Theorizing Community Development by Jnanabrata Bhattacharyya by Alberta Council for Global Cooperation

Journal of the Community Development Society

Vol. 34

No.2

2004

THEORIZING CO DEVELOPMENT By Inanabrata Bhattacharyya ABSTRACT Th is paper attempts a parsi mon io lls defi ni t ion of comm uni ty deve lopmell i. It proposes tha t the pu rpo se o f communit y deve lopment is the purs uit of solida rity and agency by adhering to the principles of self-hel p . felt needs and participation . T he erosion of solidari ty and agency has been a h is to ric process. conn ected part icularl y to the ri se of industria l capital ism . the nation-state. and instrumental reason . Exa mples o f communit y development practi ce as a positive response to the erosion are g iven from the fiel ds of publi c healt h. violence. micro-economic development. and food. It al so argues that "place" as a proxy for communit y has become conceptuall y as well as practi cal ly inadequate. and that e ffecti ve community deve lopment call s for mi cro-macro coordination . Keywo rds : com mu ni ty development theory. se lf-h elp. felt needs, particip<l1ion. solidarity. agency

INTRODUCTION Thi s paper submits a theoreti ca l framework for the practice of community development. intended to help to distingui s h the fi e ld from other re lated endeavors.lt perhaps goes without saying that it sho uld be read as one person's idea of co mmunity deve lo pme nt , although its debt to numerous authors should be evident tl1roughout the paper. [n an earlier exe rci se (Bhatlacharyya. 1995) I had proposed that community development is d ifferent from other endeavors in that it aim s at building solidarity and agency by ad herin g to three practice principles , namely, se lf-he lp. felt needs, and part ic ipation. That paper has been received in commun ity development and related fields with interest. Among other reaction s, it was utili zed as a sprin gboard fo r d iscuss ions at the 2003 Co mmunity Developme nt Theory Retreat at the Ta ughannock Farm Inn in Trumansburg , New York. This paper reflects my response to some of the feedback r rece ived at th e Retreat , as we ll as my continuing e ngage ment with th e s ubject while iteratin g the earl ier proposit ion. I I di sc uss some of the de finitions of com munity development of the last fo rt y years to show the continuing need for a more ri gorou s definition. I have suggested that the purpose of community development should be seen as different bOlh from its methods and the techniques to implement the methods. I have argued that place or locality often used in community deve lopment literature as a proxy for communit y has become or is Jnanabrata Bhattacharyya , Emeri tus Associate Professor. Dcpat1ment o f Pol itical Science. and Director ( 1984- 1994). Depat1 mell t of Commu nity Development :It Southern Illinois Universi ty al Carbondale . Email : jn:lll_bh;lItacharyya@yahoo .com

Journal oj the Community Development Society

beco min g analytically irrelevan t and practically inadeq uate. Finally, I have put forward the notion that in centralized states co mmunity deve lopment practice al the micro level increasingly calls fo r mac ro leve l intervention as wel l. l begin with a di sc ussion of the problem of bound ing the field of communit y develo pme nt.

The Problem of Defining Communit y Development A theory of co mmunity development w il l define the concept and del ineate the c haracteristics of its practice . It wi ll demarcate the field from other endeavors in clear and unambiguous term s. But in community development literature suc h a theory is ge neral ly no t avai lable. Wh at preci sely is community deve lopme nt? Wh y is engaging in it important? And where docs it stand in relation to other practical as we ll as academic endeavors? T hese are questions that have bee n rare ly posed and d isc ussed. There ha s bee n, histori call y, a reluctan ce to define the concept. "[FJor the present. all approaches which claim to be Community Development be accepted as legi timate contributions," thu s recom mended William Biddle in 1966 (p. 12). Four years later, Lee J. Cary (1970) warned aga inst""premature closure." Nea rly a qua rt er ce ntury after that , Christenson and Robinson (1989, p . 14) said mu ch the same thing: "[DJefinitions of co mmunity development are not clear-cut, how one interprets comm unity development affects one's orien tati on when initiating a development program." Deni se and Harris ( 1990 , p. 7) expressed sim ilar se nt iments: "Thi s co ncept [comm uni ty development] is as vari ed in defini tion as those who profess to practice it." Many who call the mselves co mmunity developers can perhaps do so because th e fi eld is unfenced; if it became fe nced, they wou ld be obli ged to go their separate ways, or retrain. The ri sk of exclusi vity is probably real. but if the adhe rents the mselves do not defi ne the field, othe rs will (as they have) and not necessaril y to thei r advantage. For instance, a widely he ld belief in the U.S. and e lsewhere is that community deve lopment is the same as "community orga ni zati on" (CO ), a specialty in Social Work , or o nl y a part of thi s specialty. Especiall y since the 1968 publication of Jack Rothman's "Three Models ojCollllllullilY Organizalion Practice ," co mmun ity deve lopment has been viewed by many as Locality Development , which is one of the three mode ls. Rothman's art icle exerted a profound influence on the defin ition of co mmun ity deve lopment , in part because its pub lication coincided w ith the establ ishme nt of co mmunity development g raduate programs in the U nited States, and it ca me in handy. Without much reflection, com munity de velopment prac titione rs inte rpreted CO or only Locality Develo pment as com munity deve lopment. Rothman 's artic le and , later, Social Work tex tbooks on CO (e.g., Kramer & Specht , 1969; Cox et aI., 1974) were also the tex tbooks for introdu ctory cou rses in comm un ity development graduate programs. The fie ld was th us allowed to be defi ned by Social Workers. By adopting these textbook s. academic community developers legitimi zed th e locality development derinition whil e never ceasing to protest

Bhattacharyya

that in some inarticulate way community development was different from CO and Soc ial Work. Lee Ca ry, the fo undin g pres ident of the Co mmunity Development Society, reinforced th is definition. In hi s keynote address to the 1982 meeting of the Illinois State Chapter of the Commu nity Development Society, he had observed in reference to Rothm an's article that "the first model of practjce is identified as locality developmel11 , what we would refer to as co mmunity development."

Certainly, co mmunity development is not lack in g in "definitions." Indeed a surfeit of statements purporting 10 be definitions have been published each sli ghtly differently worded in an idiosyncratic frenzy with no ex planation as to why the particular terms were chosen. (For a co mpre he nsive list of such de finitions, see The Handbook of Community Developmefll, co mpiled by the Department of Community Development , University of Missouri-Columbia, n.d.). Two observations need to be made about most of these definitions: first, they are conceptually vag ue, and , second , they have a tendency to conflate place with community. Ju st to illustrate the point, let us scrutini ze the definition in Community Development in Perspective edited by Christenson and Robin son (1989). It was published wi th the endorsement of the Com munity Development Society, and it has been fairly influential. Under " Major Concepts" (pp. Sff.), the editors observe: "Community development enco mpasses a loosely tied group of concepts based o n the experiences of community development practitioners." (p.5) That is, community development is what community developers do. But how do we identify a community development practitioner? This is a circular definition.

Problems Defining Community The e ditor s th e n offe r c larifi cation s of the meaning o f com munity, development, social change,com munity developme nt , and related co ncepts (pp. 6ff.) . They no te that today: Places of work, of commerce, of recreation, and of slee p are often miles apart, perhaps communiti es apart . Yet no matter how complex com muniti es have become, the need to understand and to be able define com munity is stiJi of criti cal importance to comm unity developers . Most of our meaningful interactions take place in a defined spatial area. Most of us li ve; work; attend church; send our chi ldre n to sc hool; drive o n the sa me roads ; complain about the sa me traffic problems ; and buy groceries. gas, and clothing in a general locality. neighborhood or community. (p. 6 , em phasis added). Reading the first sentence c losely, they state that places of work, recreation, reside nce, etc. are far from one another. Then, they confuse the iss ue by sayi ng that most of our meaningful interactions take place in a "defined spati al area ... a general locality, neighborhood or co mmunity." We can as k, what is this defined spatial area, especially sin ce places of work , co mmerce, recreation, and sleep are far fro m o ne another? What princi ple or criterion defines it?

JourI/al of the Community Developmeflt Society

In th e nex t parag raph , the e ditors use th e ex press io n community or neighborhood introd uc in g new ambig ui ties: In short , a community or ne ig hborhood can ex ist with close linkage to the large r soc iety and still retai n its identity a nd viability because it provides a bas is for the local popul ati o n to e ngage in community ac ti ons." (empha sis added). Here again we need to as k, what is local? Leav in g as ide the substanti ve po int o f thi s paragraph wh ich is highl y de batable (J anow itz , 1978 ; Be llah et aJ. , 1985) , it appea rs th at th e auth ors attempt to sli de from general locality th roug h neighborhood into community . T hi s paragraph is devoted to considerin g th e re levance o f place or territory to the concept o f commu ni ty. T he editors point out di sagreeme nts among writers on thi s issue. But instead o f confrontin g the di sagree me nts with one another in o rder to reconcile o r sy nthes ize the m or eve n to side wi th one of them . they pere mptoril y declare: The editors o f thi s book think th at spatial bo und aries are an integral part of co mmunit y and that most soc ial interacti ons take pl ace within defi ned and prox im ate spati al li m its. Consequ entl y, pl ace or territory is co ns idered a second componen t of our de finit ion.(p. 14). What are "defi ned spatial limits" ? What is prox imate in the days of fast transport ? Another exampl e of c irc ul ar reason ing - and imprec ision - is in the ir di sc ussio n o f the "fo urth e lement" o f comm un ity (pp. 7-8): The fourth e le ment of com munity is the idea of commo n attac hment of or psycholog ical identification w ith a comm un ity. Most peop le are able to g ive you the name of the co mmunit y in which they li ve. People become dependent o n a part ic ul ar locality for the purchase o f goods and services , fo r recreati on, for empl oyme nt , and for soc ia li zi ng. T hi s locality is what most people identi fy wi th as comm uni ty. Instead o f defining co mmu nit y, the stateme nt presupposes it and specifies one of its features (attachme nt , identifi cation). The difficu lty continues with " People become dependent o n a part ic ul ar comm unity ... " This thoroughl y contradi cts the prior observati o n (p . 6) th at "Places of work , of co mmerce, of rec reation, and of sleep are often mil es apmt , pe rhaps co mmunit ies apart." Now people are depe ndent o n "a parti cu lar comm unity." And , in the nex t sentence , locality becomes co mmunity, w ith no explanati on .

Confusion about the Definition of Community Development A s imilar criti cism can be made of their treatme nt of the de finitio n of communit y development (pp. J 1- 14). After li stin g a number of definiti ons of co mmunity development they propose one of their ow n (p. 14): "a group of people in a locality init iating a social acti o n process (i.e. , plann ed intervention) to change the ir econo m ic, social, cult ura l, and/or e nviron me ntal s ituatio n ." It

BhattachQlyya

may be recalled that the te rm local ity and its relation to neig hborhood , place, or community were left in a state of co nfusion; now in this definition it occ upies a vital place. Also, why is poiilicalleft o ut from the series? This definitio n no morc and no less th an the othe rs they have c ited is vag ue and arbit rary. There is no particular impetus for c hoosing one set of terms over another. But all this discussion of community developmen t definiti o n is re ndered pointless by the concl us ion of this sec tion (p . 14) , whi ch I have already signa led: " In short , definitions of commun ity development are not clear-cut , an d how one interprets community develo pment affects one's orientat ion when initiating a development

program." So an ything goes? It is another way of say ing that, accord ing to them , community developme nt is not de finable . Much the same can be said about the work of Deni se and Harri s ( 1989). They write in the Introducti on (p. 7), "Thi s concept [community developme nt] is as varied in defin ition as those who profess to pract ice it." As evidence, they note that the 22 auth ors in Christenso n and Robin son (1989) each had de fined the tenn diffe rentl y. They then add one of the ir own . Thus , a community is " a collectivity of people, who can be identified geographically, who have so mething in co mmo n which unites them in act io n .... Such a definition includes micro communiti es (special interest groups , neighborhoods, subd iv isions, vi ll ages, towns, etc.) as well as macro communities (c it ies , mega lo polises, areas, regions, states , nati ons, international alliances, and global humanity)." Like Christen son and Robin son, Denise and Harri s co nclude: We be lie ve that com munity development sho uld be so defined as to encompass the wide spectrum of beli efs of those who practice it. Therefore, to the editors, th e " field of com munity deve lo pment" co ntains numerous approaches to commu nity deve lopme nt with d iffe ring va lu es, beliefs, goals, purposes, and methods - all of which are concerned w ith improve ment of the comm unities (p. 7). What is not an approach to co mmunity development, the n? Every sociall y approved occupati o n exis ts because it is tho ught to contribute to co mmunity impro veme nt. If co mmunity developme nt is to be recognized as a distinct academic/profess ional field , then an all-encompassing concept is not going to accomplish it; not everything lhal co ntributes to community improvement can be claimed as co mmunity develo pment. To define, after all, is to set limits. A conce pt of community de ve lopment mu st sati sfy two conditions. First, it mu st be di stincti ve in its purpose and in its methodology. Second , it must be uni versal in scope: it must be applicable to all types of social formations, urban as well as rural , post-industri al as we ll as pre-ind ustrial , to sede ntary as well as nomad ic po pulations . Our task therefore is to construct an unambig uous reference point to g uide community development acti vities and to determine if certain activities fall within the o rbit of community development. Such an attempt is made in the next section .

JOllm al oj the Community Developmellf Society

A Theory of Community Development It is necessary at the ourset to ex plain what I mean by theory. There is a widespread mi sconception that only explanations can be theories. In hard sciences, theories or laws are indeed ex planations; they claim to explain how a phenomenon

occ urs and make predictions on the basis or that. BUl theories ca n also be te leological - c harters for action towards a goa l, such as theori es of democracy, freedom, equality, etc . where the purpose or the end reflex ive ly enters the causal stream , urging, when necessary, modificat ion of our action. The pUfJXJse of building a rocket , fo r instance, cannot do that ~ it can not alter the laws of physics. Democratic theori es are not like the laws of physics. They are no t ex planations but they elaborate a vis ion of a kind of soc ia l order. A theory of communi ty deve lopment is of thi s kind. It advocates a partic u lar kind of soc ial o rder and a particular methodology for gell ing there. How children learn is a matter of expl anation , but " No Chi ld Left Behind" is not a matter of exp lanation but a goal to be attained, which caJi s for changes in the way we manage ou r sc hool ed ucatio n. We assess the quality of a teleolog ica l theory by the reasonableness (to us) of its assumptions or va lue prem ises (e.g .. We ho ld these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equa l) and the logical coherence between the assumptions, the methods, and the goal. The assumptions or val ue premises are political choices, unlike the axioms of physics. Accordingly, a theory of community deve lopment w ill specify its purpose (goal, rationale) , its premises , and its method s. One important point need s to be made before hand. A purpose is different from the method s that may be utilized to achi eve it , and both of these in lurn arc different from the techniques or too ls th at may be utili zed to imp lement the method s . We ha ve a purpose to fu lfill , we try to do th at by followin g certain methods, and we implement the methods by mean s of certain techniqu es. A method refers to the log ic of th e act io ns to achieve the purpose . It is a more general descripti on of what need s to be done than the techniques or tools. S uppose we want to revitalize our ma in street (the purpose). We choose to encourage various spec ial ty stores to locate downtown (the method) , and how we encourage them (tax incenti ves, pedestrian mall s. ant ique street.l ights . etc .) are the techniques. The asset-based communit y development (A BCD) approac h (Kretzmann & McKni ght , 1993), community development corporations (CDC) (Fcrguson & Dicken s. 1999). social plannin g. social action , locality development , etc . are techniques o r tools, not to be contl ated w ith e ither the purpose or the methods of community development. For com munity development to be a di stinct fie ld . its purpose and its methods must be specific to it. As regards tool s. they need not be specific to community deve lopment at all : we cou ld access the entire range of human knowledge as potential too ls fo r the imp lemen tation of its methods. I propose, as I had done earlier (Bhattacharyya . 1995). that we conce ptual ize the purpose o f communi ty development as the promotion of solidarity and agency. Alt houg h thi s formulat io n may appear to be yet ano the r arb itrary defi nition of community development. I w ill argue that so lidarity is the esse nt ial characteri stic

Shattacharyya

of community, and. the re is an important view that the purpose of deve lopme nt is to promote age ncy (see, for example, Berger, 1974; Giddens, 1987; Sen, 1999). Moreover, I think these are the qualities that mos t commun ity development writers intend to convey in thei r definitions of the term.

Communit y as Solidarity For community development to be a uni versally relevant fie ld , we have to extract the esse nce of the te rm community and not be limited by its com mon usage in the soc ial sciences and community deve lopme nt literature. Durkheim's ( 1964[ 1893]) mec han ica l solidarity and Tonnies's (1957[ 1887]) Geme insc haft referred to pre- industria l social format ions - vi llages o r tribes. Similarly. the communit y development defin itio ns produ ced by th e United Nations, the Ashridge Confe rence, the Cambridge Conference, the Intemational Cooperation Administrati on (the precursor to the U.S. Agency fo r Inte rn ational Development) meant pre-industri al social config urat ions. So did most anthropolog ists and o ther soc ia l scientists that were concemed w ith deve lo pment (Bendix 1964 ; Biddle & Biddle 1965; Brokensha & Hodge 1969; Doby ns. Do ughty, & Lasswell 197 1; Dube, 1963; Erasmu s, 196 1; G. Foster, 1973 ; Goodenough , 1963). With a few excepti o ns (e.g., Bradshaw & Blake ly, 1979; Clinard ,1966; Ferg uson & Dickens, 1999; Kretzman n & Mc Kn ight , 1993; Popple & Q uinney, 2002; Spiegel & Mittenthal , 1968) most self-ide ntified comm unity development wri ters brought to the ir work a class ical concept of com munit y - as a vi ll age o r at least a rural agricultura l settleme nt or a small town (Batten, 1957; du Sau toy, 1958; Flora, 1998 ; Know les , 1960; Sanders, 1958a, 1958b; S umme rs, 1986; Wileden, 1970). From the very inceptio n of the field , rural o r agricultural settle ments o r small tow ns ha ve stood as a proxy for communit y. Even in the ex ceptio nal cases signaled above , place or space (e.g. , urban ne ighborhoods) has remained an integral constituent of co mmunity. It can thus be said that place, whether rural , urban o r whatever, has been an in variant e lement of the concept of community, and , as T argue below, it must be transcended to reach a lheory of commu nity deve lopment. Three obse rvatio ns need to be made o n thi s connection o f place w ith co mmunity. First , th is mode of usage takes the mean in g of community as selfevident. A nei ghborhood, a small town , or a vil lage is automaticall y assumed to be a com munity, regardless of the absence of any cohes ion in it. Second , it obscures ano ther understandi ng of the term that transcends all connectio ns with place, such as Durkhe im 's organic so lidarit y and Tonnies's Gesel lschaft, a solidarity based upo n shared interests or circumstances. It is thi s qua lity that is in voked for s uch bodies as the Jewish co mmunit y, the C hri stian community, the communit y o f Islam (the Umma), the Black community, the medical community, and , at an earli er time , trade s uni on. In thi s sense of commun ity place is inc identa l, not integral to its defi nit ion . Finall y, it fai ls to take into account the radical soc ial change brou ght abou t by modernity in the social signifi cance of place. Modernity, very brie fl y, is the

Journal of the Commullity Development Society

complex of transformations ushered in by industrialization. Wherever industry has become the dominant mode of production, it has had the effect of dissolving or at least weakening place-centered comm uni ties. We recognize place-centered commu nit ies better by an earlier term for it, namely. face-la-face communities

(Gemei nschaft, mechani ca l solidarity, folk co mmunity). Place o r locality was signifi cant in such societi es because 1110St social activities took place wit hin its confines and among people who were fam iliar with one another and who shared a common cu lture. Modernity divests place of thi s significance as most social

activ ities can no longer remain confined in the "place" but must be oriented to unknown people in unknown places, to abstract institutions, and within rules that are different from the community norms (Berger, 1973; Giddens, 1990). It can even be said that the solidarity movements in the last century and a half arose in reaction to the decay of place-centered communities. Thus, a focus on place in the defin ition of community distracts from a theory of community development. A broader concept of community would not prevent us from seeing or developing co mmunity where place retai ns its significance, whi Ie free ing us to focus on the widest range of co mmunities. Developing community in this sense has acquired an increasing urgency in recent decades in post-industrial as we ll as new ly industrializi ng countries (for a useful summary of the concerns about commun ity in the West, see Bellah et aI., 1985; Fowler, 1991; Plant ,1974; Polany i, 1944; Putnam , 1995; Wolin, 1990). What is thi s quality that unites these two different understand ings of co mmun ity? The classic answer is solidarity (Durkheim). meaning a shared identity (deri ved from place, ideology, or interest) and a code for conduct or norms, both deep enough that a rupture affects the members emotionally and other ways. The decade old social ca pital movement conveys the same meaning: networks , trust, and mutual obligations enabl.ing people to take collective measures to address shared problems (Putnam , 1995), as does the quality of life ideals listed by Ferguson and Dickens in their vision for community development (1999, p.2). It is the weakening of thi s solidarity that has been in one way or another the point of departure for social criticism for over two centuries (e.g., Bellah et al. , 1985: Fowler, 1991 ; Nisbet, 1%2; Pumam , 1995; 1993; Wolin. 1990; Zagarella, 1988). Understand ing commun ity as solida rity (shared identity and norms) serves to define the concept in a distinctive and intrinsic manner, maki ng it possible to distinguish a community from all other types of social relat ions. We can say that any soc ial configurarion that possesses shared ident ity and norms is a commun ity. The term is thus freed of the incidental baggage of territori ality, ethnicity or level of industri alization of the eco nomy.

Development as Agency The ultimate goa l of de velopment should be human autonomy or agency the capacity of people to order their world. the capacity to create, reproduce, change, and live accord ing to their own meaning systems. to have the powers to define themselves as opposed to being defi ned by oth ers (de Certeau, 1986:

Blzattaclzaly ya

Giddens, 1984). Giddens ( 1984, p. 14) puts it succ inctl y as '"to be ab le to ' act otherwise' ,'. that is, "to be able to intervene in the world. or to refrain from such

intervention. with the effect of influencing a specific process or state of affairs." Others have called it freedom (Sen, 1999) . It is appare nt that empowerment , capacity building, and simi lar "buzz words" are not ends in themselves but means fo r the hi gher e nd of age ncy. Agency is a modern concept, and it is linked with the concept of choice, which in turn is the product of the pattern of social change called modernity (Apter, 197 1). In pre-modern societies, neither the concept nor th e problem of agency could arise because choice was either conceptuall y absent or very limited. It is only with theonset of modernity that we could think of choosing our occupation, our domicile, our attire, our diet, and even our religion. But , as will be discussed in sli ghtl y greater detail later, modernit y even as it created unprecedented opportun ities for choice and agency also un leashed forces to an nul them. To foster agency is what sets part of the agenda fo r community development.2 There was a ti me when development was indistinguishable from economic development, or, more narrowly, growth in the value of gross domest ic product (GOP). That still seems to be the meaning in ordinary language. Most people understand development as economic development. In the field of development studies . the focus on simple economic growth was replaced first by the idea of modernization (better technology and associated cultural change), and eventuall y by the idea of " human development" and freedom (Blomstrom & Henne, 1984; Sen, 1999). The Hllman Development Report publ ished by the Uni ted Nat ions Development Program since 1990 utilizes a Hu man Development Index LO measure development. The index is a composite of life expectancy at birt h, literacy rate , mean years of schooling, and GDP per capita in real ternlS. Human development is defined as the creation and promotion of people's choices and capabilities, that is, agency. which is the unifying concern of the social sciences and humanities today. Wittingly or unwittingly, many governmental as we ll as private social service organ izati ons create chro nic dependency in the "c lients ," establ ishing a relationship as between givers and abject recipients, the latter rarely gaining the capabili ty to break out of the relati onship . They are service providers. In community development parlance. such projects are set up f or the clients not with them . Examples abound in the social history of most welfare societies of the providers strongly discouraging the "clients" from developing a sense of entitlement to the services th at they could demand as a matter of civic ri ght . On the contrary, the clients, poor and ill ed ucated . freque ntl y the targets of soc ial ridic ul e and conte mpt. are scarcely allowed to develop what Freire (1973) called the critical consciousness. Briefly put. critical consciousness means not acce pting an undesirable condition as fate or unchangeable, understanding the structure or causes th at brought it about , and then evolving strategies to mitigate them. Communit y development in order to promote age ncy aims at generatin g critical consciousness. addressing problems that the affected people "own" and define, and take acti ve measures to solve.

Journal of the Community Del'elopment Society

De fining develo pment as agency-promoting acti vit y has the advantage of pars imony: it captures the goals typically enumerated in commun ity development de fi nit ions (econo mi c and social c hange. improveme nt of q uality of life , etc.), and , besides, it spec ifi cs the ult imate goa l of development. We can thu s say that for any ac ti vity (eco no mic deve lo pme nt , organi zing mi g rant fa rm work ers , mo bili zing for min or it y ri g ht s, e lde rl y ca re , th e en vironm ent , cultural ri ghts. or better schoo ls) to be cal led community development , the activ ity mll st be animated by th e pursuit of solidari ty and agency. Defining community development th is way - the fostering of social relations th at are increasin gly characterized by solidarity and agency - al so alig ns co mmunity develo pmen t wi th the mainstream imell ectua l co ncerns in the hu man ities a nd the soc ial scie nce s today, add ing to the fi e ld 's academ ic respectab ili ty. Furthermore, it o pens up a vast field for action and research o n the process of erosion of solidarity and agency and the means for reconstructing them . T h e Co ntext of Comm un ity Develo pme n t

Commu nity deve lopment is a positi ve response to the hi storic process of erosion of solidarity and agency. Its premise is that people have an ina li enable right to agency and th at so lidarity is a necessit y for a satisfyin g li fe . Community development is a part o f the de mocracy project . At the core of democracy is the vi sion of solidarity (,'fraternity") and e manci patio n fro m authoritaria ni sm o r " un necessary dominati on" (M . Weber) (agency). Atthe hi ghest leve l , solidarity demands that we feel a co ncern fo r every person in the nati on and the world as a who le (the solidarit y of the spec ies ), ex tendin g so lidarity 10 people we do no t know. T his is also the arg ument for the public good . Mo re practica ll y, it impli es a wi lI ingness to engage in co ll ecti ve effo rt to create and susta in a cari ng society. Freedo m fro m authoritari ani sm or agency means the o ppo rtunity fo r the affirmati o n of the human will . Autho ritaria ni sm mea ns the exercise of power by perso ns or institut ions demandin g obedience: it permits no di alog ue , no freedo m to inquire. o nly compli ance. It does not pernlit 'acting otherw ise' . Agency means freedom from un necessary restra ints (negati ve freedo ms) and access to reso urces that makes affirma ti on of the human wil l poss ib le (positi ve freedo ms) . Mo re practically, it mea ns respect for d iffere nt preferences, diffe ren t cultures , and d ifferent ways of life . Since I have said that com mun ity development is pos iti ve response to the process of erosion of so l id arity and agency, it is necessary to trace the hi sto ry of thi s process. The E r os io n of Solid a rity a nd Age ncy

The e rosio n of so li darity and agency is a modern affa ir. In the evo lutio n of hum a n societ y, we see tra ns fo rm ati o ns o f so li da rity. Fo r ex amp le , th e domesti cati o n of plants and animals and the rise of agricult ure di ssolved the so lidarity type of no madi c o r hu nting-gathering society, but they ge ne rated new o nes of the type fo und in farmi ng vi ll ages. Similarl y, th e in ve nti o n of printing

Bhattacharyya

coupled wi th the spread of literacy vastl y enl arged the pri vate space at the cost of public ente rta inment (such as publ ic poetry recitation) and of the le isure time spent in the company of fri ends and neighbors (see Mc Luhan , 1962; Febvre & Martin , 1976). But these also enabled the formation of new for ms of sol idarity based on morc widely shared meanings, attitu des , and sentiments. Wh at we are confronted with today is erosion rather than transformation of solidarit y at both micro and macro levels. The very titles of some works of the second half of the 20'" century, Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam ( 1995), Th e Lonely Crowd by Da vid Ri esman (1950), The Pursuit of Loneliness by Philip Slater ( 1970) convey a sense of the state of solidarity today. In the case of the United States , Putnam ( 1995) noted the steep decline in a num ber o f dimensions of solidarity (social capital) - in civic parti cipation, church going. membership in social clubs, trade unions, in time spent with family and neighbors. During the last th ird of 20" century, they fe ll by 25 to 50 perce nt at both macro and micro leve ls. Accordin g to the 35 country World Va lues Survey, civic partici pati on and soc ial tru st levels are worse in most other cQunrries in the

Survey than in the United States (Putn am , 1995), and the process of sol idarity e rosion, notes Meranze (200 I , pp. I 10- 11 1) , is visible all around us: in the closing of health faci lities, the widespread stigmati zation of some rec ipients of governmental assistance, the transfer of fi scal resources fro m schools to pri sons, long-tenn attacks on labor unions and labor ri ghts, the contracti on of social commitments to shared basic ri ghts, the ti ghte ning of "social borders." It is impossible in this short essay even to outl ine the complex history of the erosion of solidarity and agency. I will therefore foc us on several re lated factors of modernity th at have played a decisive ro le in it , industri al capitali sm, the rise of the nati on state, and instrumental reason. It should be noted at the outse t th at socia l change, at lea st its modern varian ts, is almos t always ambi g u o u s~ it ushers in changes that enhance li fe while at the same time making it less meani ngful. Th is is true of these fac tors as we ll .

Industrial Capitalism Beginning in the late 18 th century in countri es where it has become the common mode of production industri al capitalism has created unprecedented prosperity, numerous amenities, and freedom from fami ne. Ir has expanded literacy, increased life expectancy at birth. and has vastl y enlarged opport unities for choice. In many cases, it has brought abou t a democratization of society. However, the erosion or even destructi on of sol idarity has also been an integral feature of the process of industri alization, wi th its attendant ideology of the free mark et. Thi s is a well traversed grou nd but bears a little recapitulati on in vi ew of the current euphoria in many quarters about globalizati on of free market economy Ihal has tended to obscure the catastrophic effects of free market on human solidarity, since its beginning.

JOl/rna! oj the Commllni'y Development Society

The dominant fact about industrial cap ita l ism is the com modifi cation of life and its consequences. This has been the verdict - and the warn ing - of social cri tics of eli verse ideolog ical persuasions from the 191h century to the present day. Th is is one point on wh ich Marx ists, non-Marx ists, and even anti Marx ists are in broad agreement (see,for example, Bellah et aI. , 1985; Berger, 1973, 1974; Marx & Enge ls, 1847; Nisbet , 1953; Polanyi, 1944). A commodity, by definition, is an object produced for sale on the market, and a market is the intersection of demand for and supply of a co mmodity. There has to be a market for every ingredient of the economy, includi ng labor, land, and money. But labor, land, and money are not commodities. Sixty years ago , Polanyi ( 1944, pp. 72-73), the distinguished economic historian, wrote: "Labor is only another name for a human activity which goes with life itself, which in its turn is not produced for sale but for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest. of life, be stored or mob ilized; land is on ly another name for nature , whic h is not produced by man; actual money, finally. is merely a token of purchasing power which , as a rule, is not produced at all, but comes into being through the mechan ism of banking or state finance. The commodity descript ion of labor, land , and money is entirely fictitious." But it is th is "commodi ty fiction," Polanyi ( 1944, p. 73) continues, that is utilized as a

vita l organizi ng principle in regard to the whole of society affect in g all its insti tutio ns in the most varied way, namely. the principle according to wh ich no arrangement or behavior should be allowed to exist that might prevent the funct ioning of the market mechanism on the lines of the commodi ty fiction. A free market would eventually ruin society. This is how Polanyi ( 1944 , p. 73) deduced it: ITlhe alleged commodity "labor power" cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unu sed, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man's labor power the system would , incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral etHity "man" attached to that tag. Robbed of the protective covering of cu ltural insti lUti ons, human beings would perish from the effects of social exposure; they wou ld die as victim s of acute soc ial dis location th rough vice, perversio n, crime, and starvat ion . Nature wo uld be red uced to its elements. neighborhoods and landscapes defiled , rivers polluted, mil itary safety jeopardized, the powe r to prod uce food and raw material s destroyed . Finall y, the market admini strat ion of purchasin g power wo uld peri odically liquidate business e nterprise, for shortages and surfeits of money would prove as di sastrous to bus iness as fl oods and droughts in primitive society.

Polanyi pronounced these d ire warnings s ixt y years ago. Their aptness is amply demonstrated today by th e current slate of the world: the ac ute soc ial dislocation s. c rime , pervers ion s and starvat ion, globa l warming and th e

Bhallachalyya

despoliation of nature, and economic cri ses. The warnin gs that may not seem to

have co me to pass (such as food production) might yet do so; but the predicted ruinat ion of society has been averted not by the mechanisms of the free market system but by its regulation by th e state. The Great Depression in the Un ited States, for example, did not come to an end becau se the market had cOlTccted itself. It was overcome, and the society saved, by state intervention (the New

Deal) to regulate the free market. The implication for community development of the arri va l of industrial

capital ism and the free market ideology derives from the ex traordinary fact that for the first time in human history, at the end of the 18 th century, society became an accessory of the market. Until then the economic system was an accessory

of the society controlled and subordinated by social authority. With industrial capitali sm society came to be regarded as an aggregat ion of indi viduals as

opposed to a complex web of rel ationships; and a new ideology emerged, anchored in the new science of economics, th at defi ned the human being as an individual bent on optimi zing indi vidual utilit ies. Thi s was refl ec ted as methodological individualism in philosophy, economics, and the social sciences. Sol idarity and the entire culture complex (meaning systems, sentiments. rel igion, language) were regarded as externalities: often hostil e. dysfunction al, and in need of radical reform if they impeded the utility optimi zing behav ior, as pre-

industrial solidarity and culture patterns almost always did (Foster, G ., 1973; McCleland , 196 1). The value of human beings came to rest on their market price. lt is thi s historic re versal that provides th e contex t for com munity development , the predomi nance of the market , the dis-embedding of economic activities from soc iety, and the ri se of th e isolat.ed individual that has stru ctured the erosion of solidarity in modern and moderni zing societies.

Market economies today are hi ghl y, though imperfectl y, regulated by the state or other agencies (e.g ., in the United States, the Federal Re serve Bank , and the Departments of Trcas ury, of Health and Human Services, of Labor, and the Securities and Exchange Commission). But the process of objectification , the underlying indi vidualist.ic ideology, and its preoccupation with negati ve freedoms persist. There is mounting pressure in the United States (and else where such as

Britain , Germany, India) to drastically cut back state regulation of the market , and to reduce the role of public policy generally. In the United States , examples of the absence or erosion of solidarity at the macro level are large-scale poverty and illiteracy, the reluctance to increase minimum wage, millions of children who are not immunized , and OSHA regulations that are being weakened (Iceland , 2003) . The erosion of solidarity docs not remain confined to the macro level but is mirrored in every social space (Bellah et ai., 1985; Berger, 1973 ; Putnam, 1995). The logic of industri al capitalism with its attendant characteri sti cs of commodification of life and radical individualism permeates every aspect of life and has a global reach . The implication for community development is that weak solidarity and meager social capital diminish the potential for collective action.

Journal of rhe Community De\'elopmeIl1 Society

The Ascent of the Nation-State Bened ict Anderson ( 1983) has called the modern nation-state the imagined comm unity. In the nation-state, we feel a kinship with fellow citizens by virtue of common nationality although we really do not know most of them. Beginning in the 19 th century the nation -state, in tandem with industriali sm has triumphed as the common and the dominant form of social organization. It has indeed become almos t interchangeable with nation or even soc iety. A s with industrialization , the story of the nation-state is also ambiguous. It created the opportunity fo r broad er comm unication and so lidarity than ea rli er modes of soc ia l orga nization often encompassing multitudes of ethni c, ling ui stic and reli giolls groups. The co ncom it ant central ization of political, ad mini strati ve, and fiscal powers ofte n subd ued the bigotry of e thni c and religious groups. By the same token , the nati on-state has ru ined earl ier solidarit ies based on cu ltu ral identity. Comm unit ies lost their relevance as economic and po liti cal powers were centralized and national soc ial and eth ica l nOnTIS came to dominate comm unity norms. The republican communitarian tradition in the United States, for instance, th at had impressed de Tocqueville, was effec tive ly brought to an end in the second half of the 20 lh century. The tradition of American federalism w ith slrong regional cultures was di srupted by the rise of a strong center with a unitary nat ional culture commined to individualism (Shain. 1994).3 The impetus to forge a s ingle national identity led 1110St frequently to the enth ronement of one lang uage as the national or offtciallanguage to the excl usion and some times brutal s uppress ion of all others. Turkey, fo r example, did not even acknowledge the very ex istence of Kurdi sh, the language of some 20 percent

of the population, un til August 2002 (Kurkcu , 2003) . But th is has happened in almost every nation , in the U.S., in Canada , all over Europe and Russia (Seto n-

Watson, 1977), in China , and the Philippines. In California, Hispan ic ch ildren were punished for speaking in Spanish whi le at school (Hakuta, 1986). and it was the same with Native Americans in Canada. In post-Revolution France, all

non-French languages were abolished by law (Weber. 1976). Anglicization in the U.K. , Russ ification in the Ru ss ian Empire, and Sinicization in Ch in a, most

prominently in Tibet (Dalai Lama, 1990) are examples of the same policy of cultu ral domination that almost always accompanies nation bui ldin g. In numerous countries today communities submerged in the natio n-state arc striving for measures of autonomy o r o utright secession. The challenge before community development is to find ways to resist the homogenizing impulse of the nation-state and to defend c ultural pluralism. Reason Reason has numerous versions. Instrumental o r technical reaso n is the reason o f calcu lation and efficiency. Rati o nal cho ice theory in sociology and political sc ience is a loan from economics where rati onality is defined as the capacit y to choose the most efficien t means to attain an end. and cons istency in

BhatlachGlyya

choice . h is concerned strictly with the means, and indifferen t about what we choose for the goal th at we should be effic ient abo ut. This reason pervading every modem institution obscures the goal from reasonable scrutiny and becomes an end in itself. Reaso n as e ffic iency is measured by market-pri ce computation of benefit-cost ratios. The human or environmental be ne fit s or costs figure in the computation only if and when they affect efficiency. This reason becomes the only kind of reason. It subverts community by expropriati ng the authority to judge and va lidate traditions, worldv iews, and the e nti re range o f hum an subjec ti vity (e.g., attachm ent to place a nd people). Modern socie ti es are rationalized soc ieties where every aspect of life has come unde r the purview of instrumen ta l reason (Berger, 1973; Braverman, 1974; Weber, M ., 1978). As conceived in 181h century Western Enli ghtenmen t, reason is a mental faculty - absolute, eternal, and universal. It c hallenged and eve n suppl anted the authority of the church and god. It is reason that is in charge of the uni verse, not god. It is the reason of science and technology, and of historicism. With its application , we can di scover the laws of the uni verse and of human hi story and manu facture objects. These laws are independent of what we may th ink or fee l . They are ineluctable as the laws of thermodynamics. A third vers ion views reason as contex t-bound , inter-subject ive, dialogical , or commu nitarian . Reason means "the wi llin gness to talk things over"; to be reasonable is "to be co nversable" (Rorty, 200 I). There is not just o ne , singular reason, absolu te and uni versal. Jt is not a free and spontaneous activi ty, bu t co ntex ted and hi storical. Modem rationality is merely a hi stori cal cond iti on, and is therefore susceptible to change . Because reason is contex t-bound , there may be as many reasons as contexts. The purpose of rat ional inquiry is not to apprehend objective truth or reality, which is assumed to be a lready the re , to be discovered. The truth or reality is that whi ch results at the end of the in vestigation. Objectivity does not mean corresponde nce to a pre-given reality, but intersubjec tive o r co mmunitarian agreement o n the definition of the realit y (see the debate in Brown, 1984; Rorty, 200 1, Sahlins , 1976). We can call the first two versions of reason pos iti vist and the th ird version subject-centered or inter-subjecti ve or communitarian , The positivist version was dominant in the social and behavioral sciences until the 1960s - the purpose was to di scover laws of human behavior as scientific as those of the hard sc iences (Giddens, 1987). Aug uste Comte, the co-parent of soc iology w ith Saint Simon , looked for soc iolog ical laws of human affairs (prevail' pOl/r pal/voir). Karl Marx followin g the hi storici st trad ition form ulated hi s laws of economi c determ inism; Ernst Cassirer sought a " positi ve," "exact ," political sc ience. (The positivist version has returned in the social scie nces as rationa l cho ice theory.) The commu nitarians find support in Darwin: evolutionary progress is tychistic - it occ urs throug h "accidental congruence of geneti c modification with environmental niches" (Ro rty, 200 I , pp. 29-30). There is no systematic law in human affairs, wh ich are full of uncenainties and randomness. Communitarian reason thus sought to debunk hi storicism and positi vism as it applied to human

â&#x20AC;˘

Journal oj the Community Developml'lll Society

societies: you cannot extrapolate from the past to the future. Human culture is an act of brico/llge, tinkering: we fashion things out of what we have available around us. Pos iti vist reason may ex plain natural and soc ial phenomena. It can help us in determining benefit/cost ratios or evaluating the rationality of a course of acti on for a given end . BlIt it cannot furnish the ends - the gods o r demons we pursue are beyond the scope of instrumental reason (Bernstein , 1985). The impl ication for community development is that posi tivi sm disregards our subjectiv ity - our will, our spon taneity. our meanings. and o ur capacity to o rder things. Positi vism confronts us with seem ingly ine luctable laws th at we mu st obey. The ground is thu s prepared for domin ati on sponsored by the state, the party. re ligious bodies. teache rs, parents , o r the local planner, a ll of whom claim to upho ld truth in compliance with object ive facts and reason. Laws and deci s io ns based on reaso n thus can be presented as apolitica l, uncontaminated by particular preferences. Reason liberated us from religious and political tyrann y but harnessed to industrial capitalism has itselfbccome tyrannical as instrumental reason. Cu ltures that do not obey the market logi c of capital are labeled as irrational. In order to explain why poor countries remain poor. the resistance to or the s low pace of modernization. western social sc iemists and their Third World e mulators in the 1950s and 1960s branded whole cultures as sufferin g from variou s sy ndromes which by their absence explain the "success" of the West. Thus. the Mexicans suffered from the encogido syndrome (Erasmu s, 1961 ). so me from the image of the limited good (G. FOSler, 1973) . o r lacked the achievement motivation (McClela nd , 1961 ). Southern Italians had amoral famili sm (Banfield. 1958) , and now it seems all Italy does (Ginsborg, 2(03). Such characteri zations of cultures become meaningful o nl y from the perspective of instrumental reason . Family, co mmunity. tradition, and place that made li fe meaningful are often viewed as an irrational drag on the march of rational choice. Where thi s reason tak es hold. cu ltures lose their vitalit y; so lid arity disintegrates into an aggregat io n of individua ls bowling alone . The same reaso n is at play when deve lopers objectify people. Development research, for example. is frequen tl y what Chambers ( 1983) ca lls extractive. The researchers extract informati on from people who act mere ly as passive reservoirs of informatio n with no role in designing the re search agenda or in the re search process. People's cognitive panicipation (Berger. 1974) - their perception and knowl edge of the problems are dismissed as irrational (C hambers. 1983). Thus . the age ncy-generating powers of defining the problcms. ex plaining their causes, and propos in g remedies are denied to the respondents. There is no dialogue: th e ownership of the problem slips away from the people to thc deve loper. Industrial capitali sm. the nation-state , and reaso n have shaped the modern world. Th ey have made poss ibl e th e production of great wealth, longer life. uncountable amenities . and freedoms from ancient tyrannies. Above everything else. they have g iven LI S th e opportunity for c hoi ce. perhaps th e defining

Bhattac/ullyya

characteristic of modernity. But they have exacted a price in human solidarity and agency. A s a fi eld , co mmunity dcve lopmen t is morc co ncerned wi th the cos t of posi ti vist reason evcn as it acknowledges the benefi ts. Just as it shou ld res ist the homogeni zing impulscofthe nation-state. it should resist the tyran ny ofpositi vist reason by affirmi ng that reasons can be as varied as cu ltures. So , how should we practice community development?

Self Help, Felt Needs, and Participation Since th e goal of co mmunit y development is solidarity and agency. the practice of co mmunity development mu st be gu ided by thi s goa l. Communi sm and capitali st moderni zati on , the two grand movemenl.s o f modern hi story, promi se human emanc ipation but as the end product. D espite fundamental

differen ces, both objectify people during the process (Berger. 1974: Freire. 1973). Agents o f both know what is best forthe people regardl ess of what the people think . Thi s is development imposcd from above . Commun ism has been debunked and developmen t practiccs tod ay show a greater recognition of the

need for people's participation than before. But ac ross the globe. the partic ipatory rhetoric not w ithstandin g. developmcnt practices generally remain conventional , imposed f ro m above . B y co nt rast. ec hoi ng Freire ( 1973). comm un ity developmcnt practice must regard people as agents (subjects) from the beginning. And it is thi s th at sets com munit y development apa l1 from other developmen t practi ces. In thi s sense, community development proposes an alternative politics. a trul y democrati c politics - non- impos itional, non-manipu lati ve , and respectful

of the will o f the peo ple . Three overl apping principles - sclf-hclp , felt needs, and participat ion - are the appropriatc mcthods for the pract ice of communit y deve lopm cnt . The choicc of these mcth ods is not arbi trary. As I elaborate on them later in the paper, they seem to be appropri ate and consistent w ith th e goal of solidarity and agency. Self-help build s and utilizes agcncy. mobili zes people's cultural and material assets (e.g .â&#x20AC;˘ indigenous techni cal knowledge, tools, and labor), and most importantl y,avoids dependency. Felt needs (ordcmand) affi rms human variation and thus resists dcvelopmental imposition from above. Both of these principlcs facilitatc cffecti ve participation lead ing to agency and solidarit y. Thus. more than bci ng pragmatica ll y effi cac ious. they arc also intrinsica ll y important for the growth of agency and solidarity, i .e. , they ought to be practiced in their own right. Secondl y, as a formulati on of method , the three principles are parsimonious. They addrcss thc core concern s about agency and sol idarit y leav ing open the choice of techniques. Thirdl y, they have the backing of trad ition. From its inccption as a named mo vement morc than half a century ago thcse were the guiding principles adopted by the U.S. Internati onal Cooperati on Administrat ion. the Uni ted Nati ons, the A shridgc ConfcfCnce , the Cambridge ConfcfCnce , and numerous olher organi zati ol1s

Journal of 'he

COl11l1l1mil),

Developmelll Society

and individuals (for a near ex haustive record of the concept's formu lati ons sec the Uni versity of Missouri 's Handbook oj Communit), Developmellt)." To be sure, neither the word ings nor the rationales used by these entities arc identical, but the principles as stated here, I believe, correctl y represent them,

Self-Help Self-help is the oppos ite of he lpless dependency. It does not mean the denial of inter-dependence or mutuality that is the very basis of social ex istence. The princ iple rests o n a conce pt of huma n beings th at when healthy they are w illi ng and able to take carc of themselves, lO reciprocate, to be producti ve . morc predi sposed to give than receive, are acti ve rather th an passive, and creati ve rather than consumi ng (Fried , 1971). Hum an beings are hOlllo Jaber, by nature

they like to be producti ve. They are agents. But there are people who by a variety of causes have been rendered incapable of self-help. In some instances, the causes are rooted in individual pathology. But when the loss of agency afflicts large numbers of people or particular groups of people o r is chronic. the causes are located outside of the individuals, in public policy, in the structure of economic and cultural opportunities (see Mills, 1959). The practice of self- help includes collecti ve effort to alter these debilitating structures in order to restore agency. Freire ( 1973) distinguishes problem solving from problematiz ing. Problem solving is the approach of conventi onal develo pme nt practice. The problem to be solved is defined by outsiders (the state, the developme nt o rgani zation , for example). The people whom the problem presumab ly affects ha ve little role in defining it. They may have a role in implementing the solution (by sweat equi ty or matching funds, fo r example). By contrast , proble mati zi ng req uires the people to determine what the problem is, so that they "own" the problem, which is the first necessary step for them to exert themselves for the solution. Problematizing is agency-generating whereas problem solving re inforces the agency-less passivity. As a method, se lf-help is similar to the educational philosophy of De wey, Piaget ( 1973) , and Freire (1973) among many others. Proper education is agencygiving. It teaches the methods of learning, with which the pupi ls ca n launch ahead in the journey of creativi ty , as opposed to rote memorization or dependency-generatin g knowledge -consumpti on , which is analogous to the problem solving approach of conventi onal development practice.

Felt Needs This princ iple, a compl eme nt to the principle of self-he lp, implies that development projects sho uld respond to people's needs as they see them; they should be demand-based. It ensures project rcfevance . It is agency-generating because it recogni zes and fosters peopl e's capacities to define and prioritize their problem s. Much con ventional development work in volve s manipulating the people to bu y what the developer inte nds to se ll. Respo nd in g to fe lt needs can be an entry point for sell ing. But man ipul ation is inherentl y anti-agency -

Bhatlachmyya

makin g people do what they would not wi ll ing ly do. Since the project may no t " take ," it can also lead to reso urce waste with high opportunit y costs. The prin ciple of fe lt needs is grou nded on the premise that, g iven the knowledge and o ther resources ava ilab le to a people, a ll thei r c ultural practices including needs are rational (Vayda, 1983). The attempt to change a practice therefore should beg in w ith c hangi ng the mate rial/know ledge resource base, chang in g felt need s, and the ex perie nced reality.

Participation Part ic ipation is the most recogni zed of th e three princ iples of community deve lo pment practi ce. Understood properl y, it encompasses th e prin cipl es of self-help and felt needs. But co mmonly it is used in a narrow se nse as in e lec toral partic ipatio n. Like self- help and felt needs , it is al so used as an empty fo rm ula o r a dev ice to promote peop le ' s acceptance of goa ls a lready decided by the develo pme nt organ izati on . This was the case. just to c ite one example, w ith the rhetori c of partic ipati o n in the Great Society program during the Johnson admi ni stration (Ja now itz, 1978, Moynihan , 1969) . In its broadest se nse, participation means taking part in the production of collective meanings. People can be excluded from it in many ways, by si lenc in g a lang uage , fo r example , or by overwhelming o r de-legitimizing a cultu re, or by instrume ntal reaso n. Language is the heart of a cult ure, th e vital medium for the producti o n of co llec ti ve meani ngs (Fis hm an, 1972) , and its suppression has been one of the mo st commo n c haracte ri sti cs in the fo rmati o n of nation-states (Anderson, 1983; Seto n-Watson, 1977; We ber, 1976). In modern societi es, the produc ti o n of c ultu re - hi story, id eas, lite ratu re, mu s ic , tec hn o logy, and commodities o f all sort s - is exclusionary (Braverman, 1974; Freire, 1973: Ranajit Guha, 1983; Johnson et. aJ., 1982; Lamont & Fou rnier, 1992'). C ivili zati ons, in the se nse of Great Tradit ions (Red fi e ld, 1955) , s uch as Christi anit y or Islam, have o ften de-legi timi zed cultures or Little Traditions (Niebuhr, 195 1). Sim ilarly, positivist reaso n , pervas ively embedded in the modern, bureaucratized . soc iety underm ines cultural or practical reason . The pub li cprivate dist inction tends to disappear. The deep penetrat ion of instrume nt al reaso n opens up to consc io us scru tin y what are cu lturally settl ed practices and makes them contin ge nt upo n re-va lidati on by instrumental reason . Every aspect of life becomes public, exposed to control and manipulation by the state and the market. This undenn in ing of culture (meanings) finds its legitimation in the material abundance produced by the appli cati o n of posi tivist reason (Bern stei n, 1985; Foucault & Gordo n, 1980; McCarthy, 1978; see also Baker & Reil l (eds.) , 200 I) . Thus the prin c iple of participatio n mean s inc lusio n. not merely in the e lec to ral process o r e ndors ing decis io ns but in deciding th e age nd a for de bate a nd deci s io n; it mea ns in clus ion in the processes of definin g the prob le ms to be solved and how to solve the m . At a more important leve l, it mea ns co untering the domination and re press io n of pos iti vist reason in its vari o us manifestations

Journal oj 'he Communit), Developmem Socier)'

be it the state. the scientized politics, the industrial production process, or the culture industry. Together these three principles provide the necessary gu idance for the practice of community development. The people must have the opportunity to own the problem by feeling and defining it, and also to apply their knowledgel material resources for sol ving it. By acting as agents from the beginning, people can regain or reaffirm their solidarity and their agency. Community Development in Practice Community development is being practiced by countless organization s. in numerous countri es with diverse pol iti cal tradition s, addressing a trul y

astonishing variety of iss ues. Some of the organi zations are small. stand-alone, neighborhood groups. Some are affi liated to umbrella orga ni zati ons (e.g., the

Industrial Areas Foundation, the Grameen Bank) that provide training in community organizing , routine administration, sometimes loans and/or grants, and a larger voice in regional and national politics. They are active in democratic countries (e.g., the United States. the U.K ., India). in transitional democracies (e.g., countries of the old Soviet Union) , and even in authoritarian countries (e.g., China). Instead of describing exemplary cases of community development, which it is impossible to do in such a brief space,s I will point to some significant shi fts in thinking about various social problems. What has become obvious is that "local" action, centered in neighborhoods and vi llages, is not adequate to the task of finding endurin g solutions to social problems. The local problems are local manifestations of problems whose sources lie farther upstream. Community development thus calls for simultancous action at both micro and macro levels. This is a tall order, but. as I illustrate below. such simultaneous actions are indeed happening. Public Health Perhaps the greatest change in thinking has been taking place in the field of public health, what has been called a ' paradigm drift' (Ca mpbell. 2000, p. 185) away from the cl inical epidemiological approach to the community development approach. Instead of focusing on modifying individual behavior, the new method focu ses on the communit y and macro factors (Davis , Cohen, Baxi, & Cook, 2(03). The typical approach to epidemics, such as H1V/AIDS , poliomyelitis, obesity. or infantile pneumonia. is clinical epidemiological. It attacks the clinical cause of the disease (the virus, the bacterium). Health care personnel admin ister medicines or preve nti ve inoculation. The health education component - radio and television broadcasts. billboards, posters, group sess ions, and school curricu lu m - follows traditional teaching fonnat, experts giving out information to a pass ive audience. Such , for instan ce is the approach of the current WHO programs against the res urgence of polio in cel1ai n countries , notably Indi a. It has also been the approach to HI VI AIDS in which case, in addition to medicines. people were urged to practice safe sex and abst inence.

Bhauachmyya

The new thinking th at is taki ng place has two related parts. One, there is increasing recogniti on th at the health statu s of a popul ation depends not so much on medical care as on the socioeconomic environment in wh ich people live and work . In the United States, heal th dispariti es are determi ned by macro factors such as poll uted residential area, poverty, lack of access to nutritious food, safe streets or playgrounds, and the absence of community norms th at support healthfu l behav ior (Acharya et aI. , 2003). To improve health , therefore, requires strategies to alter the environment. Th e seco nd part , ' th e parad ig m drift ,' ca ll s fo r part ici pa ti o n a nd represe ntat ion of local people in health progra ms (Campbell , 2000, pp. 182196). The ' drift ' was init iated by the Worl d Healt h O rgani zati on and endorsed by a number of intern ational declarati ons - the Alma-Ala Declaration of 1978, the Ottawa Charter of 1986, and the Jakarta Declaration of 1997 (Campbell , 2000). The most effec tive tool agai nst HIV/AIDS, for instance, has proved to be community norms revi tali zed by commun ity-based organizati ons (social ant ibod ies) (Epstei n , 2003; Hansen, 2003; Singer et a I. , 199 1; Bhatt acharyya, K. & J . Murray, 2000; Blum , H. L.; 198 1, Frieden & Garfie ld, 1987; Madan, 1987; Nichte r, 1984, 1989; Rifkin, 198 1; Ri fki n & Walt , 1986; Stone. 1992) . In each of these cases, the standard bureaucratic method of indiv idualtargeted healthcare was shu nned for a community approach. The people were not treated merely as carriers of disease, ac tual or potential. The diseases were understood in their relation wi th broader socioeconomic contex ts. The people participated cognitively by understanding the disease and its causes, and, armed with the understand ing, in developing communi ty norm s and implementi ng the programs. The success fu l program s have been those where micro and macro level orgahizations have worked in tandem. Vio le n ce As in the case of health , the standard bureauc ratic posture to violence targets individuals, regarding it as a police, mi litary, or behav ior modification problem. The preventi ve measures, therefore, have generally been reacti ve rather than proactive - harsher punishmen t, more policing and more prisons. counseling . The relatively few proac ti ve prog rams, such as the fede ral Safe SchoollHealthy Students program that was initiated in response to the Columbine School tragedy, have relied on greater vigilance (e.g., metal detectors). more rigorous monitoring of truancy, and more counseling (anger management, mediation). School personnel (counselors, social workers) make home visits more freq uently to discuss children's problem behaviors with parents or other care provide rs. But even such programs have shown little readiness to fonnulate strategies to deal with the underlying socioeconomic causes of violent behavior although such causes - the cumulative effect of low SES, residential segregati on by race, residential instability - have been known for nearl y a century (Acharya et aI., 2003; Sampson, 2004). After stu dying 343 ne ighborhoods in Chicago, Sampson (2004) has show n how specificall y those factors are related to neighborhood violence. The

JOIln/al of the Community Del'eJopmenr Society

immediate cause , he co ncl udes, is the absence of nei ghborhood solidarity (infonnal social con trol s or collecti ve efficacy, not police and co urts), Hthe capacity of a gro up to regulate its members according to desired principles - to realize collective as o pposed to forced. goa ls:' The impl ication of thi s findin g for com mun ity development is far reaching . Such solidarity is hard to achieve simpl y by neighborhood orga ni zing. Solidarity grows out of face-la-face relation s and trust over time and that becomes ava ilable with reside ntial stability. Res ide ntial in stability as we ll as the conce nt rat ion of disadvantages is linked to macro political economy, not easily ame nable to nei ghborhood soluti ons. Ne ighborhood orga ni zing is necessary bur wit ho ut some level of mic ro-macro coordination. it alone is unlikel y to be suffic ient. For neighborhood soli darity to be achieved one need s to influence the policies of the city, the state. and the nati on on employment. hou s ing, pollutio n , education , poli ce protection. and so o n. as in th e case of hea lth . Economic Development The modernization movement over the last hal f-ce ntury or more has fo llowed the growth model: growth in gross national product. This model relies o n topdown deci sion -mak in g. large scale e nterpri se by the state or the private sector, and increased la bor producti vi ty. The result has been the creal ion of a pennanent unde rc lass - unempl oyed . underemployed , or une mployable, ill educated and ill nouri shed . An approach th at is ga inin g the attention o f po licy makers is the micro economic deve lopment model. The Ford Fou ndat io n has bee n an early suppo rter, and in 1996, the World Bank sponsored a global micro cred it summit , and has s in ce created a micro credit fund exceeding $50 million . The model is built o n the recognit ion that job growth is unlikely to keep up with the g rowth in the number of und e rc lass j o bsee ker s . It s rema rkabl e popularity amply demonstrates that it has tapped into a hu ge rescrvo ir of fe lt needs for economic security and vcry poo r people's capaci ty of e nte rpri se. Thi s m ode l co nsis ts o f in nova t ive lendin g and e ntrepreneurs hip development programs for people who are too poor to qualify for conventional bank loans. The proble m o f poverty is not caused by the lack of effort or cultural preference , as many believe, but by the una va ilabilit y of fin a ncial and psycho logical cap ital and techni ca l knowledge. and by macro social, polit ical and econom ic pol icies (sex ism. racism , red-li ning, urban bias). The micro c redit organi zations furni sh the capital, sometimes as little as $ 100, and . g iven the characteri stics of the po pulation (chronic economic and soc ialmarginalizalion ), literacy and health education . skill s training (suc h as bookkeepin g), and ot her support to generate se lf-help . Prospecti ve bOITowers vouc hing for the initial borrower take care o f the probl em of attachable collatera l. Perhaps the best known exa mple of thi s model is the Grameen Bank . The model's effect iveness is best evidenced by the fact that it has been adopted in numerous countries with very different political

Bhattacharyya

economic systems, fro m China to the United States. (Ford Foundation , 1992). But there are a hundred other organizations practi cing a similar community

development approach to economic development: the Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA ) in India , the Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA), The Trickle Up Program (TUP), the Women 's World Sank , the ACCION International , the Working Capital , and numerous others (Ford Foundation , 1992; Aburdene & Naisbitt , 1992). They have created not on ly hundreds of thousands of self employed people, but some degrees of power and solidarity among historically marginalized peopJe.6

Food An interestin g development in the United States in the last two decades is the Community -Supported Agriculture (CSA), a concept that is a step up from the fam1ers' market. In the CSA, consumers commit to buy a share of the harvest. According to Roosevelt (2003) , the CSA movement began in Japan 30 years ago and spread to Europe and the United States. From one CSA in Massachusetts in 1986, the movement has grown to 1,200 farms with 1,000 families as members. The impetus for CSA is only partl y the desire for fresh food. (C urrentl y, U.S. grown produce tra vels 1500 miles and is 4-7 days old before reaching the supermarket.) Partl y it is the desire for food that has not been ge netically engineered and is free of pesticides and honnones. But it is also a movement to create commu nities to recover the meaning of

food . Accord ing to Nestle (2002) , the U.S. population buys nearly half its meals prepared elsewhere, and is consuming more processed food , rather than locally grown "whole" food s. Among those who cook at home, few do so from scratch . There is a grow ing sense that large numbers of people have little control over what and how they eat. Just ten corporation s dominate the global food market.

Since 1960, the number of fanll s in the United States has declined fro m 3.2 mill ion to 1.9 million . Such consol idation under giant corporati ons has raised productivity by 82 percent , but the corporations produce fewer crops, leading many varieties

to virtual extinction (Nabhan, 2002) .7 Peop le's contro l over food is also

compromised by powerful marketing techniques of the food industry. In 1998, for instance, the ten lead ing manu facturers of packaged food products spent $8,228.5 million in adve rtising. Food and food serv ice companies spend more than $11 billion annually on directllledia advertising. In 1999, McDonald's spent $627.2 million, Surger King $403.6 million , and Taco Sell $206.5 million on direct media advertising (Nestle, 2002; Sch losser, 2(02). Nearly 70 percent of food advertising is for promoting the most highl y processed, elaborately

packaged , and fast foods (Nestle, 2002). The CSA movement along with fanners' markets and local food coops is an attempt to regain some control over food. It is restoring variety by bringing back heritage seeds and poUltry. By pmclicing organic fanning, it is producing wholesome food while protecting the environment. But it is more than that. "Even beyond

Journal of the Community Development Society

economics. community-supported agriculture is about something deeper: a sense of common good uniting those who plant and those who eat:' (Rooseveh,2003,p. 6 1). An interesting example of micro-macro linkage is the emergence last April of the National Cooperative Grocers Association consolidating the resources of94 independent natural food co-ops with III retail locations. It has 4OO.()(X) Inember owners, millions of consumers, and an annual sales volume of $626 million. This is an excellen t example of networking among food coops and independent organic growers. Their national clout was ev idenced by, among other development , when the US Department of Agriculture last September final ly issued the organic

certifi cation procedure. Similar exal11plc~ co uld be provided from almost eve ry area of social life. But the few examples sketched above perhaps suffi ce to give a sense of how community development is being practiced and the changes it is ca using in dcaling with soc ial problems. Concluding Remarks I have tried to present in these pages my vision of community development - the pursuit of solidarity and age ncy. For co ntext - the reason for community development - I have focused on the corrosive effects of historical forces of industrial capitalism, the nation-state. and positivist- reason as appl ied to human affairs. None of these causes are likely to be transcended any lime soo n. They are inter-active, and deepl y entrenched in nalional and global political economy. and in our habits of thought. Community development has to functio n - and it is functi on ing - within this environment. Thu s. co mmunity development practitioners must address macro factors while wo rk ing in microenvironments. Local problems today are likely to be on ly local manifestatio ns of larger problems. This calls for political action, and networking among community organi zations to gain political clout. I have maintained that we need (Q distinguish among goals . methods, and tec hniques or tools. The various models of community development (conflict. community self-study. locality development. social planning. etc.) deal with techniques, as do co mmunity asset building programs. Techniques are the front end , the most immediately relevant and crucially sig nificant aspect of community development. BUllhey cannot - and should not - be ends in themselves . They are tools to implement certain mcthods (such as, self-help. felt needs , and participation), and as such. they must cohere and be consistent with the methods. The mcthods in turn are significant only to the extent they help to create and sustain a sati sfying life. which I have defined as the acquisition of solidarity and agcncy. The purpose of this paper was to bound community development as a distinct field. That distinction can be achieved , I have suggested . by ad herin g to the goals of solidarity and agency together with cel1ain methods that arc consistent with th e goals which I have argued are self-hclp, felt needs. and participation.

BhattachGlyya NOTES

I. I am indebted to Drs. Karabi Acharya. Sumiw Bhallacharyya and Susan Maher. and to Kaka li BlllIuacharya and Uttiyo Raychaudhuri. for help wi th dillerent aspects of the paper. I thank Dr. Ted Bradshaw. Dr. Ron Hustedde. Noemi Danao and alher members of the Taughannock Farms Inn Retreat for comme nt s on an earlier incarna tion of this paper and for the encouragemcnt to wri te th is one. I al so thank Marilll Carter for her assis tance. 2. There is no si ngle work thut deals with the problem of agency in suc h diverse ficlds as anthropology. history, literature. philosophy. political science. psyc hology. and sociology. and it witl take too much space to ci te even the major works in each field. An overly sim plified introduction to some of the authors is W. Foster ( 1986). More scholarly sources arc Letnert (1979). Giddens (1 984). and Wolin (\990). None of these works deals with li terature. espec ial ly posHnodernist criticism, and on this there is no generally accessible overview; the interested reader may consul t Berman ( 1988) and Ke ll ner (\989) 3. The disruption of regional cultures was also a blessi ng as it abol ished slavery and ex tended civi I rights. once agai n illustrating the ambiguity of history. 4. See especially the articles in Part Two: High Culture and Exclusion, in Lamoni and Fournier ( 1992).

5. See the excellenl collection of recent cases in Putnam and Feldstein (2003). The annual Report and the quarterly Letter of thc Ford Foundation com monly publish accounts of commun ity development from across the world. 6. For a critica l assessment of the movemcnt see Jonat han Morduch (1999). 7. The large industrial famls have made inroads in the fast growing organic food market shipping organic produce 10 the U.S. from as fa r away as China and ew Zealand (Roosevelt. 2003). The fcdcflI l organic ce rtifi ca ti on procedure re leased in Septcmber 2003 is too cumbersome and lime consum ing for truck farmers tha t had initiated and sus taincd the organic movement. The new label for loca lly grown organic foods is ecologic.. !.

REF E RE NCES Aburdene. P.. & J. Nailobitl. 1992. Megolrelldsfor Women. New York: Villard Book s. Aeharya. K.. R. Dav is. T. Gantz. & P. Leuna. 2003. Salin(J.\· Safe Schools/Hea/lhy Stlldents Local £I'Olllatiol1 Repon: Toward a CommunilY of Caring. O:tkla nd . CA: The Preve nti on In stitute. Ander~on.

B. 1983 .

nil.!

Imagilled Commlillilie!)': Rej1ections 011 Ihe Origin

(111(1

Spread of

NlltiOlwlism. London: Verso.

Apter. D. E. 197 1. Choice (lnd the Polil;cs of Allocatioll: A Del'e/opmellf(l/ Th eory. New Ha vc n.CT: Yale Uni\'ersi ly Press. Baker. K. M .. & P. H. Reill. (cds). 2001. WIIlII'S left of Enlightellll1el1r ?: A !)oJlmodem qllesl;oll . Stanford. CA: Stanford University I)ress. Banfield . E. 1958. The Mora! I1m;s of a Backward Society. New York: The Free Pre .\os. Bau en. T. R. 1957. Comlllllllitiel' lind Their lJel'(' /opmelll . London : Oxford Uni ve rsity Press. Bellah . R. N .. R. Madse n, W. M. Sullivan. A. Swidler. & S. M. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Heart: IlIdillidllalisl/I {lI1d COl/lmitment ;n American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bendix. R. 1964. N{l/ioll-l1uildillg (Ind Citi::.ell ship. New York : John Wiley & Sons. Berge r. P. L 1974. Pyramhls of Sacrifice: PoliliclIl Ethic:..· {llul S(J(.:htl Cllal/ge. New York: Basic Books.

•

Journal of fhe Community Developmellt Suciety

Berger. P. L. 1973. Tile flome/en Mind . (With B. Berger and H. Kellner). New York: Vimage.

Bennan. A .. 1988. From the New Criticism to Decum'lrllctioll : The Reaplioll of StrJIclIIralism (lfId Post -Slr11cwrali.flll . Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Bernstein. R. 1. 1985 . Hahermas a"d Modem;!),. 1" MIT Press edition. Cambridge. MA : MIT Press. Bhattach aryya. J. Humall

1995. Solidarity lind agency : Rethinking communit y development.

Organization 54(1): 60-69 .

Bhattucharyya. K. 1993. U"dersu/lldillg Acute Respiratory II/fee/ioll: CII/TUre and Method. Sc.D. di ssenatio n . Joh ns Hopk ins University. Bhattucharyya. K. & J . Murray. 2000. Com munity assessment and pl anning for ma ternal and ch ild health prog ra m : A parti cipa to ry ap proac h in Et hiop ia. HUll/ ali Org(llli:.arion 59(2): 255 -266. . Biddle . W. 1966. The "fuzzi ness" of definition of community deve lopmen t. Commullity Development Journal I: 5- 12. Biddle, W.. wi th L. Biddle. 1965. The Community Dew'lopmnlf Process. New York: Holt, Rin e hart & Winston . Bl omst rom. M .. & B. Henne . 1984 . Developmem TIIeor), in Transition: The Dependency Debtlte lind Beyo1/d: Third World Re.wonsl!s. London : Zed Book s. Blum . H. L. 1981 . Planning f o r Health : Generics for the Eighties. New York : H uman Sciences Press. Bradshaw. T. K .. & E. J. Blakely. 1979. Rural Communities in Adl'Clllc:ed IlIdlls/rial Society: Del'eJopmem (Illd De\'elopers. New York : Pracger. Braverman, H .. 1974. Labo r alld Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Labor ill the Twentieth Cl'ntury. New York: SI. Martin 's Press . Broke nsha. D .. & P. Hodge. 1969. Community Development: All Int erpretation. Franci sco: Chandler Publishing Co.

San

Brown. S. C . (ed .). 1984 . Objectivity lIfld Cllitural Dil路ergellce . Supplemem to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Unive rsity Press. Campbell. C. 2000 . Soc ial capi tal and hea llh : Contcxtualizing heal th promotion within local community networks . Pp. 82- 196 in S. Baron. J . Field. & T. Schuller (cds.). Social Capital: Critical Perspectives . Oxford: Oxford Uni versity Press. Carry. L. J .. (cd .). 1970. Community De\'elopmem as a ProceH . Columbia: Univers ity of Missouri Press. Chambers. R. 1983. RI/ral Del'elofJI"ent: PI/fling the JAJt Fi,..~t . New York: John Wiley. Christenson. J. A .. & J. W. Robinson (cds.). 1989. Communit), De\'f!l0IJment ill Perspectil'e. Iowa City. IA: Iowa State UniversilY Press . Clinard. M . B. 1966. SI/mU' and Commulliry Del路elopmellf. New York : Free Press. Cox. F.. J . Ehrlich. J . Rothman. & J . Tropman (eds.) . 1974 . StfllteRie s of Community Organization: A Book of Readings. Itasca. l L: Peacock Publishers. Dal ai Lam a . 1990 . Preeclom ill Exile: The Autobiography of the Dalai Lall/a of Tibet . London: Hodder & Stou gh ton. Davi s. R .. L. Cohen. S. Baxi. & D. Cook. 2003. A Commullity Approach to Addre!iS Health Di:''ParitieJ. Working Draft. Oak land. CA : THRIV E. Environmental Scan. The Prevention Ins t itute.

Bhallachmyya

De eerleau, M. 1986. H etero l ()8 it~!;: Discourse 011 the Other. B. Ma ssoum i ( tran s.). Minneapoli s: Univers ity of Minnesota Press .

Denise. P. S .. & L Harris (cds.). 1990. £'periemial £(///carioll/or Community Del't!/opmelll . New York : Greenwood Press. Dobyns, H. F" P. L. Doughty. & H. D. Lasswe ll (eds.). 1971. Pea.wIIIIJ. Power. (llId Appiiel/ Sodal Clumge: Vico.~ (/S (I Model. Beverly Hills: Sage Du Sautoy. P. 1958 . Commullity Del'e!opmelll ill Ghal/ll . London: Oxford University Press . Dube . S. C. 1963 . Illdias Changillg Villages . London: Routledge & Kcgan Paul. Durk heim. E. 1964 [ 18931. The Divisioll of Labor ill Society . G. Si mpson (trans.). New York : The Free Press .

Epstein . H. 2003. AIDS in South Africa: The invisible cure. Pp.44.49 in New York Review oj Books . Jul y 17 .

Erasm us. C. J . 196 1. Mall Takes COllfro!: CII!tura! Developmellf and American Ail!. Minneapolis: Univers it y of Minnesota Press. Feb vrc. L. . & H. J . Marti n. 1976 . '/1'e Coming oj the Book: The !mpact of Priming. 1450· 1800. London : New Le n Books. Ferguson , R. F. & w. T. Dickens (cds.) . 1999. Urba n Problems and COlI/flllII/ity Developmem. Washington. D.C.: Brook ings Instit ution Press. Fishman . J. 1972 . The sociology of language. Pp .45-58 in Paolo Giglioli (cd.). umgllllge lind Social Come.H. Pier Harmondsworth . Eng land: Penguin Books. Flora. J .L. 1998. Social capi tal and communi ties of place. Rural Sociology 63: 481 -506. Ford Fo undation . 1992. The Rel)Ort. Washington. DC: The Ford Foundation . Foster. G. M. 1973 . Traditional Societies and Technological Change , 2nd cd . New York: Harper & Row. Foster. W. 1986. Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to £ducmiol1al Adlllilli.~I"a/io". Buffalo. NY: Prometheu s Books. Fo ucault. M .. & C. Gordon . 1980. Power/Knowledge : Selected Imerviews lind Other Writings. 1972 · 1977. New York : Pantheon Books . Fowler. R. B. 1991. The Dallce with Commlillity: The Comemporary Debate in American Political Thollght. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Frei re. P. 1973. Elillcarioll for Crirical

Co"scioll.\'IIe.~.~.

New York: Seabury Press.

Fried . E. 197 1. Actil·e. Pas sil'e: The Crucial Psychological Dimellsion . New York : Harper Colophon Books . Fri eden. T .. & R. Garfield.

1987. Popular participation in healt h in Nica ragua . fl ealth Policy {lnd Plannin g 2: 162· 170.

Giddens. A. 1990. rhe Conse(/llel/(:e.~ oj Modernity . Stanford . CA: Stan ford University Press. G iddens. A. 1987. Sociology: A Brief bill Critical Imrotillctioll. 20<1 ed . San Diego: Harcoun Brace Jovanovich. Giddens. A. 1984 . The Constitlftioll of Society. Berkeley: Uni ve rsilY of Cal iforn ia Press. Ginsborg. P. 2003. The patrimoniul ambitions of Si lvio B. New Left Rel,jell' 21(May/June): 21. Goodenough. W. H. 1963. Cooperatioll ill Cllal/ge. New York: Russe ll Sage. Gu ha. R. (ed.). 1983 . Subaltern SII/dies. Oxford: Oxford Uni versity Press.

Jourl/al of the Community Del'elopment Society

Hak ula , K . 1986. Mirror of Lt"'guage: The Dehme on Bilingualism. New York : Basic Book3.

Hansen. K. 2003. Lette r in New York Review of Books (November 20): 57. Iceland . John. 2003. POl'erty in America: A Handbook. Berkeley: University of Cal ifornia

Press. Janow it z. M . 1978. TI,e Llist J-It/If-Cell/ury: Societal ClulIlgt> lIlid Politics ill America . Uni ve rsity of Chicago Press.

Johnson. R .. G . McLenna n. B. Schwarz, & D. Sutton. 1982. Mak i/lg Histories: Swdies in History. IVrilillg (lnd Pulitics. London: Hutchinson in assoc iation with the Centre for Contemporary Cul tural Studies. Un iversity of Birmin gham. Kellner, D. (cd.). 1989. Post-ModernislII: Jameson Critique. Washington, DC: Maisonneuve Pres . . ,

Knowles. M. S. (cd.). 1960. HOll(lbook oj Adllir ÂŁducarioll ill rile Ull itell Swtes. Chicago: Ad ult Education Association of the USA. Kramer. R. M. & H. Specht. 1969. Readings in COII/II/ullity Orgalli:,olion Practice. Englewood Cliffs. N.J : Pren tice- Hall. Kretzmann. J. P.. & J . L. McKnighl. 1993. Hllildillg COII/Illullilies Jrom Ille Inside 0111: A Parll Toward Filldillg alld Mohili:.i1lg (l CommllllilY's Assets. Chicago: ACTA . Kurkcu. E .. 2003. Leyla Zana: Defiance under fire. Amllesty Noll' 29(3): 22-25. Lamont. M. & M. Fournier (cds.). 1992. Cultiwllillg Differences: Symbolic Boulldaries {l1I{1 the Making oj IlI eqlwlity. Chicago: The Unive rsity of Chicago Press. Lemert. C. C. 1979. Sociology ulld rhe Tlllifighl oj Ma ll: Homocell1rism and Discourse ill Sociologicol Theory. Carbondale: Sou thern lI1inois University Press. Madlin . T. N. 1987, Commun it y involvement in heahh policy: Socio-stmctural lind dynamic aspects of health be liefs. Social Science (lnd Medicille 25: 615-620. Marx. K. & F. Engels. 1847. The com munist man ifesto. In Selected Works, Vol . I, 1962. Moscow: Progrc!>!> Publ ishers. McCarthy. T. 197R. Press.

nil'

Critical Theory oj Jurg ell

Haherma.~.

Cambridge. MA : The MIT

McCle land. D. C. 196 1. The Achiellillg Society. New York: Free Press. McLuhan. M . 1962. Tht' GII/enbers Ga/axy: The Makin g oj Typographic Man. Toronto: Universi ty of Toronto Pre ss. Mcranze. M. 200 1. Critique :md government : Michel Foucault and the question ' What is En lightenment?'. In K. M. Baker & P. H . Reill (eds.). What s Left of Elllightenment? A Pmtmodenr Question . Stanford. CA: Stanford Uni ver!> ity Press. Mill s. C. w . 1959. The Sociological 'maginatioll. New York. Oxford Uni versity Press. Mordu c h . J. 1999. Th e microfin ance promise. 37( Dece mber): 1569- 16 14 .

JOllr//(/1 oj Economic Literalllre .

Moyni han. D. P. 1969. Max imllm Feasible Mi.Hlllders{(lIIciinS: Comm unity Action ill the W{/r 011 PO I'ert\'. New York: Free Press . â&#x20AC;˘ Nabhan. G. P. 2002. Com inK flome to Ellt: The Pleasures alld PoWies oj Local Foods. I" cd. New York : W .W , Norton.

BhallachGlyya

Nestle, M . 2002 . Food politics: How llle Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: Un iversity of Cal ifornia Press. Nichter. M . 1989. Amhropology alld ImernatiOllol Health. BasIOn : Kl uwcr. Nichte r, M . 1984 . Projec t co mmunit y diagnosis: Part icipa tory research as a fi rst step toward co mmunit y involvement in primary health care. Social Science all(i Medicine 19(3): 237-252. Niebuhr, H. R. 1951. Christ and ell/fllre. New York: Harper and Brothers. N isbet, R. A . 1962. Commllnity and Power. New York: Oxford Uni versity Press.

Piagel . J . 1973. To Ullde rsflIlld i,,' /0 Ill vent:The Futllre of Educatio n , New York: Grossman Publ ishcrs.

Plant. R. 1974. Commlillity ami Ideology: All Essay il/ Applied Social Philosophy. London: Routledge & K. Paul. Polanyi. K. 1944. The Cretll Trallsformation. New York: Rinehan . Popple. K .. & A. Quinney. 2002. T heory and practice of commu nity dcvclopment: A case s tudy fro m the United Ki ngdom . Journal of ComlllllllilY Del'elopmelll Society

33( 1),7 1-8 5. Putn:lm. R. 1995 . Bowling alone: America's dcclining social capital. Journal of Demo(:rllcy. Jan uary: 65-78. Putnam . R .. R. D. But ler. & L. M . Fe ld stein (wi th D. Cohen). 2003. Hetter Together: Restorill$: the AmeriClIlI Communit),. New York : Simon &Schusler. Redfield . R. 1955 . TIle Little Community: Vie wpoillls fo r the SlIldy of a lillman Whole . Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press. Riesman. D .. in collaboration with R. Denney & N. Glazer. 1950. Th e Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing Americall Chl/racter. New Haven : Ya le Uni vcrsity Press. Rifkin . S. B .. & G. Wall. 1986. Wh y health improves: Defining the issues concerning 'com prehensive health care' and 'sc lective primary heah h care: Social Science alld M edicine 23 (6): 559-566. Roosevelt. M. 2003. "Fresh off the farm :" Community -su pported agricultu re. Time . Nov. 3. Vol. 162 . issue 18. pp. 60-61. Rorty. R. 2001. The continuity between Ihe Enlightenment and 路Postmodernism路 ... Pp. 1936 in K. M . Bake r & P. Han s Reill (cds.). \Vhat's Left of Enlightenment ? A Postll/odem Question. Stanford. CA : Slanford University Press. Rothman . J. 1968. Th ree model s of communi ty organization practice. Social Work Practice 1968. aliona l Conference o n Social Welfare . cw York : Columbia Uni ve rsity Press. Sahlins. M . 1976. Culture flnd Practical Reasoll. Chicago: UniversilY of Chicago Press. Sampson. R. J. 2004. Neighborhood and community : Collective efficacy and communi ty safety. New Economy 1: 106- 113. Sanders, I. T. 1958b. Theories of community de velopment. Rural Sociology 23: 1- 12. Sanders. 1. T. 1958a. Co mrmlflilY Developmelll and Naliorwl Change. Washington. DC: US Int ernatio nal Cooperation Admin is tration . Schlosser. E. 2002. TIl e Fast Food Nation: The Dark Slile of the All-Americall Meal. New Yo rk : Pere nnial Press.

Journal of the Community DeveJopmem Society

34 Sen. A.

1999.

Dl'\'e/opment

liS

Freedom . New York : Knopf.

Seton-Watson. H. 1977. NtlliOlls (llId States: An Enquiry illto the Origins of Nations {Ind thl' Politics of Nationalism. Boulder. CO: Westview Press. Shain. B. A. 1994. The Myth of American Indil'idllalism: the Prate.W(1II1 Origins of American Political TIIol/gIIL Prin celOn. NJ: Princeton University Press. Singer. M .. C. Flores, L. Davison. G. Burke . & Z. Castillo. 1991. Puerto Rican commu nity mobilizing in response to the aids crisis. Hllmllll Org(l/Ii~atiOIl 50: 73-81.

Slate r. P. E. 1970. The Pursuit of Loneliness : AmericlIlI ell/lIlre Basion: Beacon Press.

(1/

the Breaking Poirlt .

Spiegel, H. B. C. & S Miucnlhal. 1968. NeighborhoOlI Power Clnd COllrru/: Implicaliulls for Urball PI{IIlIliI1R. A Reporl Prepared for the Deparlmenl of Housillg alld UrI){1II Developmelll . New York : Institute of Urban Environment, School of Architecture.

Columbia University. Stone. L. 1992. Cultural innuences in community participation in health. Social Science alld Medicil/e 35: 409-417. Summers. G. 1986. Rural Community Development. Pp . 333-340 in Nelli Dimellsions jll Rllral Policy: Blli/ding Upon Ollr Heritage. Studies prepared for the use of the Subcommittee on Agri c ulture and Transportation of the Joint Economic Commillce. Congress of the United States. Wa sh ington.DC: US Government Printin g. Tonnies. F. 1957(1887J. In C. P. Loomi s ((ra ns. and cd.), Commlll/ity aflll Society . New York : Harper Torchbooks. University of Mi ssouri at Columbia. n.d. The Handbook of Com munity Del'elopmenl. Columbia. MO: Department of Community Development. Vayda. A. P. 1983. Progressive contextualizalion: Methods for rcscHrch in human ecology. Hlllllall Ecology II: 265-281. Weber, E.

1976. PeaW/nt illlo Frenchman: TIle MotJemiZllliol1 of Rural FI"lI/lce , 1870· 1914 . Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press.

Weber, M. 1978. In G. Roth & C. Wil1ich (eds.), and E. Fischoff ct a1. (trans.). Economy and Society: All Dlldill e of IlIt e rpre tive Sociology. Berkele y: University of California Press. Wileden. A. F. 1970. COl/wllmil)" Del'elopmelll. TOlOwa . NJ: Bedm inster Press . Wolin. S. 1990. Democracy in the discourse of Postmodemism. Social Research 57: 5-30. Zagarella, S. A. 198R. Narrative of community: The identification of a genre. Sigtl.f 13: 498 -527. •

•