Community Life

Graham Crow, Graham Allan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317867012
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Cultural & Social Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 1994. The sociology of community is currently undergoing something of a revival, and this book has been written with the aim of contributing to this process in a number of ways. First of all, it draws attention to the burgeoning literature on sociological aspects of community life. Secondly, its bring together the various studies considered here into a more coherent whole than they possess as simply a collection of separate pieces of research.

1

INTRODUCTION: OLD AND NEW THEMES IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF COMMUNITY

‘Community’ figures in many aspects of our everyday lives. Much of what we do is engaged in through the interlocking social networks of neighbourhood, kinship and friendship, networks which together make up ‘community life’ as it is conventionally understood. ‘Community’ stands as a convenient shorthand term for the broad realm of local social arrangements beyond the private sphere of home and family but more familiar to us than the impersonal institutions of the wider society, what Bulmer (1989, p. 253) calls ‘intermediary structures’. The diversity and spread of these structures helps to account for the bewildering variety of meanings associated with the term ‘community’. Community ties may be structured around links between people with common residence, common interests, common attachments or some other shared experience generating a sense of belonging. In each case competing definitions of ‘community’ are constructed, yet while the numerous meanings of ‘community’ are contested (Plant et al., 1980, ch. 9), there is no doubt that the communities of which we are members play a significant role in shaping our social identities and patterns of action. In this chapter we start by examining the different meanings of ‘community’. We then turn to the many problems there are in investigating the character of different communities and end the chapter by indicating the continued significance of community matters in our personal and public lives.

It is possible to distinguish between several different types of community according to their contrasting features and characteristics, such as the density of their social networks, the degree of their openness, and their duration (St Leger and Gillespie, 1991; Scherer, 1972). A classic example of a close-knit community structure in which the various dimensions of community life overlap and interpenetrate is provided by the traditional working-class communities found throughout industrial Britain during the earlier part of the twentieth century. The term ‘occupational communities’ has been applied to these tightly knit settlements of workers and their families which grew up around the mines, factories, ports and other workplaces that left a heavy imprint on local social relationships. The subsequent decline of these occupational communities should not be treated as synonymous with the decline of community as such, however, since community life takes many forms. It will be the argument of chapter 5, for instance, that some ethnic minority communities in contemporary Britain have many of the same features of ‘encapsulation’ as those of the traditional working class. Other contemporary communities in which members lead more detached lives are closer to what Janowitz (1967) has called ‘the community of limited liability’. The more restricted patterns of sociability found in such communities indicate that individuals here have more control over and are more selective about their involvement in local social networks, but the term ‘community’ remains applicable for all that. The sociology of community is concerned with the whole range of community relationships and not with only one particular form.

Investigating the nature of community life is not a straight-forward matter. To begin with there is the problem faced by researchers of gaining access to local social networks, given that these networks are not necessarily open to outsiders, and may be quite effectively closed off. Communities are rarely so exclusive that researching them becomes impossible, however, and field-work reports testify to the variety of (often ingenious) ways in which access to information about the lives of insiders has been negotiated. A second methodological problem relates to the dangers of researchers romanticising community life, finding and reporting only solidarity and co-operation and ignoring the schism and conflict in local social life, highlighting the positive, celebrated sides of communities and neglecting their oppressive and coercive aspects. The community study method has been seen by some critics as particularly problematic in this respect, and such criticism has been responsible in part for the proliferation of other research methods employed in the field of community sociology in recent years.

The extent to which ‘community’ shapes our lives continues to be important, despite the frequently held belief that modern times have witnessed a ‘decline of community’. Closer investigation reveals that the idea of society undergoing a ‘loss of community’ has a very long history, but that it is sustainable only if selective, romanticised views of the past are adopted. This is not to suggest that nothing has changed in the field of community relations, however, and it is as mistaken to portray contemporary community life uncritically as it is to romanticise the past. It is now widely acknowledged that a number of questionable and outdated assumptions about the nature of local social relationships have informed policies of community care, for example. This recognition was not automatic; it emerged in no small measure through sociological researchers highlighting the mismatch between theory and evidence relating to the caring capacities of relatives, friends and neighbours in ‘the community’. The sociology of community thus has a bearing on matters of immediate, practical significance as well as raising important issues at a more abstract, theoretical level. The aim of this book is to explore both these facets of the subject and their interconnections, beginning with the question ‘What is community?’

THE MEANINGS OF ‘COMMUNITY’

‘Community’ does not have one single meaning, but many. On the basis of research experience in the field over several decades, Willmott (1986, ch. 6) suggests that basically ‘community’ refers to people having something in common, and that this shared element is often understood geographically; he terms this ‘territorial community’ or ‘place community’. In contrast to this sense of community as shared residence, Willmott identifies a second meaning where the basis of community is shared characteristics other than place, in which people are linked together by factors such as common ethnic origin, religion, occupation or leisure pursuits. Since such networks are structured around common interests, Willmott uses the term ‘interest community’ to describe them. He notes immediately that there is quite a strong possibility of place communities and interest communities coinciding (as they did in the traditional working-class communities which are the subject of chapter 2, for example), but the distinction allows recognition that interest communities may also be geographically dispersed. Willmott then goes on to distinguish a third sense of community relating to people’s ‘spirit of community’ or community sentiments, which he labels ‘community of attachment’. (This sense of community is most obviously expressed in the various forms of collective action which are the subject matter of chapter 7.) Again there exists the possibility of overlap between this and the other senses of community that Willmott identifies, but he argues that it is a legitimate distinction to make since communities of territory and interest do not necessarily involve the interaction with other people and the sense of shared identity which are the defining characteristics of communities of attachment.

A similar conclusion to Willmott’s is arrived at in Lee and Newby’s (1983, ch. 4) discussion of definitions of community. Again there are three senses of community identified, and although these are not identical to Willmott’s, the broad similarity is striking. Lee and Newby suggest that the geographical sense of community is best termed ‘locality’, and argue that the concept of community is not being used sociologically here because, ‘apart from the observation that they are all living together in a particular place, there is no consideration of the inhabitants at all, nor of how – or, indeed, whether – they interact with one another’ (1983, p. 57). Lee and Newby’s second sense of ‘community’, adopting Stacey’s (1969) term ‘local social system’, retains a geographical referent in a way that Willmott’s interest community does not, but it is comparable in the sense that it implies individuals are linked together in social networks, the patterns of which can be studied as objective social structures. People are not necessarily committed subjectively to the local social systems of which they are part, and for this reason Lee and Newby distinguish a third definition of community which involves a shared sense of identity and which they call ‘communion’. Like Willmott’s community of attachment, Lee and Newby’s communion is conceptually distinct from their other definitions, although (again like Willmott) Lee and Newby note the tendency of sociologists in the field of community to run the different elements together, and to cause confusion as a result.

‘Community’ may thus be defined more or less extensively. In the extreme it is possible to conceive of all the above elements of community being present simultaneously, although a definition in which shared residence, interests and identity coincide has only limited value as a sociological tool since reality is always likely to fall short of such an idealized standard, and in consequence to appear somehow incomplete. It is from such idealized notions that the pervasive ‘loss of community’ thesis gains misplaced credibility. A more fruitful approach is to follow Stacey’s proposition that ‘Physical proximity does not always lead to the establishment of social relations’ (1969, p. 144), and to go on to investigate the circumstances in which there is some such link, and those in which there is not. This approach focuses attention on variables like the degree of heterogeneity of a local population and rates of inward or outward mobility, with the result that certain social structures can be identified as likely to promote (and others to impede) community interaction and community solidarity. A settled, homogeneous population is more likely than a mobile, heterogeneous one to develop community in its more extensive sense, for example, although it is clear that these are not in themselves sufficient conditions for this to happen.

The emergence of community life in its broader sense requires not only favourable local social structures but also the active creation of ‘community’. This positive involvement of people and organisations in the generation and reproduction of local social networks and identities is captured in the title of Suttles’ (1972) study, The Social Construction of Communities. Suttles’ argument highlights the importance of recognising the active involvement of individuals and groups in the construction of communities because common sense, embodied in what he calls ‘folk models’ (1972, p. 4), tends to play it down. There is a superficial attraction to the idea of the ‘natural community’ in which social order and integration emerge automatically, without direction or even intention, an idea summed up in the term ‘planless stability’ (1972, p. 9). Thinking of communities as ‘natural’ appeals to us, Suttles writes, because it suggests ‘a process in which communities [are] more nearly the products of personal and human nature than the contrivances of planners, bureaucracies and depersonalized institutions’ (1972, p. 9). Suttles is rightly critical of such romanticism for its neglect of the active, directive role of builders, developers and government agencies in the social process of the social construction of communities, a theme pursued further in chapter 7. Suttles’ argument is sensitive to the point that the construction of communities may involve the imposition of artificial patterns of residential segregation which in time come to be treated as ‘natural’ by residents, outsiders and external organisations alike.

The idea of the naturalness of community is understandably attractive for all its falsity. Where community is perceived as a natural unity, community ties are at their most potent, as Bauman has noted: ‘The community type of belonging is at its strongest and most secure when we believe just this: that we have not chosen it on purpose, have done nothing to make it exist and can do nothing to undo it’ (1990, p. 72). Put another way, ‘those who pursue community as an end in itself will be … disappointed’ (Greeley, quoted in Scherer, 1972, p. 120). The appeal of a community tends to be undermined when the things that are shared by its members are openly examined and debated, rather than being taken for granted, since the process of discussion is likely to unearth divisions and reveal the contrived, created character of the ties formerly considered natural. Bauman goes on to argue that the sharing of beliefs about the natural unity of community ‘would be at its fullest among isolated people who conduct all their life-business, from birth to death, in the same company, who neither venture into other places nor are visited by members of other groups’ (1990, p. 73). Insulation from contact with other styles of life discourages questioning of the bases of the current order, and allows the belief to be sustained that communities are natural entities.

The apparent naturalness of community in relatively isolated locations has attracted a large number of researchers to remote communities over the years (Frankenberg, 1969). In this context Cohen’s (1987) work on the Shetland island community of Whalsay is particularly interesting since Cohen is also author of The Symbolic Construction of Community (1985) and editor of a volume of studies of rural communities entitled Belonging (1982). Cohen’s argument is that communities are best understood as communities of meaning in which ‘community’ plays a crucial symbolic role in generating and sustaining people’s sense of belonging. For Cohen, ‘the reality of community lies in its members’ perception of the vitality of its culture. People construct community symbolically, making it a resource and a repository of meaning, and a referent of their identity’ (1985, p. 118). Crucial to this process of constructing communities is the definition of the boundaries which serve to ‘discriminate the community from other places and groups’ (1987, p. 14), that is, to draw a line between a community’s members and non-members. The boundaries of communities help people to identify those with whom similarities are shared and those who are different: ‘“Community” suggests that its putative members have something in common with each other which distinguishes them in a significant manner from the members of other groups’ (1987, p. 14). In short, communities are defined not only by relations between members, among whom there is similarity, but also by the relations between these ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, who are distinguished by their difference and consequent exclusion.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION

The tradition of social anthropological thought which Cohen represents emphasises the symbolic and ritual nature of the processes through which the boundaries between a community’s insiders and outsiders are marked. Cohen claims that in industrialised, mass societies the symbolic boundaries of communities become more rather than less important since what he calls communities’ ‘structural boundaries’ have been ‘transformed or undermined by social change’ (1986, p. 7). The physical isolation of communities has been breached:

The interrelated processes of industrialization and urbanization, the dominance of the cash economy and mass production, the centralization of markets, the spread of the mass media and of centrally disseminated information, and the growth of transportation infrastructure and increased mobility all undermine the bases of community boundaries. (1985, p. 44)

In reaction to these processes pushing towards uniformity, communities ‘reassert their boundaries symbolically’ (1985, p. 44) in order to sustain the distinction between members and non-members, although the basis of this distinction has, Cohen claims, become cultural rather than structural. Cohen’s work focuses particular attention on the way in which people experience community through shared rituals, such as the annual Notting Hill carnival (1985, pp. 54–5). This approach to community carries echoes of Thompson’s (1968) celebrated view of class being not a ‘thing’ but a ‘happening’.

Several aspects of the boundaries of communities in contemporary societies deserve to be noted. To begin with, consciousness of community membership changes but does not disappear in the modern world, and may even (paradoxically) be promoted by the forces of globalisation (Robins, 1990). If Cohen’s work contests the naturalness of community in relatively remote settings such as the Shetland Islands, other studies challenge the reverse side of the ‘decline of community’ thesis by showing the continuing vitality of community identity in urban contexts. Wallman’s research into an inner-city area of London, for example, found that ‘Battersea has “always” considered outsider status to be more a matter of newness than of colour or foreign origin, and it has “always” made the local area a prime focus of identity and loyalty’ (1984, p. 7); this is the essence of ‘the Battersea style’.

In contrast, Cornwell’s study of Bethnal Green presents this area of London as one in which ethnic origin has considerable importance attached to it in determining insider and outsider status, so giving a more ominous ring to her observation that ‘where there is belonging, there is also not belonging, and where there is in-clusion, there is also ex-clusion’ (Cornwell, 1984, p. 53). Gilroy’s work, focusing more explicitly on race, acknowledges the influence of Cohen’s ideas and comes likewise to sober conclusions:

Community is as much about difference as it is about similarity and identity. It is a relational idea which suggests, for British blacks at least, the idea of antagonism – domination and subordination between one community and another. The word directs analysis to the boundary between these groups. (1987, p. 235)

It will be argued in chapter 5 that insider/outsider distinctions along ethnic lines may be emerging as more rather than less prominent in modern British society, although (as Wallman’s research indicates) this is not necessarily a uniform trend.

The second point about the boundaries of community is that they are not fixed, but fluid. Geographical mobility inevitably entails a reworking of the insider/outsider distinction, and chapter 4 is devoted to exploring the ways in which length of residence and other aspects of patterns of migration affect who can consider themselves members of a community. Wallman’s Battersea research threw up the case of ‘a Newcastle man, three years’ resident, with a wife from the other side of London, [who] is called a “foreigner” by a Jamaican woman of ten years’ standing who clearly is not’ (1984, p. 8). In the very different context of rural Wales in the 1940s, Rees (1951) found that an individual was treated as a ‘stranger’ until his or her family had been in the locality for at least two generations, while Day and Murdoch in their more recent research in the same part of the country were not surprised to find an incomer ‘who had been living in the valley for fifteen years and still felt excluded’ (1993, p. 103). Other processes besides geographical mobility also influence the strength of the boundaries of community. For example, Waddington et al.’s (1991) research into the 1984–5 coal dispute suggests that the degree of social solidarity of mining communities changed significantly during the course of the strike and its aftermath.

The third point relating to the boundaries of community is that they are not freely chosen or voluntary, but are, rather, influenced by a number of social structural processes. Wallman has pointed out that ‘There is no one measure that defines “us” – the people entitled to share the resources we call “ours” – but the continual shifting of the boundary of us is not random’ (1984, p. 6), thus emphasising the importance of material factors such as opportunities in local housing and labour markets. ‘Community’ for Wallman is concerned not only with symbols but also with ‘necessary resources’ (1982, p. 5), and it is the nature of the social networks through which access to such resources is gained (or denied) which explains why Battersea is a relatively open community to newcomers: ‘housing, jobs and people are mixed and there are so many separate “gates” into local resources that no single...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword by Howard Newby
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Map
• 1 Introduction: Old and new themes in the sociology of community
• 2 The ways things were: Community life in past generations
• 3 The restructuring of communities: The impact of economic change
• 4 Moving in and moving on: The significance of geographical mobility
• 5 Ethnicity, solidarity and exclusion: Race and spatial social segregation
• 6 Home ownership and home life: Changing ideals of housing and domesticity
• 7 Remaking communities: Urban redevelopment and community action
• 8 Community and social policy: Care and control
• 9 Conclusions: The continuing importance of the sociology of community
• References
• Index