Concept Analysis Paper on Change, Community and Community Development

Concept Analysis Paper on Change, Community and Community Development

Introduction

This paper aims at providing brief exploration on the notion of change, community and community development. The definition of these is malleable in addition to short and brief analysis characterize the limitation of understanding the complexity of those terms from several perspectives. Essentially, these are neutral terms that open up to different attributing components especially on change and communities. Each is best understood as ideas that embed a continuing process of comprehension; contested, debated and refined to be utilised for the best outcome of human’s survival in relation with nature and between themselves. However, these concepts may swing one’s perception and understanding, either positive or negative, depending agency’s precedence, this short paper offers exploration based on specific intellectual scholarship, the West, excluding other possible narratives derived from local or regional knowledge that may have a share of truth based on their distinct and respective views.

The Concept of Change

There is no universal definition on the term since there is no single form and one type of society. Change is partly considered as a form of accommodation to realities, for example, political, social and cultural changes, means that people or communities (individual and institutions) are considerably forced to be flexible and adaptable (Brokensha & Hodge 1969). Krznaric (2007) suggests at least four aspects in defining the idea of change or ‘how change happen” across disciplines consisting agency, instrument, context, and process in questions form that may navigate understanding on change. In human geography and environmental geography perspective, change is perceived through how human shape environment and vice versa, both as individual and as human societies (p. 22) or as a process of learning, co-transformation reconstituting the world, comprising human and more than human (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink 2009). 

The need for a change can be perceived as having a better life from the voices of the poor although their multiple dimensions of deprivation may require multiple interventions, thus, acknowledging issue such as power, providing voice and priority to achieve what they perceive as a better life by empowering them with freedom to choose and act (Narrayan, et al 2000). Sen presents framework of Capabilities Approach to address issue of poverty, inequality and human development emphasizing on choice (freedom) and participation (empowerment-power shifting) to initiate change (Clark 2005a). Both are crucial for change which can be exemplified with the choice of social activists and civil society (Green, Mercer, & Mesaki 2012), Non-Government Organisations, Faith Based Organisations (Clarke & Ware 2015) to be outside the system in an attempt to make changes. The freedom to choose is also applicable for individual or community context, the freedom to change their ‘disadvantaged,’ ‘underdeveloped,’[1] ‘oppressed’[2], ‘discriminated,[3]’ ‘marginalised[4]’ conditions. Conceptually, as Clark (2007) infers, Sen’s capability refers to ‘to function’ means human functioning to approach commodity or ‘commons’ is differ and this may require participation of individuals in community to acknowledge sense of power dimension to change. The essential of Sen’s approach to change is to reflect on what people are truly able to and capability to do, rejecting the focus on commodities and their utilities (Clark 2005b). In addition, the need for a change is sometimes realized when commons that have been taken for granted become diminished, close to extinction and degraded and potentially affect the survival of human as species on earth (Gibson-Graham, et al 2013, Gibson-Graham & Roelvink 2010). The realization of possible loss eventually triggers sense of caring and responsibility, as a choice or freedom, to instigate change through participation as individual or as a hybrid collective.

Community

Although labelled as an ambiguous concept, social scientist consent community as a constructed social reality that is based on social interaction and negotiation (Mannarini & Fedi 2009) that shape sense of togetherness or beings in common (Welch & Panelli 2007). This definition refers to the nature of human as entity in which individual still persistently seek for shared values, high degree of interaction, similar interest and identity that could be found on restricted circumstances or collectivities (Mannarini & Fedi 2009, p.212). However, critics argue that the current definition of community based on set of assumption of values, norms and individualistic nature of modern societies, ignoring locality division such as race, gender and class (Robinson & Green 2011).  Nevertheless, those psychological desires shape sense of power in the form of sense of solidarity (Bhattacharyya 2004, p.11-12) and sense of significant, as two fundamental elements of community, that emphasise on how the members of the group themselves feel. In this sense, boundaries are clear in perceiving individual as autonomous, separate and atomized entity and community as embedded selves that embraces collective identity, determining the self and the others (Lesbirel 2011)[5].

In another perspective, the term should be a seen as a concept that in need of modifier to serve a greater effect such as ‘imagined community’, “organic community”, “inoperative community” or “the little” communities’ rather than described as entities at various scales and meaning such as white communities, indigenous community, environmentalist community simply refer to place one’s belong (Williams 2002). In a different view, community may become modifier such as the idea of community economy[6] where individual’s responsibility and commons interconnected with another and how a defined “we” inversely constitute and interdependent (Gibson-Graham, et al 2013), borrowing Nancy’s concept of being singular plural. In this sense, community is seen as in constant shift and incomplete phenomenon; inoperative (Welch and Panelli 2007).

Nancy rejects community as construction, an idealized unity of common beings and experience because community is inaccurate joint beings who has singular finitude experience and understand variously the need of being in commons (Panelli and Welch 2005). This emphasie on “being with others” means of continual cross referencing, rejecting self and the other as dichotomous or subordinate, but rather as co-existence and co-constitution process (Welch and Panelli 2007). This ontological view influences geographical perspective in the approach of learning together as hybrid collectives and more than human actants to transform and reconstitute process of the world producing so called economic ethics for the Antrphocene (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink 2010) that offers four econo-sociality ethics; common, consumption, necessity and surplus (p. 331-335). Hence, it is interesting to observe Nancy’s post structural approach in defining community has been adapted into more lenient approach toward current economic development. To conclude, it seems that there are two main mainstream in understanding community, one in favor of structuralist approach while the other leans toward a ‘deconstructed’ paradigm that derives from post-structural and post-modernism thoughts.

Community Development

In the beginning of community development as a discourse or as a practice, there was a confusion or problem to define the concept. As Bhattacharyya (2004) states, from 1960-1990s, several scholars offered arguments, for example any claim using community development approaches will acceptably be considered legitimate contribution. He further cited several authors who suggested that the definition reflected as premature closure, no definite explanation, since one’s free interpretation affects one’s orientation to initiate community development depending who practicing it, and even interchangeably regarded as community organisation, from social work perspective (p. 6-9).

After the 1990s, considered as a more viable, sustainable and an alternative approach of development, community development, in nature, is considered as a resentment towards mainstream western-dictated modernization and globalization establishment that is evidently fail in creating harmony between human and environment and between human beings. A critiques, specifically on the term of development, as a bigger concept, is worth abandonment since its deceiving positive implication in reality means justification of exploitative activities driven by greed, or as a “general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations in to increase the production of commodities” (Rist 2007, p. 488). He further argues that planet’s survival relies on disbelief of deep rooted economic growth is capable of bringing social justice, fair exploitation of environment, and improve human well-being.

In this regard, community development embeds resistant act towards neo-liberalism and neo-colonialism, imagining ‘another world is visible’[7] with a community based approach. This idea of change embraces local knowledge, culture, skills, resources and the importance of process entailing deliberative and participative democracy by challenging individualistic and consumeristic promotion (Ife & Tesoriero 2006). Although community development’s purpose is the pursuit of solidarity and agency by adhering to the principles of self-help, felt needs and participation, community development essentially still has to address macro factors above while engaging microenvironments because local challenges may appear as manifestations of bigger problems that are likely in need of political action, and networking among community organizations (Bhattacharyya 2004). For example, Asset Based Community Development focuses on social assets such as social capital and individual talent to form association and networking, local and informal in nature (Mathie & Cunningham 2003). The concept aims at strengthening the capacity of people as citizens, by building sense of community o claim their rights of access to assets on which they depend for their livelihood may have to perform political advocacy to enhance their livelihood sustainability.

This bottom up approach implies the limit of ‘normal’ approach that constitutes the nature of power relation between the ‘uppers’ and lowers,’ in need of shifting power paradigm (Chambers & Pettit 2004), ‘power to empower’ as a win-win approach (Chambers 2006) that offers a framework power over, power to, power with, and power within (VeneKlasen, et. al 2007, Cahill 2008). This Sen’s influence challenges elites’ world view on economic development and implicate that democratic in growth strategies freedom is possible (Evans 2012). There are five categories of instrumental freedom that may contribute to the expansion of human capabilities such as political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency and protective security (Sen 1999). To sum up, this idea represents well-being of those in the bottom class of society, not those on top.

These ideas are strongly related with the previous institutions I engaged with, one on the issue of gender; domestic violence and while the other focuses on law and government. Change is the basic component that is expected for the targeted groups such as victims of violence, perpetrators, male, and young judges. These communities are constructed by various components such as identities, norms and values, cultures, and regulations. Former institution implies the use of bottom up approach, empowerment and participation as the core driving values to ‘develop’ their situations in terms of cognitive, awareness, self-empowerment through self-realisation (interactive learning between themselves) and contextual change (social learning) to possibly alter public policy through participatory approach and/or assets based approach. Engaging violence victims to participate is less complicated compared to persuade men to engage in the fights of domestic violence since religious and patriarchal values are strongly intertwined in shaping their perceptions viewing domestic violence reality in the society. On the other hand, the expected outcome from empowering judges through both top-down and bottom up approaches are considered appropriate by involving authoritative structural components where intellectual engagement between ‘superior-inferior’ may instigate a more directive approach. At the same time, through focus group discussion and based on case studies, understanding reality in the lowest part of society could strengthen in the implementation judges code of ethics and quality verdicts.

Concluding Remark

The ideas of change, community and community development are terminologies used across disciplines. It seems that there has been a strong debate especially on the philosophical aspect. Each definition and conception implicate perception on how strong a discourse can be. It embeds power dynamic and power relation in text internally and externally. Discourse cannot exist per se, it correlates with other discourse to understand meanings of concepts in discipline inquiries. Exploring the concept change, community and community development offers an intellectual engagement in binary opposition; governmentality vs locality, top-down vs bottom-up, modernism vs post modernism, structuralist vs post structuralist, equity vs inequity, equality vs inequality, and problems vs opportunities. No matter how complicated the concept is, the wisdom in understanding those terms is very likely to influence one’s approach in doing community-based initiatives for development purposes.

References

Bhattacharyya, J. 2004, "Theorizing Community Development", Community Development Society. Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 5.

Brokensha, D.W. & Hodge, P. 1969, Community development: an interpretation, Chandler Pub. Co.; distributed by Science Research Associates, Chicago, San Francisco.

Cahill, A. 2008, "Power over, power to, power with: Shifting perceptions of power for local economic development in the Philippines", Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 294-304.

Chambers, R., 2006. “Transforming power: from zero-­‐sum to win-­‐win?”, IDS bulletin, 37(6), pp.99-­‐110.

Chambers, R. and Pettit, J., 2004. Shifting Power to Make a Difference1. p.137, in Groves, L.C. & Hinton, R.B. 2004, Inclusive aid: changing power and relationships in international development, Earthscan, London; Sterling, Va.

Clark, D. 2005a, The Capability Approach: Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances, Global Poverty Research Group, GPRG-WPS-032, http://www.gprg.org/pubs/workingpapers/pdfs/gprg-wps-032.pdf

Clark, D.A. 2005b, "Sen's capability approach and the many spaces of human well-being", The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1339-1368.

Clarke, M. & Ware, V. 2015, "Understanding faith-based organizations: How FBOs are contrasted with NGOs in international development literature", Progress in Development Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 37-48.

Evans, P. 2002, "Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen's development as freedom", Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 54-60.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., Cameron, J. & Healy, S. 2013, Take back the economy: an ethical guide for transforming our communities, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Green, M., Mercer, C. & Mesaki, S. 2012, "Faith in forms: civil society evangelism and development in Tanzania", Development in Practice, vol. 22, no. 5-6, pp. 721-734.

Graham, J.K.G. & Roelvink, G. 2010, "An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene", Antipode, vol. 41, no. s1, pp. 320-346.

Ife, J.W. & Tesoriero, F. 2006, Community development: community-based alternatives in an age of globalisation, 3rd edn, Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.

Krznaric, R. 2007, How Change Happens : Interdisciplinary perspectives for human development, Oxfam GB Research Report, February 2007, viewed on 10 September 2016, <http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/how-change-happens-interdisciplinary-perspectives-for-human-development-112539>

Lesbirel, S.H. 2011, "Project siting and the concept of community", Environmental Politics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 826-842.

Mathie, A. & Cunningham, G. 2003, "From clients to citizens: Asset-based Community Development as a strategy for community-driven development", Development in Practice,vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 474-486.

Narayan, D, Chambers, R, Shah, M.K, Petesch, P, Voices of the Poor: Crying out for Change, Oxford University Press.

Panelli, R. & Welch, R. 2005, "Why community? Reading difference and singularity with community", Environment and Planning A, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1589-1611

Rist, G. 2007, "Development as a buzzword", Development in Practice, vol. 17, no. 4-5, pp. 485-491.

Robinson, J.W. & Green, G.P. 2011, Introduction to community development: theory, practice, and service-learning, SAGE, Los Angeles

Veneklasen, L., Budlender, D., Clark, C. & Miller, V. 2007, A new weave of power, people and politics: the action guide for advocacy and citizen participation, 2nd edn, Practical Action Pub, Bourton on Dunsmore, Warwickshire, U.K.

Williams, B. 2002, "The Concept of Community", Reviews in Anthropology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 339-350.

---

[1] The term is famous by Truman’s presidential inaugural speech in 1945.

[2] The term used by Paulo Freire in his work, “the pedagogy of the oppressed.”

[3] Usually refers to class, race and gender discourse.

[4] Mainly used in addressing gender inequalities and minorities discourse.

[5] He introduces the term of vertical community and horizontal community using political boundaries.

[6] An economic ethic emerging among hybrid collectives that have learned to be affected by the conditions of the Anthropocene.

[7] World Social Forum slogan.