looked to community as an area of common life. Community can be approached as a value (Frazer 2000, 76). Community generally used to bring together a number of elements like solidarity, commitment, mutuality and trust. A.P. Cohen (1982, 1985) discussed communities as a sense of belonging. Community plays a crucial symbolic role in generating people sense of belonging (Crow & Allan, 1994:6). Cohen further argues the reality of community lies in its members perception of the vitality of its culture people construct community symbolically, making it a resource and repository of meaning and a referent of their identity (Cohen 1985: 11). Cohen argues that community involves that the members of a group have some common with each other and this common distinguishes them from others. So community could be based on religion, language geographic locations etc. The important aspects of community are to form a social network to fulfill their common needs and goals. The power of community is in its cohesion and strong connectedness, which helps it to fulfill its objectives. In the modern era, the word community denotes a number of people sharing certain interests, sentiments, behaviour and objects common by virtue of belonging to a social group (Smith, 2001). The basic requirement of forming community is development of community as a whole and present circumstances force the community to look at their development more closely. Now community development (CD) two words used by social workers, and workers, social activists, sociologists, politicians, bureaucrats and planners to describe a myriad of activities, understanding and expectation. The term community development designates the utilization under one single programme of approaches and techniques, which rely upon local communities as units of action and which attempts to combine outside assistance with organized local self determination and effort and which correspondingly seek the stimulate local initiative and leadership as the primary instrument of change. In agricultural countries in the economically under developed areas, major emphasis is placed upon activities which aim at promotion of the improvement of the basic living conditions of the community including the satisfaction of some of its non-material needs (United Nations Documents E/CN5/29 programme of concerted Action in the social field of the United nations and specialized agencies). Community development can be tentively defined as a process designed to create conditions of economic and social progress for the whole community with its active participation and fullest possible reliance upon the community initiative. Community development implied the integration of two sets of forces making for human welfare, neither of which can do the job alone: (1) the opportunity and capacity for cooperation, self help, ability to least talent in every human group; and (2) the fund of techniques and tools in every social and economic field, drawn from world wide experience and now in use of available to national governments and agencies. Basically it has been perceived by the people that community development is the process by which the efforts of people themselves and united with government authorities to improve the economic, social and cultural conditions of communities to integrate these communities into the life of nation and to enable them to contribute fully to national progress. One view of community development is that it is a form of intervention in society, which seeks to empower individuals in the decisions, which affect them. It provides a means to action a set of tools to facilitate change at the social and individual levels. Community development recognizes that people may be disempowered on two fronts - through structural inequalities in society as well as through their own disabling and isolating myths, beliefs, attitudes opinions and traditions. Another view of CD is essentially based around doing things in and for communities. This approach has been described as paternalistic, impositional and colonizing (Ife, 2001). But the various forces linked to globalization (commodification, marketization and the corporatization) have led to significant shift in the locus of power governments (whether local or national) have become increasingly market driven (Smith, 1996, 2006). A growing centralization in key areas of policy making in many countries and a hugely increased presence of commercial enterprises in local services are the factors, which influenced CD in an effective way. This combined impact of these factors facilitates people to view themselves as consumers of services (rather than participants) and an associated move towards individualization from more collective concerns. In the ever-changing world where market forces and ideologies have become dominant and have infected almost all the areas of life, people are increasing lost a sense of working together to make change. CD practices emerge from a strong value base founded on an ideology of equality: Our trust in people in turn restores people's faith in themselves. But the waning of key social movements, the increased influence of managerialism and more general shift into a policy orientation and a focus on the implementation of social care and regeneration initiatives influences the basic concepts of CD. In other words, there was a significant change in people approach as CD has been looked at social planning and service extension (Popple, 1995). In 1990's community development found to be synonymous to capacity building. There was an interest in developing the ability of the local groups technically or economically so that they could be able to contribute social and economic development of the society as a whole and community in particular. This bottom up approach was the traditional viewpoint for CD. Strengthening people's capacity to determine their values and priorities and to act on these is the basis for development. As Midgley et al. (1986: 23) have noted notion of popular participation and that of community participation were interlinked. The former was concerned with issue of social development and creation of opportunities for the involvement of people in the political, economic and social affairs of the nation where the later depicts direct involvement of people in local affairs. The example where changing perceptions about CD could be seen is 2005 election manifesto of the British labour party, which argues as new opportunities for communities to assume greater responsibility or even ownership of community assets like village halls community centers, libraries or recreational facilities in recent years again opened up the debate whether communities development should be controlled by communities themselves or national local governments should intervene and control. Now it has been broadly believed that state intervention should be short term looking to outcomes and interested in economic growth and efficiency. It has been argued that there should be an effective approach to CD is to focus and cultivate local democracy, mutual aid, local networks and communal coherence. The present global situation where we called the whole world a global village, almost no community had been left from the affects of globalization. The complex nature of conflicting global forces impacting on our local environments. As the world grows, as an individual citizen our sense of individuality and autonomy grows and our choices become numerous. Our day to day activities is being influenced by events happening on the other side of the world and our local lifestyle habits have global consequences. In her recent article "Traversing the swampy terrain of postmodern communities: Towards theoretical revisionings of community development", Ingrid Burkett (2001) proposes a way of making sense of community which is future oriented. She argues that in a global fast changing environment, the concept of community only make sense if we use it as a verb rather than noun. This understanding of community again emphasizes on the concept that CD is a process closely related to people's experience of community. Economic rationalism has introduced contradictory shifts in how our society organization power and control. The power of centralized, traditional authority has been fragmented, and society's policy making has been located further from democratic influence. These changes aggravated the sense of uncertainly in the society we cannot take that our understanding of community as Locale or an interest group reflects people's experience today as it did 30-40 years ago. Burkett (2001) suggests that Community becomes an experience and an expression of subjective, everyday practices. The major challenge comes up is that our understandings of CD as a grassroots bottom up process, interface with the changing landscapes of 21st century and the dominance of the ideologies of economic rationalism in national and international governance. In community development it has been widely perceived that it is the government having interest in the economic development of community organizes a network of extension and other services necessary for the fulfillment of felt needs for improving the conditions of people living in it by encouraging people participation in organization of such services. But over emphasis and intervention of Govt. basically changed the characteristics of CD as Govt. sponsored welfare programmes. Apart from govt.'s intervention, the basic nature of the welfare state is also changing by restructuring as trade unions demolished and local governments decimated and have visible impact on CD also. So CD is not basically under a crisis but the overemphasis of governments support, intervention and paternalistic, autocratic control of communities plays havoc and in the present circumstances where governments are not able to fulfill its welfare activities due to economical, market oriented policies and political compulsions, the way CD progresses in outdated way. The causes for the state of affairs are not one. The most significant cause is the restructuring of welfare state due to external pressures. Again the lack of clear vision about CD adds to the crisis. On one side people have been told that good CD requires change, innovation and creativity while at the same time, they are required to bureaucratically account for all their actions in increasingly restrictive auditing regimes. They are charged with the responsibility to deliver both enterprise and community. Community workers contradictory position, as at large extent employed by state and to fulfill basic requirements of CD, increases the crisis as well absence of clear and final definition of CD also plays as important part in creating crisis because there are different ways of making sense of what its for and why it matters. The truth is the CD can be as much part of the problem as part of the solution. In present situation hybrid nature of CD itself have a hybrid set of values, which are not coherent, but needs to challenge and revision in changing context. Margret Ledwith (2005) observes that new labour's entire project (including in the Scottish parliament) in justified by reference to social justice. The problem is that what they mean may be rather different to that which community development would care to sign up to: on the one hand a commitment to participation and partnership in community and on the other hand the primacy of the market, the very mechanism that gives rise to the driven decisions act widen the gaps between people and communities and create power and control for few not the general people or communities. Community development as a policy is generally framed as top down primarily deployed to pursue the objectives of the government (to deliver policy at local level). Govt. is managing the communities not facilitating them to grow and manage them. This type of approaches needs to be revamped so that the problems, which have cropped into the CD system, could be eradicated. Now first of all Govt. authorities have to think that CD is a process where people of the community is to be encouraged and facilitated to manage and develop themselves. CD is purposeful, proactive intervention in the community. Therefore it must be understood clearly that every party know that why they are there, what they have to offer and what their objectives are. CD cannot be done through consultations but needs proactive, critical and committed vision, communities and members should be involved in identification of the problems, understanding the source and nature of problems, developing action strategies, acquiring the skills to implement those strategies (through marshalling ideas, arguments and action) in an organized way so as to achieve desired outcomes rather than just depend on developing networks, capacity building (over emphasis on skills) or trust. Successful community development practices cannot be reduced to mere set of predetermined skill rather than need for application to analyze personality traits, clear value and high level of commitment. Communities and people have been kept in touch and avoid patronizing them. This shows that the way we are working must have respect for locals, working with them not for then or directing them. Community development theory locates the cause of disadvantage in the entrenched and systemic inequalities of our social system, whereby gender, class, race and ethnicity are key determinants of one's life chances (Kenny, 1999). So structural sources are the major causes of problems. In CD local community development must promote participatory structures and develop radical view of citizenship to tackle issue like powerlessness, which is the basic cause for conflict between govt. approach and actual CD approach. During 1980's due to policies of Thatcher Govt. in UK, CD has been put under severe crisis due to govt. withdrawal but response from the CD personnel to pursue the value and practice contributed strongly to alter the previously practiced policies and created a desire to involve local communities in shaping policies and delivery system. The survey conducted in 2003 on community workers shows that most of the community workers do the CD job as part of another job. This immediately puts a question mark on sustainability of CD programmes. It potentially diluted the professional focus and assumes a distinct identity. A strong and theoretical base is important in preserving the distinct identity of CD. At one side it has to be inclusive of fieldwork, experiences and on the other hand it has strong theory base approach, develops CD as a professional service. The emergence of a specifically Scottish journal on community development is the right step in right direction. It connects theoretical and practical experiences and facilitates to develop CD as an emerging profession. Within Scotland CD and its associated goals of participation and partnership has been sponsored by local government (and to a much lesser extent, central government) for many years. Scottish thinking the importance of for example skills and knowledge development in underpinning effective practice, the need to focus evaluations of CD around outcomes and process. So practice in Scotland is more participating, much clearer and about the need to identify outcome and measure performance against them (Craig, 2007). So the crisis of CD could be alleviated through adopting certain well-defined path. CD practices emerged form fieldwork as the most important means of promoting participation. Intervention as connector, promoter, and facilitator to promote individuals and groups as a means of enabling them to have more control over their collective situation will do the needful. The first and intended way to start with the people is, involve local people, identify and work with the most representative and open group, facilitate and encourage democratic practices and widest possible involvement of local people. The second aspect for effective CD practices is to use local resources, manpower and if not available, provide them training opportunities and let them grow and involve themselves. The process and structure of CD should be amenable to local people. The level of involvement opportunities to develop power and decision-making is essential if residents are to be persuaded to participate (Wood, 2002). The bureaucratic culture, where the people called as client are not part of the decision making process, has to be changed. The traditional structure and mindset is not amenable for local people. So the bureaucratic culture must change and be replaced by participatory and facilitator culture. Participation needs to be matured and it develops over the time period. So it needs local facilities, accessible CD support and training and a long-term commitment. So CD is the process of promoting and developing local communities and this could be achieved through equal community participation, empowerment, strengthening and resorting existing groups and working for the inclusion of excluded groups. ********************************************************************* References: 1. Burkett, Ingrid. (2001) "Traversing the Swampy Terrain of Postmodern Communities: Towards Theoretical Revisionings of Community Development", European Journal of Social Work, 4(3): 233-246. 2. Cohen, A. P. (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community, London: Tavistock (now Routledge). 3. Cohen, A. P. (ed.) (1982) Belonging. Identity and social organization in British rural cultures, Manchester: University of Manchester Press. 4. Crow, G. and Allan, G. (1994) Community Life. An introduction to local social relations, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 5. Frazer, E. (1999) The Problem of Communitarian Politics. Unity and conflict, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 6. Harper, E. H. and Dunham, A. (1959) Community Organization in Action. Basic literature and critical comments, New York: Association Press. 7. Ife, J. (1995) Community Development: Creating community alternatives - vision, analysis and practice (Sydney: Longman). 8. Kenny, S. (1999) Developing Communities for the Future: Community develoment in Australia (Melbourne: Nelson Thomson Learning) Kirkwood and Kirkwood, 1989. 9. Ledwith, M (2005) Community Development: A Critical Approach, BASW/Policy Press. 10. Midgley, J. with Hall, A., Hardiman, M. and Narine, D. (1986) Community Participation, Social Development and the State, London: Methuen. 11. Plenary keynote speech by Gary Craig (2007) A manifestoes for community development in Scotland Building the agenda for change at Community Development Alliance Scotland Conference, Edinburgh. 12. Popple, K. (1995) Analysing Community Work: Its theory and practice (Buckingham: Open University Press) 13. Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Community' in the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/community/community.htm. 14. Smith, M. K. (1996, 2006) 'Community development', the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/community/b-comdv.htm. 15. Wood, M., Randolph, B., Judd, B. (2002), Resident Participation, Social Cohesion and Sustainability in Neighbourhood Renewal: Developing Best Practice Models - Positioning Paper (Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute). Read More