The idea of ‘community’ has enjoyed many revivals over the years, most recently at the beginning of the pandemic as neighbours looked out for one another, mutual aid groups sprang up and volunteering soared. For many months we witnessed communities in action, with neighbours spontaneously demonstrating kindness, compassion and consideration towards one another.
Collective responsibility was clearly valued at grass-roots level, expressed through a sense of shared belonging and mutual dependency. But its value was also recognised more widely as funders relaxed restrictions and local agencies joined forces to ensure that vital services reached the most vulnerable. Community initiatives to deliver food, contact the lonely and produce PPE were regularly applauded in the mainstream media and by politicians.
However, this celebration of social concern masked the deep divisions exposed by Brexit and is undermined by a continuing libertarian emphasis on individual responsibility, demonstrated in debates about the appropriate response to the public health crisis. The pandemic has exposed the devastation caused by declining public services, alongside stark disparities in opportunities and living conditions. Against a rhetoric of levelling up, ‘left-behind’ communities face increasing difficulties and rising household costs, potentially exacerbated by climate change. And yet many are still organising themselves to provide help, solve problems and challenge injustices.
How can this be sustained? When we embarked on the third edition of the Short Guide to Community Development, we wondered whether we should still use the term ‘community development’. Was this now outmoded? Even ten years ago, when our first edition was published, the term was going out of favour because of its association with programmes that were seen as top down, giving only lip service to community power. Since then, dedicated community development courses have become increasingly rare, while many longstanding infrastructure organisations have disappeared. This is reflected in the appendices of our successive editions. The first listed a wide range of college-based qualifications and community-oriented infrastructure organisations. In the second, the appendix was reduced, reflecting in particular the disappearance of many college-based courses. In the third edition, it has been omitted altogether.
So, are we writing for a diminishing audience? No, because many communities continue to need long-term strategies if they are to flourish and overcome structural disadvantage. While the term ‘community development’ may be less fashionable at the moment, collective action and local empowerment are definitely still on the agenda for funders, policy makers and governments. New infrastructure organisations have picked up the baton, often based on community development principles but sometimes using different or more specific terms: community engagement, community organising, community capacity building, community-asset ownership, community enterprise and so on. There are ongoing commitments in policy and practice to community participation, community-led research, bottom-up development, co-production, local action and the need to develop place-based solutions. College-based community development training can still be found frequently alongside youth work, while new courses are being delivered outside academia – on community leadership, community organising, asset-based community development and so on, often customised – at least initially – for particular models, policy themes and specific networks of activists and practitioners.
We have always seen community development as an umbrella term for a range of practices that are underpinned by principles of collective decision making, mutuality, inclusion, equality and empowerment, many with their own history. Whatever term we use, the need for these approaches is as strong as ever, if struggling communities – whether of place or identity – are really to be ‘levelled up’ rather than left even further behind.
Maybe we could have chosen a more contemporary term to describe our approach; one that would be recognisable to the present cohort of practitioners and future generations of community leaders, organisers and activists. In the end we decided to continue with ‘community development’ to highlight the continuity of a model of intervention that has been adopted internationally, that encompasses most of the models referred to above and that has after all been around for more than six decades.
While acknowledging welcome progress in the field of community development and new enthusiasms, it is important not to be continually reinventing the wheel. Too often, a preoccupation with innovation and ‘new ideas’ obscures past success and fails to acknowledge, let alone build on, what has been learned from previous experience. And there are theories relating to power, efficacy, social capital, equalities and democracy that have informed practice over the years, tested, critiqued and updated. The revised Short Guide discusses these ideas and reflects current models of practice.
We face fresh challenges, of course – in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, population movement, ever-spreading poverty and growing populism, to mention but a few. There are major new social and other technologies at our disposal to tackle these issues, but they too need careful negotiation if they are to shift real power towards communities. Three things are essential in tackling these issues if levelling-up policies and the enduring interest in community-based solutions are to bear fruit.
The first is sustainable investment in community development and assets: after years of austerity, exacerbated by the uneven impact of the pandemic, communities need resources and support to ensure that their voices are heard, can secure local improvements and have real influence over the many decisions that affect their lives. The second is dialogue and participation: if our democracy is to survive, we must create multiple public spaces where different voices can safely be heard, where people can really listen to each other, encounter new perspectives, learn together and find solutions through collaboration rather than conflict. The third is continued cross-sectoral cooperation and networking within the broad arena of community development: competition for funding and the attention of policy makers will not go away, but this must not prevent those who are working with communities and promoting a range of community approaches from joining forces wherever necessary, sharing learning and information, and – most importantly – campaigning together to achieve the goals around which we can all unite.
Alison Gilchrist has worked for over three decades in community development: as an activist, practitioner, trainer, researcher and manager, including several years at the Community Development Foundation. She now works as an independent consultant.
Marilyn Taylor has extensive experience of research and practice in the community development field. She is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of Voluntary Action Research in the UK and Emeritus Professor, University of the West of England.
The Short Guide to Community Development by Alison Gilchrist and Marilyn Taylor is available on the Policy Press website. Order here for £11.99.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 35% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: wildpixel