Home About Us Reports Research Paper 2001 The Language of Community in Canada Page 3

About Us

Reports

Research Paper

The Language of Community in Canada

Drawing conclusions about the nature of community in Canada is no easy task. The identities, structures and relationships which obtain within and among the groups and organizations in Canadian society who call themselves or are called 'communities' reflect the country's geographic and cultural diversity as well as the evolution of Canadian institutions. “With two founding nations joining our earliest Aboriginal peoples, and with citizens arriving from every corner of the world, there are many ways to be Canadian."[1]

Any exploration of community in Canada must also be undertaken with the awareness that the term is not politically neutral and has taken on important rhetorical meanings in affluent Western democracies in recent years. The idea of community has received renewed attention across the political spectrum as a new locus for political and public engagement: in this new language of governance, community is conceived as a positive force. Partnership with community, building strong communities, participation through community: such phrases which offer a new way of governing ourselves have become commonplace. Community is represented as a means of countering both the stark individualism of a market economy and the bureaucratic facelessness of an oppressive welfare state. Ivan Illich, John McKnight and others have argued that in the post-war years, with the expansion of government into everyday life, a monolithic state turned citizens into 'client populations' who were atomized and disempowered by the very act of having their needs defined by outsiders and experts. [2],[3] Social service institutions removed people's capacity and will to take action singly or jointly.[4] At the same time, the market economy placed individuals into the lonely role of self-interested profit maximizers with no link to a collective or public good. Seeking a remedy, social scientists have reinvigorated the notions of civil society and community: social networks which tie people to each other and “grease” the wheels of the economy and society in a way which the state and the market alone cannot. Wellman notes:

Networks are an important form of social capital in every society, including affluent core Western societies. Everywhere they are an essential way by which people, households, and organizations survive and thrive, along with the more visible means of market exchanges and state distributions.[5]

Similarly, the work of Robert Putnam suggests that communities which possess strong social networks and active membership tend to benefit from higher levels of social trust, are more economically successful, suffer less corruption and enjoy a higher quality of life.[6]

Much of the so-called communitarian work is based on the sociologist’s assumption that no individual exists outside of a social context. Individuals are not isolated beings acting independently on society: “society’s characteristics are not derived from its many individuals, rather the characteristics of the individual are derived from society.”[7] Humans, in short, are the product of their social environment and are formed by the norms, beliefs, traditions, and attitudes of the society which surrounds them. This understanding of the world co-exists uncomfortably with neo-liberal principles based on the primacy of the individual in society and this conceptual divide regarding the role of the individual within the collective is at the heart of debates on the communitarian agenda and the role and rights of communities – as opposed to individuals – within the state.

Charles Taylor, in critiquing neo-liberalism, asserts that the individual is shaped and tempered by membership in community and derives values from that membership: “We-identities are not merely an aggregate of I-identities.”[8] The community whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Etzioni writes that “the social fabric sustains, nourishes and enables individuality rather than diminishes it.”[9] For community to thrive, it does not necessarily require the subordination of the individual to the rule of the collective, communitarians argue, but quite the opposite: it is the breakdown of community which threatens individual freedoms:

The greatest danger to autonomy arises when the social moorings of individuals are severed. The atomization of individuals or the reduction of communities to mobs, which result in the individual's loss of competence and self-identity, has historically generated societal conditions that led to totalitarianism…[10]

It is important to note that the work of many communitarian writers is descriptive not necessarily prescriptive: society functions more effectively, they argue, when individuals are linked into strong, supportive communities. The language of governance through community takes this descriptive analysis a step further: community itself becomes an instrument. Through activating community, a wide range of tasks can be accomplished: building a stronger society and economy, facilitating a better disposition of public funds, combating the ills of modern society from anomie, substance abuse or crime; in short, providing a response to an increasingly bureaucratized, marketized, urbanized existence.[11], [12], [13]

This re-focusing of public policy on community as a target and an instrument has had appeal on both the left and right of the political spectrum. On the left, it is seen as a way to reconfigure the relationship between the individual and the collective to meet the needs of all members of society. In 1995, Tony Blair of the British Labour party, a leading proponent of community-based policies, noted in an interview that: “[it is] the task of the left the whole world over: finding a new relationship between society and individual that moves beyond either old-style collectivism or the crude market dogma of the right”[14] and suggested that “community is an expression of that.”[15] Anthony Giddens similarly argues that community is the key instrumentality for the so-called “third way” politics. In his conception, the inclusion of marginalized members of society in active communities provides a more effective means of eliminating inequality than old-style welfare systems: “active citizenship and an active welfare state are therefore vital to third way politics, as is an insistence on the recovery of community in the arena of civil society.”[16]

On the political right, the language of community is similarly utilized to frame a new form of governance. Empowering communities increases personal responsibility, a sense of committed volunteerism and decreases the role of the central government. Control is decentralized to citizens thereby lessening bureaucratic interference, allowing for greater freedom and accountability.[17] George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” in this way calls for the devolution of resources “not just to states, but to charities and neighborhood healers," [18] and calls for strengthening moral community.

This rhetoric of community thus recasts the relationship between citizen and the state: community becomes the means through which individuals reconnect with a larger society through participation and service, recognizing responsibilities for self and for others. Policies based on these ideas involve more than simply consultation with communities but an active orientation toward strengthening communities as well as contracting with communities for program implementation. In Canada, similar language has emerged at all levels of government – federal, provincial and local – and across the political spectrum. For example, the federal government department, Canadian Heritage, under a Liberal party government declares that

More than ever before, the Government of Canada is pursuing partnerships with other governments, institutions, businesses, associations and community groups. New combinations of partners generate new ideas. Different organizations working together to address common issues strengthens communities. It is through this collaboration that we bridge differences, bring down barriers created by racism, discrimination and hate, and help more Canadians participate fully in our society. [19]

Similarly, Canadian Heritage portrays the aims of the its Community Partnership Program which “supports... the objectives of building community capacity to sustain and promote social cohesion and to help Canadians and their diverse communities to bridge differences and deepen their understanding of each other and build shared values.” [20]

In Ontario, a Progressive Conservative government has adopted the language of community. For example, the aims of The Trillium Foundation, operated under the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Recreation, are so described:

The Ontario Trillium Foundation's focus is the development of a vision which provides opportunity, and promotes both individual and collective responsibility…. We encourage innovation and experimentation, cross-sectoral collaboration, citizen participation, and systemic change…. Today Trillium’s focus is on building healthy, sustainable and caring communities, described in our vision as ‘communities marked by personal contribution, an abundance of accessible activities and services, and deep and respectful public discussion. [21]  

Another program at the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship which directs government funds to support volunteerism is based on the notion that "volunteering helps build strong and prosperous communities." [22]

Similarly, a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta began providing grants in 1999 to non-governmental groups in that province "to enhance and enrich project-based community initiatives...to empower local citizens, community organizations and municipalities to work together in addressing their local and regional needs and priorities." [23] The financial resources for this grant fund are derived from gambling and lottery revenues and the funds are earmarked for projects which improve local parks, libraries, social services, children’s' services, or environmental conditions. Community groups and other non-governmental organizations in this way become responsible for services which were previously under the management of state agencies. State monies are still involved; power, oversight and the process of financing these services has, however, shifted.

Beginning in the late 1990s, similar programming was implemented in both Quebec and British Columbia. In Quebec, in 1995, under a Parti Quebecois government, the Secretariat a l'action communautaire autonome du Quebec (SACA) was established with the express purpose of supporting community groups: “the Secrétariat à l’action communautaire du Québec (SACA) was created by the Government in 1995 to further the recognition of community action. At the same time, the Fonds d’aide à l’action communautaire autonome (fund to assist autonomous community action) was established to ensure year-to-year continuity in community action funding. SACA’s mandate is to facilitate community groups’ access to government resources.” [24] In the year 2000, following a broad public consultation process, an official policy on community support and action was passed in Quebec for the first time. In BC, during the same period, a number of grant programs targeting communities such as InVOLve BC and Community Solutions were operating under the NDP government’s Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers (now disbanded). [25]

Such programming presupposes that community is a more natural site for addressing society’s needs than other traditional social systems or constructs – the nation, the province, the municipality. Community provides a more appropriate way of deciding matters of public interest and meeting the needs of citizens than the structures of government. The experience of the latter half of the 20th Century in affluent Western nations and elsewhere has demonstrated that the claim for community involvement in public decision-making is not only compelling but, more simply, a political reality. The post-war decades saw the expansion of powerful social movements, based in communities, pressuring for more participatory and inclusive decision-making to counter insulated bureaucratic planning processes. Citizens demanded to be involved in determining issues of public interest. Civic advocacy groups questioned the expertise of planners and bureaucrats, and argued for the power over decision-making to be devolved back to the people. [26] , [27] Numerous success stories emerged from the pressure which community-based groups placed on the state to be included in decision-making processes. Toronto's civic organizing in the 1970s against the Spadina expressway is an example: the community movement based in the city’s Annex neighbourhood has been credited with saving the city's downtown and in playing a key role in the revitalization of the city’s centre. [28] Edmonton’s 1995 Boyle-McCauley Area Redevelopment Plan provides a more recent example of community involvement in consultative processes, where community is assumed to be a partner from the outset. It is said to be:

…more than just a good map for bureaucrats. It is the product of two years of community-led consultation and collaboration between often opposing interests. Unlike other city plans, it was drawn up not by bureaucrats but by members of the community. [29]

Putnam asserts that in the United States, "research has found that high levels of grassroots involvement tend to blunt patronage politics and secure a fairer distribution of federal development grants. And cities that have institutionalized neighbourhood organizations, such as Portland (Oregon) or St. Paul (Minnesota) are more effective at passing proposals that local people want." [30] In short, he argues, there is a collective benefit from organized community engagement in public affairs: less corruption, greater transparency, more accountability, and fairer outcomes in decision-making.

The policies of governance through community are based on these positive interpretations of community participation - both in consultation and in the implementation of policy and programming. The assumption is that more involved - and stronger - communities equal better governance, greater prosperity, increased personal responsibility, a core of shared values and a more cohesive society: a wide range of good but often contradictory aims. But what do we mean by 'community'? How is a community defined and by whom? And how, in practical terms, does the state engage with community ?

These are particularly salient questions in the Canadian context. As a vast confederation of provinces and territories; as a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation where immigrant and aboriginal populations co-exist; as a state which is officially bilingual and encompasses two legal systems; as a country which recognizes the right to equal protection and benefit under the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, Canada represents a complex, layered web of intersecting communities which enjoy varying rights and recognition under the law. As Yasmin Alibhai Brown has noted, more than any other western democracy, Canada has supported a diversity of communities within its borders. [31] Community policies now popular in the US and Europe, have, to a certain extent, been implemented in Canada for decades, notably since the establishment of the official multi-culturalism policy in 1971.

It is important to note that the assumptions underlying this language of governance through community are several. First, there is the assumption that ‘community’ in and of itself is good. With this interpretation, community becomes more than a neutral sociological fact, a by-product of human social nature, but takes on a moral aspect. Stemming from this assumption comes the notion that communities are better at managing themselves than the experts employed by the state. The affective bonds and shared values of community members, it is assumed, will create conditions which are more responsive and appropriate to the needs of members. This is one of the fundamental and powerfully compelling underpinnings of classic community-based development approaches “that people are capable of both perceiving and judging the condition of their lives; that they have the will and capacity to plan together in accordance with these judgments to change that condition for the better; that they can act together in accordance with these plans.” [32]

Secondly, inherent in the language of community, is the assumption that group interests are better represented by a member of one's own group – whether defined geographically, ethnically, or on the basis of certain lifestyle traits. This notion has not found direct expression in the Canadian democratic system. There are no seats in parliament ear-marked for certain ethnic minorities or special communities as in, for example, Hungary where “under a 1993 law, Hungary allows for an elaborate system of minority representation at a local and national level.” [33] In Canada, there is rather a notion that community representation can occur by developing systems of participatory democracy alongside and within existing representative systems. The normative community development literature frequently describes how these relations between representative government and communities should work:

Working for a sustainable community has to be a team effort between the people of the community and their governments, municipal, provincial and even federal: but the initiative and the leadership must come from within the community, which best understands its own circumstances and needs. [34]

There is an animated debate in the academic literature about the assumptions underlying the language of community, however. On one hand, there are the compelling arguments about the need to strengthen community networks and ‘social capital’ to restore a healthy and functional society along traditional lines. [35] On the other hand, there are those who claim that community is already alive and well, fluid and functional in the information age. [36] For some, community is the instrument through which social cohesion is built; others lament the fragmentation of society into separately constituted enclaves. Greater involvement of communities in public decision-making processes is, for some, the means to better disposition of public funds, while others express concerns over accountability and legitimacy. Commentators such as Anthony Giddens and Amitai Etzioni argue that in a globalized, multi-cultural world where boundaries are increasingly porous, the notion of community offers a more natural way for individuals to “belong” and to exercise their citizenship and, in turn, for governments to engage with citizens. [37] , [38] On the other hand, critics such as Alan Finlayson and Nikolas Rose counter with the position that the world has not significantly changed and that governance through community, in the wake of neo-liberal policies of recent decades, further marginalizes disadvantaged members of society and serves as a poor alternative to the universality of the “social.” [39] , [40] While community development models, which promote marginalized individuals joining together to take control of their own is evocative, on the other hand community empowerment is criticized for carving up the public sphere.

This paper explores aspects of this debate as it relates to the lived experience of Canadian community members. In Canada – unlike many countries where community rhetoric has recently resonated - pluralism and multi-culturalism are not perceived to be new threats to the integrity or unity of the state but are rather fundamentally imbedded in the country’s sense of itself. In many ways the community-based policies of Tony Blair’s “third way” and George Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” have been in place in this country for years through language, heritage, and health care programming, to name but a few.

B.    Community: A Fuzzy Concept

Despite the repositioning of community as a central theme in political discourse, the term itself is becoming increasingly difficult to define: it spans numerous disciplines and has changed in significance through time. It has meaning for planners, doctors, political scientists and sociologists. As Louis Wirth commented, the term, "like other concepts taken from common sense usage, has been used with an abandon reminiscent of poetic license." [41] This lack of precision of the term is recognized in the community development literature, such that

different people tend to understand the concept of community differently ... a politician may focus on communities defined by political constituencies; an urban planner may focus on communities defined by agreed geographical boundaries; a public health physician may focus on communities of risk groups; and a member of the public may focus on a community or communities of which he or she feels to be a part – whether defined by the local neighbourhood, shared use of facilities or affinity with a particular population group. [42]

And while the message of building strong community has resonated in political campaigns and policy debates, the notion of community has paradoxically been deconstructed along racial, gender, ethnic, spatial and other lines and become less tangible. It no longer means what it once did: a local group of citizens, lead by ‘village elders’ or elites. As the role of women and families has changed and as rights-based advocacy has emerged, community development can no longer assume a common local interest and traditional social structures, but must recognize "more disparate forms of organizing around different identities.” [43]

Critics have argued that the elusiveness of a definition renders the concept meaningless. ‘Community’ can be used by anyone to mean anything. The authors of this study acknowledge these criticisms and respond that while the concept is fuzzy, it is not meaningless. At its most basic level, community is invested with meaning by those people who define themselves as members of a community. The breadth of application is at once its conceptual strength and weakness.

For the purposes of this exploration of community in Canada, the authors have also understood community as a ‘layer’ in society existing between the state and private life. Similar to the related notion of civil society, we understand communities to inhabit the social space between the individual and the society, separate but not existing in isolation from the state. Individuals do not exist in solitude:"a central dimension of 'community' is the existence of a public life beyond the private lives of the individuals, families and small groups that constitute a community." [44] Etzioni posits that communities are more than interest groups or voluntary associations but possess stronger bonds of shared values and affective ties; while this distinction is compelling, often the boundaries are blurry. [45]

In popular usage - and in much of the literature on community development - the term community has come to be synonymous with "benevolent" or "friendly" and strongly associated with middle class values. Communities are places where people greet each other on the street and smile at strangers. Unlike this popular conceptualization, we also explicitly recognize that communities can adhere to repellent values and be repressive and exclusionary in ways that are not in keeping with democratic values.

To explore community in Canada and highlight the arguments and tensions underlying governance based on community, this paper is divided into four sections: people/ place; bottom up/top down; inclusion/exclusion; and participation/representation. These four dyadic themes embody many of the fundamental tensions or contradictions inherent in the current discussions on community. These tensions, in turn, bring into focus the main arguments and paradoxes central to the debate on governance through community.

The background material for this paper has been drawn from academic articles, government documents, case studies, and from the published materials of organizations working in the community development field (see Appendix A for a full bibliography). In surveying these documents, we have attempted to distinguish between normative and descriptive material, recognizing that much of the academic and popular literature on community is written with a bias and sense of advocacy. We have attempted to discern between information that describes ‘that which is’ versus ‘that which should be.’

In addition, the literature review has been supplemented with 10 interviews held with leaders, representatives, and active members of a variety of communities, including ‘traditional’ geographic and other communities which are formed around identity and interest (see Appendix B for a full list of interview respondents). These interviews were not intended to impart quantitative data, but provide in-depth qualitative information to complement the arguments drawn from the literature review and provide an 'insider's' anecdotal perspective on issues that are raised in the literature. [46] The respondents were well-placed individuals in their respective communities – serving as formal or informal leaders or active in community institutions. They were able not only to report on their own experiences as members of a given community, but were also able to comment on the challenges and conditions faced by the community as a whole. Interviews took the form of conversations which covered our major research themes – place and people; membership and relationship with official structures, inclusion and exclusion, and participation and representation (see Appendix C for a full list of questions used to guide the interviews). The structure of the interviews also allowed for emerging issues to be explored.