‘Community development’ as a buzz-word

Oxfam GB

'Community Development' as a Buzz-Word Author(s): Mfaniseni Fana Sihlongonyane Source: Development in Practice, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Apr., 2009), pp. 136-147 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GB Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27752032 . Accessed: 08/07/2013 13:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Development in Practice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Development

11 Routledge ^ranmCro:. Taylor

inPractice, Volume 19, Number 2, April 2009

|\

'Community development' as a buzz-word Mfaniseni Fana

Sihlongonyane

This article examines the semantic evolution of the term 'communitydevelopment' (CD) in the latterhalf of the twentiethcentury. It is argued thatCD has acquired differentmeanings, theor etical grounding, and practical applications, startingfrom a focus on traditional societies up to the 1960s, moving to a focus on social and/or civil-rights movements up to the 1980s, and further to a focus on themodern middle class from the 1990s. The thrustof the argument is that the concept is not cohesive and unified but represents a repertoire of meanings which include many shades of CD thatare not necessarily mutually compatible but reflectparticular political and social practices

Key Words:

in the contexts inwhich theyoccur.

society; Methods

Civil

We mistake for postponement of the Thing itself what is already the Thing itself,' we mistake for the searching and indecision proper to desire what is, infact, the realisation of the desire. That is to say, the realisation of the desire does not consist in its being fulfilled,' 'fully satisfied,' it coincides rather with the reproduction of desire as such, with its circular movement. (Zizek 1991: 7) observation has considerable resonance with the shiftingmeaning of community development. Community development (CD) emerged as a buzz-word in the 1960s, to become 'self-help' and 'people power' in the 1970s, 'community participation' in the 1980s, and 'local economic development' in the 1990s. As a catchphrase, together with its sister

Zizek's

variations

such

as

grassroots

development,

community

work,

community

action,

etc.,

it has

become littlemore than a rhetorical gesture (Sihlongonyane 2001), a slippery concept (Little 2002), a dynamic experience (Zimmerman 1995), and a mutating set ofmetaphors thatmean

different things to different people (Arnstein 1971; Brager and Specht 1973; Rifkin 1996). Bell and Newby (1971) observe that there is a paradox indefining the community, and by exten sion community development, in that 'as soon as one tries to do so, itceases to have a veritable existence'. Smith (1996: 250) remarks, 'Of all thewords in sociological discourse, community is the one thatmost obviously comes fromwonderland, in that itcan mean just what you want'. This article examines the evolution of this concept inDevelopment Studies in the latterhalf of the twentieth century. It argues that the language of community development (CD) has evolved within different social formations (i.e. traditional societies up to the 1960s, social

136

ISSN 0961-4524

Print/ISSN DOl:

1364-9213

Online 020136-12

10.1080/09614520802689378

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

?

2009 Oxfam GB

Routledge Publishing

'Community

development'

as a buzz-word

and/or civil-rightsmovements up to the 1980s, and themodern middle class from the 1990s to date), in order to provide particular meanings that related to seeking specific local development outcomes. The article first traces the changes in terminology in which popular development paradigms have affirmed the concept of community development. This is followed by a discussion of the complexities and implications of the various uses of the concept, both in

theory and in practice. The thrust of the argument is that the concept is not cohesive and unified but represents a repertoire of meanings which encompass many shades of CD that are not necessarily mutually compatible but reflect particular political and social practices in the contexts inwhich they occur.

Community as traditional society Up to the 1950 and 1960s, therewas a commonsense assumption thatCD as a process of change was anchored in a geographical area, with a defined identity and a set of common values and practices. As Stacey (1969: 135) noted, Tn the ideal typical community, the sense of belonging was said to be associated within the social relations within the particular geographic area'. In his study of the Philippines, Tinker (1961: 309) observed, 'They [enthusiasts] argued that the village possessed an untapped asset in its sense of community and solidarity, and they planned to capitalise this asset by associating the village folk in a combined effort towards and

reconstruction

uplift'.

There were threemain characteristics associated with traditional communities: geographical location, identity,and common interests.The imagined traditional community was associated with geographical settings in which communities could share resources and common-hood. Such common-hood was defined by shared moral values, where (within strong families and through effective parenting) social and civic obligations are learned, and self-reliance, mutual aid, and volunteering are practised as a constituent form of identity. Identity, in turn, was

an

as

viewed

expression

of common

interests,

since

such

were

communities

associated

with socially cohesive systems, somuch so that theirway of lifewas perceived to be sociologi cally functional, at least in rhetoric (see Figure 1). accounts

Numerous casual

references

illustrate

to Malinowski's

the

close-knit

well-known

nature

of

such

anthropological

communities, studies

of

often native

making societies,

and resonating with films such as Indiana Jones and stories such as Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Much development activity that was organised around these imagined traditional societies was seen through a dual modernist reflection which posited geographical societies as underdeveloped. Thus Mayo (1975: 130) attributes the notion of CD to effortsby British

Identity: common beliefs

Traditional community Geographical: commonvalues

Interests: common practices

Figure

1.

Imagination

Development

of the traditional

community

inPractice, Volume 19, Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

137

Mfaniseni

Ferna

Sihlongonyane

colonial administrators to undertake a civilising mission in the education of the colonies. Midgley et al (1986: 17) observed that the termwas coined in relation to promoting agriculture, health, and other social services through local self-help. As such, CD was a state function that sought to replace a patron-client polity by equal co-operation, and itemphasised the village as

the level at which the bonds of fellowship were realised (Tinker 1961: 313). The notion of CD, especially for colonial and modernist development planners, therefore revolved around the ideas of grassroots, village, and rural development. This imagination has had positive, negative, and sometimes nuanced outcomes. On the positive side, it informed theNobel Laureate, Dr Y. C. James Yen of the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) to articulate a credo that is claimed to reflect a people-centred and participatory philos ophy and practice for rural reconstruction. Cited inCompton 2001, it states: Go to thepeople Live among them Learn from them

Plan with them Work with them Start with what theyknow Build on what theyhave Teach by showing Learn by doing Not

a

But

a pattern

showcase

Not odds and ends but a system Not to conform but to transform Not relief but release. On thenegative side, the alluring ideal of this construct became an organising principle forwide generalisations, such as those made by theApartheid government to repress black people in South

Africa.

The

regime

used

generic

such

categories

as

'Indian

community',

'Coloured

com

munity', 'White community', and 'Black community', togetherwith sub-regional designations such groups.

as

'Lebowa The

term

community', community

'Swazi was

used

community',

etc.,

interchangeably

to coincide with

race,

with ethnic

its labels group,

for ethnic nation,

or

peoples, to emphasise difference and to justify separate development. Ramphele and Thornton (1988: 33) indicate that 'among notorious acts of theDepartment of Community Development was the destruction of District Six in 1965 ... a dense suburban neighbourhood thatbordered the central business district of Cape Town. The destruction of theneighbourhood in thename of "community development" broke theweb which held thiscommunity together.' The cruel irony was that a recognisable community was destroyed in order to accommodate the ideology of community thatwas promoted by government administrators who were serving theirwhite constituency.

Inmany circumstances, the image of the traditional community is also used as a euphemistic device formaking outlandish claims - frequently a means of legitimising (amorphous) identi ties (to use Castells' (1996) term) commonly promoted by governments and by institutionssuch as theWorld Bank, in shaping civil society and/or reinforcing theirown domination. In fact, many institutions and initiatives stress the importance of community in development, from theHIPC Initiative to theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs). Internationally, themulti nationals, various governments, and theDevelopment Bank of South Africa (DBSA), as well as NGOs and civic societies, progressive and conservative, are adopting the same approach. In many cases, theymake project funding conditional on inclusion of the 'community'. Never

138

Development

inPractice, Volume 19,Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'Community

development'

as a buzz-word

is themandatory reference to the community omitted from project proposals, which donor agencies also sift to check whether sufficient attention has been paid to the community (Sihlongonyane 2001). The World Bank, for example, claims that itsCommunity Driven Development (CDD) treats poor people and their institutionsas assets and partners in the search for sustainable solutions to development challenges.1 As far as theBank is concerned, there are communities in every poor section of society. Such rhetoric is used for lobbying, sentimentalising, and legitimising claims.

It is not uncommon,

for example,

to talk about

an African

community,

or Katrina

community,

or Tsunami community, orMuslim community to evoke particular feelings. Moreover, these claims are taken to refer to real communities, irrespective of the reductionism embedded in the term.Most of these claims of community are outlandish, unfounded, and mere statements of political correctness - expressions of metaphor. In the process, the community is applied across all kinds of groupings - whether binding, temporary, or permanent - to the extent that it can refer as much to bad groups (racists, criminals) as to good ones, while also being sufficiently loose to allow varying and even opposing interpretations (Sihlongonyane 2001).

An instance of the sentimentality of this rhetoric can be seen in Samuel Huntington's two books: The Clash of Civilizations (1996) and Who Are We (2004). Writing as a patriot and a scholar (in that order), Huntington argues in the latter for the protection of English-speaking America, as some form of community, against the increasing threat posed by immigrants. are undermining the Huntington asserts that immigrants, especially those from Mexico, the shared that makes them 'American'. For identity 'Anglo-Protestant creed', destroying are a Americans This naive Anglo-Protestants. Huntington, good projects imagination sharply whereby being American denotes a particular exclusive cultural expression of natural goodness. Huntington's work typically identifies a mounting threat,such asMexican immigrants, Islamic civilisation, or democratic proclivities, and then points to the need for strongmeasures to build

national unity and popular mobilisation (including militarisation) in response to the barbarians who are at the gates, if not already within. Huntington attempts to construct 'purified' communities thatoperate as devices of exclusion, negotiating difference simply by protecting theUSA from 'theother'. Etzioni (1996a: 477) critically notes: 'The theme thatruns throughout various works of Huntington is best characterized as a theory of fear. Such books are extra-popular because they give license to the expression of silently embraced prejudices by claiming that theyhave a base in scholarship and even science.' The same concept was used under the government of 'Tony Bush' in theUK, identifying some neighbourhoods in the city of Bradford as faith groups who constituted 'a channel to some of the hardest to reach groups' forwhom they are 'themost suitable organisations to deliver community objectives' (Cabinet Office 2001). This approach has undoubtedly been influenced by the violent public conflict that took place in a number of towns and cities in the north of England during 2001 in which both ethnicity (Pakistani) and religion (Islam) were implicated, along with class, gender, and generation. Thus, presumably, the goal was to develop cohesion across ethno-religious boundaries, since arguably much of the conflict in Bradford, Burnley, and Oldham was a result of too much cohesion within communities, to

the point thatpeople live 'parallel lives', separated residentially and socially by ethnicity and religion (Cantle 2001; Denham 2001; Ouseley 2001). One of the outstanding problems in this imagination, as observed in South Africa, is that the separated (local, regional, etc.) identities are not only contradictory, but are underpinned by

partial and incompatible definitions of scale and boundary. While each constructed identity may create a psychological base upon which to hinge development processes, the notion of a community is simply too static to cope with the flows of globalisation and individualisation, because the very notion retains a Utopian purchase out of the imagination of unity.As Young Development

inPractice, Volume 19, Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

139

Ferna

Mfaniseni

Sihlongonyane

(1990: 300) argued, Those motivated by itwill tend to suppress their differences amongst themselves or implicitly exclude from their political group persons with whom they do not identify'.Hence, Pratt (1987: 50-51) characterised them as 'imaginary Utopian communities' that do

not

accurately

represent

'fractured

Reality'.

Itwas noted, for example, that faith groups inBradford could not be identified simply with locality or neighbourhood. At the city level, people increasingly travelled longer distances to

participate inworship and other activities. They retain a transnational focus, rather than a local focus, as well as the wider concept of the Ummah (the internationalMuslim brotherhood) (Furbey and Macey 2003: 15). Kearns and Parkinson (2001) point out that the definition of neighbourhood (as a traditional society) is therefore problematic, in terms of both spatial scale and its varying psychological and social significance for residents. They noted that 'there aremany other sources partly dependent on our individual and collective time-geographies and action-spaces

within

the urban

arena'.

These

developments

and

experiences

encourage

an

understanding that transcends the purely local or parochial and express 'a deeply embedded transnationalism'.

Community as method this Utopian imagination of the traditional community persists (explicitly and implicitly) in dominating the thinking of development practitioners, it was eclipsed by social/civic movements in the late 1960s. This was motivated largely by the surge in the dis enchantmentwith modernist development. Itwas clear all over theworld thateconomic growth did not automatically sweep poverty away. Development analysts decided that the second

Although

Development Decade must also include measures deliberately targeted at the poor to help them to meet their basic needs for food, water, housing, health care, and education. This shiftof attentionwas given more impetus by Robert McNamara, then President of theWorld in his statement landmark that Bank, governments in developing countries proclaiming should design policies thatmeet theneeds of thepoorest 40 per cent. This in turngave momen tum to the emergence of a deluge of slogans such as 'peoplefirst', 'worstfirst', 'people power', and 'self-help', which were part of a new/renewed thrust of imagination concerning the popular

masses.

Its locus of imagination and its construction were idealised in terms of the articulations of social movements. This marked a significant shift from the concept of the traditional society as the platform of imagination to a concept of theworking class as the theatre for forging new forms of community development. As Lloyd (1984: 14) observed (especially in the British context), therewas a distinction between mobilisation from above and mobilisation from below. 'Formobilization from above, the term community development was used, from - as an below, the term community action attempt to cope with reality and an attempt to in the conventional sense involved a relationship change reality'. Community development with the state (central or local) in which demands were made for services (Curno 1978;

Loney 1983). Castells' influentialwriting (1983), for example, presented government/state as the enemy of the local community, due to its capitalist policies. Castells (1996: 9) later noted that this stemmed fromwithout, as people built 'trenches of resistance and survival' on principles that counter those of dominant institutions.Resistance identitieswere essentially

defensive and expressed 'the exclusion of the excluders by the excluded'. In 1971, Community Action, a highly successful bi-monthlymagazine, began its chronicling of protest activities

mainly those of tenants' groups in conflict with their landlords, public and private; purpose was 'to furtherstimulate such activity' (Lloyd 1984: 13).

140

Development

its

inPractice, Volume 19,Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'Community

development'

as a buzz-word

In terms ofmethodology, community development was projected as an alternative to state - a development platform on which resistance identities were to be created. It became an which approach encapsulated various rhetorical flourishes such as bottom-up approach, worst-firstapproach, self-help, social inclusion, participation, respect for diversity, and even social democracy. Social and civil movements used 'the community' as a rallying slogan to make claims against capitalism. Community development was an important signifier for progressive development. It became a major code for development thatwas against capitalist development, hegemony, and exploitation (Figure 2). The actual impact of resistance identities on community development was widely varied, and

inconsistent,

sometimes

contradictory,

but many

programmes

began

to emerge,

as

such

integrated rural development, rural urbanisation, and agro-politan development (Friedmann and Weaver 1979). Community development was largely associated with rural development and poor urban sectors.Multiple communities were now emerging in a myriad struggles and contests of power, ranging from groups forming around a focus on the environment, gender, or human rights.Even within groups dedicated to the same struggle, therewere other splinter groups. For instance, feminism has seen divisions among the radical, liberal, and socialist tendencies. What began to emerge was the idea that community action was not only based on reassuring ideas of co-operation and mutuality, but that itwas also divisive, separating the inside from the outside and producing internal strife between different factions. It became

clear

that the claims

of unity,

voice,

and

content

were

but an

illusion,

or even

a delusion.

In particular, the broad generalisations made by Marxist scholars were under fierce attack. Itwas becoming clear that 'the community' had a strong imaginary and narrative form but a weak

empirical

character.

Post-modernists began to challenge the dominance ofMarxian and quantitative approaches to social history.They saw the community essentially as socially constructed and fragmentary; as a result, definitions were seen as elusive, even contradictory (Popple 1995: 3). For most post modernists, community became an illusion or a simulacrum of what once may have been, but is no more. Bauman (1991: 15), for example, stressed that the post-modern condition means that we must adapt to 'living at peace with ambivalence'. Like all popular concepts meant to cover a

Gender Groups

Figure

2.

Multiple

Development

expressions

of the methodological

community

inPractice, Volume 19,Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

141

Mfaniseni

Ferna

Sihlongonyane

variety of phenomena, it has many meanings. It is used with such facility by a host of institutions, agents, and movements that it takes on various hues in different contexts (Sihlongonyane 2001).

Project communities The radicalism of the late 1960s and 1970s began towane in the 1980s as themacro-economic policy environment began to shift towards neo-liberal policies. Within the neo-liberal frame work, the notion of community became closely associated with homo economicus (Rose 1992). This meant thatmany of theMarxist-inspired social and civic movements had to trans form or replace theirworld-views with market-oriented approaches. As a result, the locus of community imagination shifted away fromworkers to themiddle class. Within this social for mation, the visions and agendas of community development are no longer governed by radical codes ofworkerist thoughts,but by those of themiddle class. Instead of radical, anti-state, go-it alone

workers'

co-operative,

approaches, emphasising

strategies partnerships,

for community

development and

branding,

are now more

co-optive

and

re-imaging.

The overall thrustof community development has shifted from rural development to urban development, especially with the reckoning that 'cities are the future of humanity' (UNHCS 2001). Community development now finds renaissance in projects addressing urban regener ation and social care within the broader scope of local economic development. The so-called 'legacy projects', both in Britain (2012 Olympics) and in South Africa (2010 Soccer World Cup), are drawing from local histories in thebuilding of stadiums,museums, bridges, galleries, etc., both in the inner city and elsewhere, as central drivers of community development. World wide, the 'world class' rhetorichas become a rallying point of such developments. This iswhat Castells (1996) sees as part of creating Project identities,which involves moving beyond the defensive to build a new identityand to transform society in themanner of twentieth-century feminism. Such movements produce social subjects, working together to achieve a different life.Major emphasis is placed on capacity building (Eade 1997), sustainable livelihoods (see for instance themany publications of theUK government's Department for InternationalDevel opment, or the InstituteofDevelopment Studies at theUniversity of Sussex, or the International Institute of Environment and Development), and security (exemplified by the South African

Regional Poverty Network, SARPN). Indeed in the 1990s, Romero (1998: 52) defined community as 'an association of individuals that are sharing and creating ways of interpreting their experiences, that builds a particular identity connecting individuals and groups reinforcing their common issues without effacing their differences'. The acknowledgement of differences in project communities suggests that the community is now a layered concept. Layering also brings to the fore the idea that the various notions of community are compounded. Thus, depending on various factors, projects are developed on the basis of a compendium of layeredmeanings. These can be described as constructed,

contested,

shifting,

and

non-existent

-

all of them

often

occurring

simultaneously

(Figure 3). In the 1990s theworks of Robert Putman, Amitai Etzioni, and Leone Sandercock presented noteworthy social imaginaries for constructing project communities. Putman is famous for popularising the concept of social capital, in which he sees the community as a form of social organisation producing mutual benefit for its participants. He envisages CD through the notion of social capital, which he defines as a 'feature of social life - networks, norms and trust that enable participants to act togethermore effectively to pursue shared goals'

(Putman 1995: 667). Campfens (1996) notes that the concept of social capital is integral to most theoristswho see the community as mutually beneficial. In concrete terms, thismeans

142

Development

inPractice, Volume 19, Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'Community

as a buzz-word

development'

co-operation; involvement; social integration; participation by everyone and anyone; commu nity capacity to identifyneeds, define problems, and pursue courses of action; as well as the capacity resources.

to

resources

community

acknowledge

and,

where

necessary,

draw

on

outside

Similarly, the sociologist, Amitai Etzioni (1995) promotes the concept of communitarianism, a social system which values community more highly than liberal values. He sees social networks as crucial to the dissemination and maintenance of values. He portrays communities as

'social

of people

webs

who

know

one

another

as persons

and

have

a moral

voice'.

Members

use these bonds to 'encourage members to abide by shared values ... [and] gently chastise those who violate sharedmoral norms and express approbation for thosewho abide by them' (cited in Fremeaux 2005: 269). He argues, for example, that theEuropean Union (EU) is sufferingnot only from a democratic deficit, but from a community deficit, because 'there is little commit ment to theunion's common good and to the projects inwhich the union is engaged, including the project of furtherunification'. He reckons that such a deficitmust be curtailed, if theEU is to continue to solidify, and must be reduced before the democratic deficit can be overcome by creating an EU that forms a core of shared values (i.e. a moral culture) and a web of bonds of affection - a normative-affective community (Etzioni 2007: 34). Another argument comes from Sandercock (1998), who develops an explicitly Utopianmodel of 'cosmopolis' - a citymarked by people's willingness to engage respectfully and fearlessly with aries

to learn

'the other', in

'spaces

of

and

urban

to change negotiation'.

by

'transgressing' This

across

communal

integration-in-plurality

and

cultural

emphasises

bound long-term

process and mediation whereby groups that celebrate a common culture (communities) learn also towork democratically in culturally diverse associations and forums. These project communities can be contested, however. Brent (2004: 214) has argued that although community activity is partly based on reassuring ideas of co-operation and mutuality, it is also divisive, 'dividing the inside from the outside and producing internal strifewith the forces that oppress it,with the enemy within'. It has been noted, for example, thatPutnam's concept of social capital is inherently value-laden (Fremeaux 2005: 269), given that social

Development

inPractice, Volume 19, Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

143

Mfaniseni networks

Ferna

Sihlongonyane 'the norms

enhance

of reciprocity

and

trustworthiness

that arise

from

them'.

Thus,

it is not exempt from the ideological baggage of its context. As such, theWorld Bank's adoption of the Social Capital Initiative cannot be taken as value-free. The recognition of the 'norms and social relations embedded in the social structuresof societies that enable people to coordinate action to achieve desired goals' as its definition of social capital may be expressed by undemo cratic governments as norms of suppression. This can be motivated by the fact that social capital lacks clear indicators,margins of efficacy, and boundaries of existence. Therefore, promoting social capital may raise many contradictions, whereby various entities claim distinct forms of social capital, as has been witnessed in groups such as theKu Klux Klan, theBritish Nationalist

Party, the ItalianMafia, and theVolkstaat (South Africa). The same can be said of communitarianism. Communitarians are majoritarians (Erlich 1990: 57). Derber (1993: 29) contends that communitarian consent is an expression of the majority opinion about values. As such, it safeguards situations by working through differentiation - defining those who can have a say and those who may not. This may undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights. For example, despite having rights to sue or bring charges against a rapist in South Africa, some people find it uncharacteristic of their community cultures to take such action against an individual, because the community frowns

on doing so. Pusey (1996: 71) sees this as the essential contrasting feature of the two political and subjective idealisations: between the 'communitarian self and 'contractarian / libertarian self. Consequently, in contrast to the positive representations of community put forward by Etzioni or desired by Sandercock, some theorists assert that communities produce negative effects. Far from being cohesive and mutually supportive, communities thrive on enmity and are divisive and disunited. Brent (2004: 216) acknowledges that communities, considered as assemblages built around either place or activity,will inevitably involve unequal relationships. Structural features of age, sex(uality), ethnicity, religion, and geography, which are correlated with inequality in various ways, will inevitably produce frictions, exclusions, and conflict. believed that 'community is a To this end, the philosopher JeremyBentham (1748-1832) to Nozick consider while others from Sartre fiction', 'community' a burden if not a 'hell' Brent in Etzioni 1996b). Indeed, (2004: 214) observed, 'However much we may want (cited it, community of Zeno,

never

seems our

it eludes

to arrive

grasp

...

it proves

no matter

what

to be one

does

continually to attain

illusive

as

in the paradox

it'. Libertarians

such

as

Nozick (1974: 32) suggest, 'There is no social entity ... There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives'. Hence, (Brent 2004: 220) views 'the community

as

a

paradigm

of

impossible

presence'.

For that reason, some authors challenge the very existence of the community. Albrow et al (1997: 25) argue that the community has been 'a potentmyth to reinforce efforts to shape the ever-changing contemporary reality, to stabilise the state, contain disorder and limit the conse quences of seemingly uncheckable forces of modernity. As such, itwas intimately connected with themyth of cultural integration.'Derrida (1982) noted that for all its lack of 'the authority of presence', community is a powerful insubstantiality. Such a past 'thathas never been present' contains nostalgia - an imagination of a perfect Utopia or wholeness. To this,Zizek (1991) adds that desire itself is something that has to be constructed through fantasy, and such fantasies differ in their relationship to different circumstances. The community is an expression of desires and fantasies as an intrinsic part of social life. Its desires may be split, changeable, and ambiguous, but community as a desire continually replenishes itself as people see meaning and connectedness in all their imperfections (cited in Brent 2004: 222). The community cannot thereforebe seen as a stable phenomenon. Itsmeaning is embedded in context. Consequently, post-modern theorists such as Burkett (2001: 237) see the building of community as 'an ongoing act of extraordinary creativity in which one comes face to face

144

Development

inPractice, Volume 19, Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'Community

as a buzz-word

development'

with the struggle of human relationship, of engaging with an-Other'. Similarly O'Hara sees

151)

as an

the community

creation.

on-going

He

co-create

'We

claims,

(1996: in turn

reality which

creates us', therebycreating a new kind of community. Rose (2000: 1401) also observed that the community 'consists of multiple objectifications formed at the unstable and uncomfortable intersectionsbetween politics and thatwhich should and must remain beyond its reach'. In con clusion, the community iswhat you make it to be at the intersection between politics, purpose, and

the future.

Note 1. World

Bank,

Community

Driven

at

available

Development,

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/

14

^pagePK:

EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTCDD/0?menuPK:430167 9018~piPK: 149093-theSitePK:430161,00.html ((retrieved7May 2007).

References J. Eade,

M.,

Albrow,

concepts: sociological tion as Local Process, S. R.

Arnstein, (eds.)

and N. Washbourne

J. Durrschmidt,

and milieu',

culture community, London: Routledge.

'Eight rungs of the ladder of citizen

(1971)

on impact of globalisation the Global City: Globalisa

The

(1997)

in Eade

J. (ed.) Living

in S. E. Cahn and B. A. Passett participation', New York, NY: Praeger Publications.

Citizen

Participation: Effecting Community Change, and Ambivalence, Oxford: Polity Press. (1991) Modernity Studies: An Introduction Bell, C. and H. Newby (1971) Community Allen & Unwin. Community, London: Z.

Bauman,

New C. and H. Specht (1973) Community Organizing, 'The desire for community: illusion, confusion Brent, J. (2004) Journal 39 (3): 213-23.

Brager,

to the Sociology NY:

York,

Columbia

and paradox',

of the Local Press.

University

Community

Development

the swampy terrain of postmodern towards communities: theoretical (2001) 'Traversing 4 Social Work of Journal 233-46. (3): European community development', of revisioning toNeighbourhood 'A New Commitment National Cabinet Office Renewal, (2001) Strategy Action Plan', Commitment London: H.M. Government, 91. I.

Burkett,

H.

Around the World: Practice, Community Development Theory, Research, of Toronto Press. Training, University A Report of the Independent Review T. (2001) London: HMSO. Team', Cantle, 'Community Cohesion: A Cross-cultural (1983) The City and the Grassroots: Castells, M. Theory of Urban Social Movements, of California Press. CA: University Berkeley,

Campfens,

(ed.)

(1996)

Toronto:

M.

Castells,

'The

1,Oxford:

J. L.

Compton,

rise of

the network of Rural

IIRR

Information

Derber, D.

(1997)

A

London:

Work, A

Hemel

J. (1982) Margins

Derrida,

-

Reconstruction

of Philosophy, Hempstead: A People-Centred Approach

Capacity

of

Report

London: and Community HMSO. Cohesion', and its limits', Tikkum, 'Communitariansim C. (1993)

Disorder

Age:

Economy,

Society

and

and

Tried

Tested

Development

issue.

report Special Issues and Community (ed.) (1978) Political Communities: J. (2001) 'Building Cohesive

Denham,

The

society',

Blackwell. 'The Credo

(2001)

Manila:

Philosophy', P. Curno,

Eade,

(1996)

Volume

Culture,

Routledge. the Ministerial

Group

on Public

29. July/August: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Building:

toDevelopment,

Oxford:

Oxfam

GB

&

Ireland. Erlich, 3: 56.

E.

Etzioni,

A.

London:

Fontana

Etzioni,

A.

(1995)

Spirit Press.

(1996a)

Development

rights vs. my

'Worker

(1990)

safety: where

of Community:

'A moderate

Rights,

communitarian

do we

draw

Responsibilities

proposal',

Political

inPractice, Volume 19,Number 2, April 2009

the line?', Business and

Theory

Week,

the Communitarian 42

145

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(2):

155-71.

September, Agenda,

Ferna

Mfaniseni A.

Etzioni,

Sihlongonyane 'The

(1996b)

threat: an essay

real

on Samuel

Comparative

Huntington',

34

Sociology

(5):

477-85. A.

Etzioni,

'The community 'New Labour's

(2007) I. (2005)

Fremeaux, Development

Journal

Friedmann,

J. and

40

CA:

Berkeley,

(1979)

Territory Press.

of California

University and M. Macey

R.

appropriation A.

(3): 265-1

C. Weaver

Journal

deficit',

Studies of Common Market of the concept of community:

(JCMS) 45 (1): 23-42. a critique', Community

and Function:

of Regional

The Evolution

Planning,

'The Place of "Faith": Community and Social Cohe (2003) Neighbourhood at on the Association Studies Conference sion', paper presented Housing Community, Neighbourhood, of Bristol, 9-10 Responsibility, University September. and the Remaking S. P. (1996) The Clash Huntington, of Civilizations of World Order, New York, Furbey,

NY:

Simon

&

Huntington, NY: Simon

&

Loney,

London:

of Change,

National

Identity, New

York,

(1974)

M.

Modernism

Anarchy,

(1996)

a radical

Sir Herman

Ouseley, Bradford:

Bradford K.

State,

and Utopia,

New

(2001)

York,

NY:

Basic

and M.

Brake

(eds.)

Books.

in Anderson

not Prejudice:

Pride

Community

in R. Bailey

alternative?'

realities',

'Constructing emancipatory London: Fontana Press.

Reader,

W.

T.

(ed.)

Work

Diversity

Making

The Fontana

Post

in Bradford,

Vision. Community Work: Its Theory and Practice, Buckingham: Open University Press. in N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant, and C. MacCabe (eds.) The Utopias', between and Manchester: Manchester Literature, Arguments Language University

(1995) Analysing

Pratt, M.

L.

(1987)

'Linguistic

of Writing:

Linguistics Press. M.

'Economic

(1996) R.

Putman, Political

Routledge.

'Community development: Edward Arnold. Work, London:

R.

O'Hara,

Pusey,

to America's

Challenges

Parkinson

(1975)

Social

Nozick,

Popple,

The

The Politics

(2002)

Conceptions M.

Mayo, Racial

Are We?

'The significance of neighbourhood', Urban Studies 38 (12): 2103-10. (2001) of Community: Theory and Practice, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. or P. (1984) RAIN action: 13-15. 63: panacea 'Community placebo', M. in Marries P. (ed.) Community and (1983) 'Community against Government', Planning

A.

Lloyd,

Who

(2004)

Schuster.

A. and M.

Kearns, Little,

Schuster. S. P.

(1995)

"Turning and Politics

Science

rationalism

the contest

and

in, tuning out": 28 (4): 664-83.

the strange

for civil

society',

Thesis

Eleven

of social

disappearance

capital

44:

69-86.

in America',

M. and R. Thornton 'The quest for community', in E. Bouzaier and J. Sharp (eds.) The (1998) Ramphele, South African Keywords: The Uses and Abuses of Political Concepts, Cape Town: David Phillip. lost: towards a new understanding of community participation in health S. B. (1996) Rifkin, 'Paradigms Acta 61: 79-92. Tropica programs', 'Educational and discourse communities: in R. M. M. (1998) change change representing Studies 6 (1): 47-67. times', Curriculum postmodern the enterprising and P. Morris self, in P. Heelas Rose, N. (1992) (eds.) The Values 'Governing of the The Moral and New London York: Culture: Debate, Enterprise Routledge. and the Third Way', The American Behavioral Scientist 43 (9): Rose, N. (2000) 'Community, citizenship,

Romero,

1395-411. Sandercock,

L.

Towards

(1998)

Cosmopolis:

Planning

for Multicultural

Cities,

Chichester:

JohnWiley

&

Sons. Sihlongonyane, Mohlakeng Smith, G.

M.

F.

(2001)

(1996) Journal

31

rhetoric

of

in Practice an

elastic

the community 11 (1): 34-44.

bund:

community

in project

management:

in the postmodern

the case

of

city', Community

(3): 250-59.

Development Stacey, M.

(1969)

'The myth

H.

(1961)

'Community

Tinker,

'The

Development 'Ties, nets, and

township',

of community Development:

studies',

British

Journal

a new philosopher's

20 (2): 134-47. of Sociology International Affairs 37

stone?',

(3):

309-22.

146 Development

inPractice, Volume 19,Number 2, April 2009

This content downloaded from 146.141.1.80 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'Community United

Nations

Centre

for Human

Settlements

(UNCHS)

(2001)

The State of theWorld's

I. M. 'The ideal of community and the politics (1990) London: Routledge. Feminism/Postmodernism, M. A. (1995) issues Zimmerman, empowerment: 'Psychological 23: 581-99. Community Psychology

of difference',

Young,

S.

Zizek,

as a buzz-word Cities

Report,

UNCHS.

Nairobi:

MA:

development'

MIT

(1991)

Looking

Awry:

An Introduction

to Jacques

and

Lacan

illustrations',

through Popular

in Nicholson

L.

American

Journal

Culture,

Cambridge,

(ed.) of

Press.

The author Mfaniseni

Fana

theWitwatersrand. within

Sihlongonyane His research

Development

at the University and Planning of and urban studies, development largely

of Architecture

on the interface between

of the political economy of Africa. Contact of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050,

the dynamics

University wits.ac.za>

is lecturer in the School focuses

details:

School

South Africa.

of Architecture

and Planning,