Community & Culture

Times have changed. In the past society's perception of community were mainly confined to set geographical areas. When the word community was used (usually as an add-on to another word) it gave an immediate impression of the type of community and in what area it was from. The changes in society due mainly to industrial and technological advances have given rise to much social mobility. Inevitably this led to the breaking up of long established and well founded communities based on geographical areas but also ushered in a new era and new ideas of community. Community in its simplest format is about people and the word community has had to conform just as people have had to to the changes in society. Community is as valid today as it was in the past. In a very complex world it has had to conform and evolve in ways that has caused much confusion and controversy but this is because it simply took on the shape of changing social circumstances of people on the move. This paper will endeavour to examine the concepts of community and culture along with the notions of social capital and cohesion and in doing so it will look at its historical roots to give us a better idea of why there has been so much debate about its validity and its appropriation in today's society. According to Delanty (2003) in his introduction to "Community as an idea" he argues that:

To understand the appeal of the idea of community we need to go far into the early origins of modern thought. According to Robert Nisbet in The Sociological Tradition, 'Much of the reorientation of moral and social philosophy is the consequence of the impact of the rediscovery of community in historical and sociological thought' (Nisbet, 1967, p.53). (Delanty, 2003:7)

To begin with Bell and Newby (1971) take a very grim view of the concepts definition in their introductory statement on "Theories of Community", they state that:

The concept of community has been the concern of sociologists for more than two hundred years, yet a satisfactory definition of it in sociological terms appears as remote as ever. (Bell and Newby, 1971:21)

The word community has its roots in the Latin word 'communis' and according to the online Oxford dictionary is defined as 'a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common'(www.oxforddictionaries.com). There are many differing concepts of community but essentially it is all about people who have a common purpose, may live in a particular area, share similar beliefs and have common interests. Bell and Newby (1971) when answering the question 'what is community' offers the following:

...it will be seen that over ninety definitions of community have been analysed and that the one common element in them all is man!

...community contains some or all of the following: a territorial area, a complex of institutions within an area, and a sense of belonging. (ibid:15)

As a concept the term community can be difficult to define in precise terms because its meaning can be interpreted and appropriated in many different ways depending on one's own personal outlook. It is this aspect that makes the term so controversial. Bell and Newby (1971) make the following observation:

...community tends to be a God word. In many circumstances, when it is mentioned, we are expected to abase ourselves before it rather than to define it. (ibid: 15)

We can find agreement in this regard as the word itself conjures up strong feelings of security and togetherness. The mention of the word brings almost universal agreement and immediately infers a sense of commonality real or imagined. It has that 'God' power that makes one feel the immediate pull of solidarity with your fellow citizens and this in itself is what makes it such a useful tool in the hands of policy makers as observed by Mayo (2000) when citing Williams (1976):

...Williams identified only one common thread in these competing definitions, that communities tended to be used as a 'warmly persuasive word' (Williams, 1976)...this positive glow which has tended to surround the term 'community' may at least help to explain its popularity with contemporary policy makers, despite the range of critics who have challenged its continuing usefulness (Mayo 2000:37)

Hobsbawm (1994) quoted by Delanty (2003) made the point that:

Never was the word "community" used more indiscriminately and emptily than in the decades when communities in the sociological sense became hard to find in real life. (Delanty 2003:3)

This may be so but governments and policy makers know exactly what the word 'community' ignites in people, whether it is imagined or real; it lights up and gives credibility to any new initiative that needs support. This is why it is of such great importance to policymakers and why much emphasis is placed on its appropriation. It may be argued that this 'indiscriminate ' use of the word 'community' is unethical and serves to only further the agenda of the ruling elite to justify and satisfy certain ideological slants. But it may be that these appropriations of the word 'community' serve society in ways that are not empirically evident and that it instils within society a sense of belonging, togetherness, security and cohesiveness. The more and more the word is appropriated whether for bona fide reasons or not, the values and the principles that undergird 'community' are being disseminated and are constantly indoctrinated into the psyche of modern society. In this sense the appropriation of the word has a dualistic effect on society in that on one hand it provides a shared sense of security and belonging in a metaphysical way and on the other hand it provides a positive means of achieving these ideals in a real and physical way through the various funding streams available. Minar and Greer (1968:60) cited by Bell and Newby (ibid) suggests that it is this 'state of mind on the part of its members that binds them together as a community'.

Hamilton in his foreword in Cohen (1985) pointed out that:

'People manifestly believe in the notion of community, either as an ideal or reality, and sometimes as both simultaneously' (Cohen 1985:8)

According to Hamilton there are two elements of the idea of community - 'ideal' and 'reality'. It is quite interesting as well as intriguing to contemplate that people could 'manifestly