Community Development

1. Community Development Aiden Lloyd

2. Why community? • Integrated life is a balancing of individual freedoms, mutuality* and obligations • Explained by Ferdinand Tonnies - Gesellschaft (deliberative will) and Gemeinschaft* (essential will) • Emphasis gets shaped up by various factors - historical events, religion, institutions, culture etc • Could categorise Europe as sub-divisions of Catholic; Protestant; Ex-Communist; Anglo-Saxon - these may explain diverse emphasis - e.g. acting in communion, individual responsibility, common good, rational self expression • These factors help to explain why different approaches to social change developed across Europe (and wider)

3. Community - what is it? • No agreed definition – most often associated with place but can also be community of interest i.e. defined by common circumstance (poor or unemployed) or ethnic identity (Roma) • Especially true in modern times. We are all members of different communities – a community of community workers, may also be gay, Black, a woman or migrant etc.

4. Community - a good thing? • Can be good or bad – not always positive, can be reactive e.g. racism or anti-immigration • 1930s depression brought about lots of social mobilisation – lot of this channelled into frameworks constructed by fascist, national socialist organisations – need to prevent a repeat! • So, collective action needs to be wrapped in a coat of principles – social justice, equality, participation etc – that would be true of the forms of social organising that we are discussing this week

5. Community development - origins Cooperative movement, decolonisation and nation building processes - self help model – communities provided ideas and labour, state provided funding ‘..a partnership of the people and government for the common good..’ UN Geneva 1959 • Onset of social work in post industrial UK society – began to develop collective ways to meet individual needs – CalousteGulbenkian Foundation study 1968 - described the emergence of community work as collective action for social change, composed of a task and a process • A particular influence was lessons brought back from missionary/development work - liberation theology (that love has a material dimension) – Freire: developing critical consciousness then able to challenge their inherited subordination

6. Community Development - definition 'Community development is a developmental activity composed of both task and process. The task is the achievement of social change linked to equality and social justice, and the process is the application of the principles of participation, empowerment and collective decision-making in a structured and coordinated way.’ • A balance of knowledge, skills and values • Community worker is expected to lead out a developmental process – develop an analysis to inform action, this triggers 2 things • Able to develop objectives and strategies to move from the real to the ideal • Can then initiate a process of analysis and the application of the praxis: action – reflection – better informed action

7. Distinguished by principles and characteristics • Commitment to social justice, equality, inclusion • Task and a process – need a material gain, but process of collective action is what differentiates community development • Participative – a learning and sharing paradigm, does not hoard knowledge. Might be slower process but it ends up being better targeted, durable and sustainable • Empowering – liberating,challenges false consciousness. Also about passing on skills through mentoring – many community workers began as participants • Inherent tension - shakes up the landscape because it is critical and oppositional by nature – • Not offending anybody? Not being effective!

8. Development • CD has changed or been adapted to meet different contexts, different needs ...or to deliver different policies for the state (return to this) • Originally self help, quite conservative, no reflection of structural nature of inequalities (some return to this with Asset Based Community Development) • EU Poverty Programmes were catalyst for more political analysis – idea of rupture in social solidarity – social exclusion –forced a focus on power, distribution, participation and decision making – not sustained • Strong indications that state wants to incorporate the community sector to deliver its welfare services – diverting it from focusing on power differentials and redistribution

9. Case study • CD operates at 2 levels – neighbourhood and policy level – not exclusive • Ireland espoused transformation/social inclusion - space between revolutionary struggle and ‘developmental realism’ or evolutionary change • Social partnership was policy interface mechanism – CD infrastructure developed at this level – assumption that conditions for change were in place

10. What transpired? • Community sector not regarded as equal partner – small concessions – no power • Despite huge growth inequality worsened • Judged against big indicators – income, health, education, life chances etc – there were no gains • Was the ideal wrong? Not possible? Was implementation/organisation the problem? Or was it that needed to be part of a wider movement for change? • Social movement gaining some momentum in Ireland, as elsewhere

11. Lessons • Community development gives expression to needs of marginalised, addresses a democratic deficit – some success but needs to be seen as part of series of social change mechanisms – provides evidence to policy makers, brings issues to media, part of broader social movement for change etc • State forcing NGO sector towards a service delivery role in Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence - CD moves people closer to services, lot of instrumental use by service delivery agencies but does not alter the root causes of inequality

12. Challenges • Cannot separate community development from the context it operates in. European project is in crisis - departed from the Delours’ vision – strong neo-liberal forces at play –primacy of market – reduction of democracy and welfare state • How can we be creators of our own destiny if we cannot have a say? – need to drive out the participatory democracy argument • Need to have a say in the funding mechanisms, develop an economic dimension to our work or create our own funding sources