Community Developments Language and Practice Base - Term Paper Example

Community Development - Is It in Crisis Introduction Our beautiful earth, since its formation has been a ‘hotbed’ of activity. Activity in the sense, we humans have been showing activeness both mentally and physically, which have transformed the earth from a primitive one to a developed one. Importantly these activities will be carried out in an organized form under different structures. That is, humans will get organized or segregated into different forms and structures like countries, states, communities, government or private organizations, non-governmental organizations etc, and carry on with their activities. Among these different forms and structures, communities can perform activities which are crucial role for the development of many. That is, a community cannot exist like a ‘statue’; it has to be in action, to create sense. That is, the community has to organize itself into an organization, to organize beneficial programs for its community and people in general, thereby creating a sense for its existence. Community organizations should also widen their scope, to help many cope with their problems and show overall development. But, community development cannot always function in a smooth and effective way because of some inbuilt weakness. That is, “there are a growing number of practitioners who claim community development is in crisis. They state that community developments language and practice base, but not its values and principles, are being co-opted by the state. As a result, community development is being reduced to a mindless bureaucratic function rather than a transformative way of working with groups to achieve social justice”. So, this paper will analyze the correctness of this view by critically assessing the theories, policies, crisis and practice of contemporary community development (CD). Predicaments in Definition Community development has always been widely recognised as one of the important forms of human development over all these years. However, there seems to be an inconsistency in the definition, usage and general understanding of what community development represents. According to the Community Development Exchange (CDX) “Community development is about building active and sustainable communities based on social justice and mutual respect. It is about changing power structures to remove the barriers that prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives.” On the other hand, The Scottish Executive think that community development is a process where people of the community are to be encouraged and facilitated to manage and develop themselves. Theories, policies, crisis and practice of contemporary community development (CD), and the role of Governmental institutions. Indecisive role of Government Normally, it has been argued by many that community developments policy is framed in a top down approach, primarily deployed to pursue the objectives of government (to deliver policy at a local level). Even though the objectives of the government are fair, it has some inbuilt negative motives. That is, Governments to achieve the objectives are managing the communities, but not facilitating them to grow and manage themselves. However, this policy or theory of the government had good reasons behind it. That is, Government sees the systemic inequalities of our social system as one of the disadvantages of independent community development programmes because of the role, the gender, class, race and ethnicity play as key determinants of ones life chances (Kenny 1999). So structural sources can be seen as the major causes of the problem in the first place Ledwith (2006) goes on to say ‘community development needs to reclaim its radical agenda if it is to realise its social justice and its environmental justice commitment. Radical approaches merely refer to a critical, reflective approach to the practice of social justice, rather than leaving it as a free-floating and rather pleasant idea. As things stand, radical concepts have been diluted into a practice of self help, and laid at the feet of the very people who experience the greatest injustice.’ Mae Shaw speaking at a recent community development seminar in Edinburgh states “Community Development supporters have always certainly claimed it to be more radical than evidence would support. This is one of its enduring problems, Its history indicates how it has in effect, if not intention, been anything but radical in many instances: consistently used to pre-empt trouble, to deliver policy objectives rather than to challenge power and engage with democracy in a critical way.(Shaw 2006) Recent Debate In recent years, the debate rose on whether community development should be controlled by communities themselves or if national/local government should intervene and control it. Governments are often reluctant to let go of their traditional roles on the basis they have the advantage in the supply of public works and services, that local empowerment may threaten the current political balance and that communities will never be able to learn to manage their own projects and resources. The absence of a clear definition plays a part in this crisis because there are different ways of making sense of what community development is for and why it matters. Without a consistent definition of community development, programmes will do little to contribute to the overall improvement and well-being of our communities. Scottish Example Within Scotland, community development and its associated goals of participation and partnership have been sponsored by local government (and to a much lesser extent, central government) for many years. Scottish thinking is, the importance for skills and knowledge development in underpinning effective practice result in the need to focus evaluations of community development 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). The adoption in Scotland of the Proportional Representation method of voting could help strengthen radical and progressive community development giving political voices to smaller more marginalised groups and communities. Yet there are, incredibly large number people who oppose such logic creating a kind of crisis. Why they do so varies - many of them value stability over democracy; others fear a hostile takeover of government by fringe lunatics; others merely oppose any changes to the current system on the grounds that it would reduce the power of their party, which has benefited from a system which disenfranchises entire swaths of society, and thus are loathe to change it, offering up any argument they can muster against it. Crisis in the non-governmental side that could affect Community Development Apart from the role of Government and bureaucracy, non-governmental institutions or organisations also have a role in the community development program. That role may border on both positive side and negative side. Negative side in the sense, the values and principles that underpin community development work may not have been readily accepted or understood by stakeholders, like professionals who are working with communities, business organisations etc. Various forces linked to globalisation (commodification, marketisation and corporatisation) have led to significant shifts in the focus of power as governments have according to (Smith 1996,2006) become increasingly market driven. One of the main reasons for this market driven approach of the government is their need for existence. That is, the election process to elect a democratic government needs a high corpus of funds, which have increased the role of business organisations. And the elected governments in order to ‘repay’ the election funds sourced from the business organisations had become market driven to aid them. Apart from this “under the wrap” reasons, the government have become market driven for the benefit of people. So, in the ever changing world were market forces and ideologies have become dominant and have infected almost all areas of life, Smith (1996, 2006) asserts people have increasingly lost a sense of working together to make change. Community development principles such as Feminism, Socialism and Anti-Racism, historically were each powerful movements, but in more recent times have lost lustre and support due to public held suspicions and re-questioning of seemingly un-realistic ideas. A contrasting view of community development is it is essentially based around doing things in and for communities. This approach has been described as paternalistic, impositional and colonising (Ife, 2001) and is characterised by efforts to recruit industry and services. For example, business development infrastructure improvements, and city planning all often fall under the description of community development but it has other inner motives. Crisis and its Solutions Community development could be a purposeful proactive intervention within a community. Therefore it must be understood clearly and that every party knows why they are there, what they have to offer and what their objectives are. Community development can not be done through consultations alone but needs pro-active, critical and committed vision. Communities and members should be involved in identification of the problem, understanding the source and nature of the problems, developing action strategies in an organised way to achieve the desired outcome.The state should change its model to give greater control to local communities and encouraged to sign up to community developments values and principles alongside the already claimed language and practice base, examples of which are; Applying the value of participation means involving communities in decision making and taking their views and interest into account. People are able to contribute perspectives and experiences that might not have been available to officials and professionals ‘experts’ and the strategies develop as a new consequence are more likely to fit local circumstances. This leads to fewer costly and wasteful mistakes. Similarly, placing the value of equality at the centre of the work is an acknowledgment that society is not a level of playing field; that we live in a world full of inequalities and social exclusion. It ensures that attention is paid to overcoming obstacles or discriminatory practices that prevent some people from participating in or benefiting from an initiative. Positive action measures are used to accommodate cultural differences, ensure access or remedy past imbalances. This allows new, quiet or hidden voices to emerge and to influence decision-making, ensuring that the needs and interests of the whole population are met, not just the most articulate.A strong and theoretical base is important in preserving the distinct identity of community development. At one side it has to be inclusive of fieldwork, experiences and on the other hand it has strong theory base approach Social Justice Community development has therefore long proclaimed that it is a way of working with people that is underpinned by a vision of social justice. Its values are fundamental to both purpose and practice. However, the values and principles that underpin community development work may not have been readily accepted or understood by other stakeholders, such as funders (Government) or professionals who are working with communities. Margaret Ledwith (2005) observes that New Labours entire project including the Scottish Parliament) is 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 Conclusion In conclusion community development is under crisis firstly from the lack of clear vision and definition. On one side people have been told that the good vision of community development requires change, innovation and creativity while at the same time, they are required to bureaucratically account for all their actions in increasingly auditing regimes. They are charged with the responsibility to deliver both enterprise and community. Community workers have increasingly contradictory positions, at a large extent employed by the state to fulfil only community developments basic requirements, (language and practice base). Radical community development practice needs workers to be agents of change, working in a transformative way towards the re-distribution of power, resources and opportunities. Using direct action/protests and creating alliances with other groups. Leading to community led, independent activity that challenges oppression and discrimination at all levels. They need to encourage and facilitate challenges to power and engage with democracy in a critical way. “If community development workers are not political then all we end up doing is acting as a container for conflict and communities unhappiness.” (Amanda Inverarity, CDX Director) Read More