Home About Us Reports Research Paper 2001 The Language of Community in Canada Page 7

About Us

Reports

Research Paper

The Language of Community in Canada

How are communities represented in their interactions with the state and the surrounding society? Who speaks for communities and how do these individuals emerge? [186] Much community development literature presents a common sense approach to answering these questions: community leaders are individuals, it is suggested, who have been members in a community for a long period of time and have been involved in a number of community issues over the years [187] . The characteristics which define a good community leader include a broad and mature perspective, an ability to keep the community focused on the collective mission, and an ability to sustain a sense of community through the implementation of projects and initiatives. [188] While the literature thus describes leadership with relative ease, it is more difficult to describe the complex process of how leaders come into being and how they represent their constituents. As the respondent from an internet community noted: “leadership comes from the strangest places.” [189]

It is, indeed, one of the paradoxes and dilemmas of the literature on community, that while it is the interests of a collective which are at issue, those interests are very often voiced or even determined by a small handful of people, or indeed a single person. Richardson has written: “[The] essential initiative and leadership usually starts with one person, or at most a small group, with the will and the sense of responsibility to try to change their community’s future.” [190] This interesting relationship between individual initiative and group interest was captured by the respondent from the eco-housing community who explained:

One person had the vision to do something different and found out about the cohousing process through a book. We did outreach, got 8 people, and started a joint venture with a developer. [191]

Similarly, the respondents from the injection drug users community-building initiative and the community of sex workers noted:

[All of our work] started from one person in the injection-drug user community who asked for it, and one person…who started funding it under the table. [192]

and

Sometimes people become leaders by joining an existing sex worker organization and taking on key roles and developing new programs. There are also leaders who get known by the broader public, who are asked to speak on issues about the sex trade or speak about sex workers in studies such as this one. I think the people who are most respected and successful as leaders in terms of what they can accomplish could be grouped in all of those categories – they have the respect of individual sex workers, they are involved in organizations, and they are also those who speak out to the public in various ways. [193]

The respondent from the internet community also recognized the central role of a handful of people in creating community:

Leaders are mostly the people who are willing to take the ball and run with it – they create communities and animate them, encourage participation… [194]

This relationship between the broader community and a single person or a handful of committed individuals also pervades the on-going management of community affairs. For example, one respondent who, together with a few other local area parents, started a day-care centre for the children of the neighbourhood, noted that the number of decision-makers leading the centre, must, by necessity, be circumscribed:

There are annual elections of the officers and I believe that they have the motivation and support of the members….. Nine people as members of the board of directors are sufficient in order to have the points of view of a wider group of people represented and to generate new ideas. More than nine, and we wouldn’t be able to make any decisions! [195]

For practical purposes, the respondent emphasized, decision-making must be undertaken by a smaller group. Other respondents echoed this point, such as the person from Cape Breton who remarked that, “though more involvement is always better, we can often get more done with 15 people than we can with 75.” [196]

Conversely, not all members of the community want to be involved in decision-making. The sex worker noted that the number of activists in the community, compared to the overall population of sex workers, constituted a tiny fraction:

In terms of the sex workers rights community, across Canada there are about 10 key people, and there are fewer than 100 people involved in any comprehensive capacity.... The leaders try as much as possible, but it can be difficult because there are such a small number of leaders in relation to a very large community, many of whom do not have formal connections with the formal movement or any interest in it. [197]

In some communities there is fear of involvement. In others, there is simply a lack of motivation. Members must have a reason to be involved or perceive some benefit accruing from their involvement in the public life of the community. As the respondent speaking about internet communities pointed out,

There has to be a practical reason to be online – it’s important in understanding how communities work. With the collective sphere, people need a motivation to enter – that might be that they can collaborate, be better organized – that can have a concrete work impact, which is usually what’s required as a motivator. [198]

If community membership is voluntary and not mandatory or coerced, most individuals will remain passive unless they perceive a concrete need for their participation. Putnam posits that it is in this perception of what constitutes self-interest that distinguishes healthy communities from those which are less successful: “in communities that are rich in social capital, civic norms sustain an expanded sense of ‘self-interest’ and a firmer confidence in reciprocity.” [199] Members in a healthy community have a broader understanding of the benefits from participation, he argues. In such communities, a general public benefit can also be construed as serving self-interest.

Without a handful of active community members to organize and animate the public life of the community, the group can wither. Leaders often fill a role that the community wants and needs but which few individuals are prepared to fill themselves “Usually, if somebody wants something organized, they call one of us - most people just want to show up.” [200] This same state of affairs was reported by our respondent from the isolated rural Saskatchewan town, who commented that once the community elected its leaders, “they pretty much let us do whatever we want. They come to us if there is something crucial to be done.” [201] The absence of these animators may signal the collapse of the community, but conversely, without the community, these active individuals would have no basis for their activity. John McMurray, philosopher of the early 20^th Century, whose work is often cited as a theoretical foundation of ‘third way’ community policies, has illustrated the contradictory role of those who serve:

If we say that goodness consists of serving the community, then everybody must serve. If I want to serve other people, I can’t do it unless they are willing to be served. If everybody is to serve, then there is nobody to accept this service. We cannot be unselfish if nobody is willing to be selfish. [202]

Leaders need members as much as members need leaders. Leaders in communities thus play a sensitive role: they are both animators and representatives, taking initiative yet themselves dependent on a broader constituency without whom they lack the legitimacy to act. They create community and at the same time are accountable to it: they are not acting at their own behest. The respondent from Cape Breton captured this delicate relationship, noting that in this community a workable balance had been struck: “some very strong leaders take the lead – but they get a lot of input from the community. They always see a need for it before they act on anything, so in a sense [the initiative] always comes from the community.” [203]

Where then do leaders come from? In communities where no formal processes of representation exist – and even in those where there are formal processes – the literature recognizes that it is largely through self-selection that leaders emerge in communities. Those who are willing, able and inclined to devote their time and energy to community public life are those who become the community’s representatives.

As one respondent noted, active leadership in the community was a matter of commitment of time, energy, knowledge and expertise:

…people leading the community organizations are the people who are willing to give of their own time, which is a really significant thing… People become leaders simply by jumping in and becoming involved. Some people created their own projects and got involved that way.

Further adding that

It has to do with how many meetings you can stand…. I’ve been in my position for a long time, but it’s an elected position, and any time anybody wants it, they can have it – I’d probably just give it to them. [204]

Similarly the respondent from the internet community commented that:

[it is] important for the leader to have expertise, the ability to provide knowledge, or the ability to encourage it to be provided by others, because right now internet communities are all about words, and you get respect for being smart and helpful – that’s really key… Leaders are those who are confident and smart… [205]

Notably, in much of the literature on community development, the position of ‘community leader’ is seldom associated with an elected official – mayor, councillor or higher-level representative – but rather placed in opposition to official structures. Jane Jacobs has captured this adversarial relationship of community leaders with officials in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities: “Sometimes the city is not the potential helper, but the antagonist of the street, and again, unless the street contains extraordinarily influential citizens, it is usually helpless alone…” [206] When asked who the community’s leaders were, the respondent from Cape Breton, a community development worker, echoed this skepticism of elected representatives:

That’s a tricky question. There are certain leaders in the community development field, such as... [some] Catholic priests [who] have a large say because of the Antigonish cooperative movement. Some say politicians are the leaders, but that’s a whole different story. [Community development leaders] support community projects, see the flaws in the top-down government projects that have plagued the community for the last 70 years. These leaders are in organizations and the organizations have boards... They try not to have typical politicians or other business leaders as board members, they try to have miners, housewives, and small-business owners.

And

We have always made kings out of our politicians … [This reliance on our leaders] can cause a lot of problems because people expect them to do more and more, and people become dependent and passive. [207]

The image of committed individuals drawn from regular life to represent their neighbours and cohorts in finding appropriate solutions for the common good – in contrast to a distant politician – is powerful. The re-jigging of government as a process of tapping into the energies and creativity of active members of the community has become a common theme in outreach materials of government agencies. The City of Toronto promotes civic engagement in city affairs thus:

People want to get involved and have input into decisions that affect their own lives and the strength and vitality of their communities. [208]

Similarly the government of Canada declares its “commitment to ensure and encourage Canadians’ participation in and contribution to Canadian society...” and its desire “to promote citizens’ participation and engagement in Canadian society through volunteering and community involvement.” [209]

Rose has suggested that in this language, leadership and management of community affairs are placed outside of the institutional framework of representative democracy. The effectiveness of the traditional public service is called into question, while the infrastructure of communities is presented as more appropriate for making decisions about public affairs and the disposition of public funds. [210] This infers a profound suspicion of state bureaucracy: civil servants – social workers, land-use planners, public health officers – are no longer perceived to be acting in the public interest, but are, at best, inefficient and inflexible and, at worst, an oppressive force. There is a sense that leaders, drawn from regular life, care more about outcomes; and are more accountable to a constituency which is 'closer to home.’

In reality, the means by which communities are represented and the relationships which civic leaders have with their wider communities are less straightforward. Leaders may not only have the collective interest in mind, but may also act in their own self-interest; individual and group interests may not always overlap perfectly; accountability may be lacking; dissenting voices in the broader community may not be heard. There is no guarantee that individual community leaders will be more responsible or responsive than elected leaders. Cottrell, discussing ethnic communities, posits that while leadership may develop from the ‘grassroots’ as a result of an organic process of a community coming together to express their shared needs, a community may also be the outcome of the entrepreneurial activity of 'elites' who engage in community building for the entrenchment of their own power positions. [211]

This capture of the community’s interest by self-appointed leaders is a phenomenon that is recognized as a problem in community development literature. The ‘do-gooder’ or ‘professional’ community activist, by virtue of her or his greater commitment of time or personal resources, as members of volunteer committees or on community boards, can come to speak on behalf of the entire community:

A well-recognized dilemma is how to move beyond engaging self-appointed leaders and those most vocal within the community to enable widespread participation of the real community…. many community members lack the confidence, self-esteem, skills and resources that professional workers may take for granted. Community development must therefore be viewed as a long-term process. [212]

As mentioned earlier, it is often those people who have the time, energy and capacity who take on the active leadership roles. Not surprisingly, research in the United States has shown that there tends to be a bias in favour of the participation of more affluent individuals in community processes:

Associational ties benefit those who are best equipped by nature or circumstance to organize and make their voices heard. People with education, money, status, and close ties with fellow members of their community of interest will be far more likely to benefit politically under pluralism than will the uneducated, the poor and the unconnected. As long as associationalism is class biased, as virtually every study suggests it is, then pluralist democracy will be less than egalitarian. [213]

 Carothers similarly notes that decision-making processes which incorporate community participation can in fact reinforce bias as articulate and well-placed individuals usurp the process to secure their own interests at the expense of others. [214]

The capture of community interest cannot be prevented through formal controls and is a challenge for the state in structuring relations with communities. There is no way to distinguish, except in each particular circumstance, whether a leader is ‘authentic’ or behaving in her own self-interest. When does altruistic organizing turn into unscrupulous self-aggrandizement? How can accountability be assured? Formalized processes are difficult to instill and, as noted earlier, when put in place such mechanisms often change the very nature of the community in question. As the sex worker respondent noted in her community:

There is no formal mechanism for accountability – except for the handful of organizations incorporated as nonprofits. [215]

The community development literature suggests that it is through greater participation by a greater number of people to generate a wider public discourse in the public realm that shared interests are defined and better served. When more people are involved in public life, extremist views are tempered; a ‘civic middle ground’ is achieved. [216] The more leaders and ‘animators’, the better off the community is.

This notion of a vibrant community being marked by a plurality of voices and a diversity of leaders was underscored by the respondent from the gay/lesbian/transgendered community, who talked about the importance of having leaders drawn from a variety of backgrounds – academia, art, AIDS advocacy, and activism. This respondent further noted that

One of the greatest debates in the gay/lesbian community is who’s accountable and who’s not – how much responsibility should we take for this and how much for that, and so on….There is a recognition that there’s always people on the margins. As long as the debate keeps going on, at least we don’t solidify and say ‘This is the way it is.’ [217]

Similarly, the layers of participation of members of the intentional eco-community reflect the notion that a vibrant community consists of an active membership, engaging in the public life of the collective whether through undertaking seemingly trivial tasks or becoming involved in overtly political processes. The respondent informed us that their community enjoys

Various levels of participation. We all participate in making decisions at the monthly meetings, and co-housing processes are fully participatory in all areas of management and maintenance. Everybody, including the children, participates in maintenance such as gardening, recycling, and painting. A few people take more initiative than others, but basically, with cohousing, the community becomes the leader. Everyone does their part, and a huge abundance of participation is given. We break up into subteams, coordinate those subteams separately, have separate areas. [218]

While the normative ‘pro-community’ literature does highlight this need for widespread participation within the community, an important point that is often overlooked is that this participation consists of internal debates, conflicts, and controversies that shape the community. Breton notes that

The ethnic community is an arena in which rival groups may confront each other over economic interests, political philosophy, organizational prerogatives, social status and whatever resources the collectivity has to offer… [219]

Community does not necessarily suggest cohesion or unity. It is inaccurate to assume that the existence of a community indicates order. Breton notes that the absence of debates and public discourse rather indicates a lack of vibrancy:

Community necessarily involves social and economic differentiation and, consequently, different and more or less divergent interests… when there are no controversies and debates over the state of affairs and possible courses of action, that is when there are no public issues, little is happening in the community… [220]

The divisions and differences existing within community were explicitly recognized by the respondent speaking of the gay and lesbian community. In a community marked by its diversity, the respondent noted that “there is a recognition that there are always people on the margins” and “there are so many different kinds of people in the community.” [221] Debates and controversies are not necessarily negative; the important question to consider when attempting to assess a community’s vigor is how the community manages these public debates and discussions:

Social cleavages and opposition, instead of being considered obstacles to or destroyers of community, should be regarded as essential ingredients of the public affairs of any community… The crux is how they are dealt with that determines the health of a community. Claims of solidarity and 'single community interest' are often made for political reasons, not because of 'reality.’ [222]

This presents, again, another paradox of community: while in each particular case, conflict and controversy can lead to the collapse of a community, from a broader perspective, it is through debate and discussion in the public sphere that communities remain vibrant. Conversely, it is in those groups where there is no debate or public discussion that the community lacks strength. The respondent who discussed the street injection-drug users community illustrated the problems facing a community with a dormant public life. This individual reported that:

One of the long-term goals of my program, my mandate, is to work with people to try to build a community so they become active in it.... When I first was working with the needle exchange, my co-worker and I started a street paper for the community, but nobody wanted to contribute, and we were doing all the writing ourselves. We finally folded the paper. [223]

When there is no news, there is little life.

The conclusion that the hallmark of vibrant community is more active participation by a greater number of members brings us full circle to the language of governance through community which assumes that through activated membership, stronger communities build a positive sense of belonging and connection to society. The work of Robert Putnam promotes this notion, suggesting that the existence of active networks is critical to a community’s success. The network need not be political in the broad sense - focused on influencing decision-making – but he suggests, it is through active engagement in the public sphere that a community is able to engage effectively in public affairs. Putnam writes:

Research has found...that communities with strong social networks and grassroots associations are better at confronting unexpected crises than communities that lack such civic resources... Social capital, the evidence increasingly suggests, strengthens our better, more expansive selves. The performance of our democratic institutions depends in measurable ways upon social capital. [224]

What remains unclear is whether such social capital can be externally generated in communities which lack a vibrant public life. Can the state intervene in communities to engender social capital? It would appear that the task is more difficult than the rhetoric suggests.

The paradox of community activation and animation is that it is the result of individual initiative. While legitimate leaders represent and speak for the interests of people who may otherwise have no voice, the capture of community interest by self-appointed spokespeople or “do-gooders” can also occur. In considering the external intervention in community by the state, it is difficult to protect against this capture of community interest except in particular instances. Formal methods of control for determining ‘authenticity’ are not possible. It is suggested in the literature and anecdotally that a remedy exists in ensuring a multiplicity of active participants, spokespeople, and leaders to ensure public discourse, debate and indeed, conflict, which should not be perceived as negative.

This conclusion closely parallels the arguments of Robert Putnam on the importance of social capital to a healthy community, but there are serious impediments to the state in its attempt to engender such social capital.