In an excellent article (http://progressonline.org.uk/Magazine/article.asp?a=4777) about the difference between a conservative and a social democratic concept of social mobility, Karen Buck MP says the following in her first paragraph:
"Beware of concepts that seem, superficially, to have politicial endorsement from across the politicial spectrum. There will be something about that concept that is slippery and hard to pin down. A few years ago the cry went up for "community". The word became the subject of endless seminars and thinktank reports, was talked about with great erudition by Amitai Etzioni and Robert Puttnam, was deemed to be the holy grail for society, and specifically as an object behind various regeneration schemes ('New Deal for Communities') and then - vanished! Where today , is the rigorous new thinking, the big money and the government programmes geared towards community building? Nowhere, and primarily because, the closer we got, the less we could define a common meaning, still less a shared approach to achieving it. Did we want communities of people 'like us', familiar with a shared culture and history? Did we mean something that bound together those very different cultures, values and lifestyles? Did we want more mobility? Or less? Did we not, perhaps, want women the traditional nurturers of family and neighbourhood, back in the home to carry on that now neglected task?"
This is absolutely right and is music to my ears! In particular she points to a growing feminist critique of the notion of community which hides a deeply reactionary view of women's role in society. She also hints at the fact that community can be used as a concept that inhibits mobility and the breaking down of inequalities. Because of course talk of community heads us off from talking about economic inequalities (class) and makes us think we are describing a static structure rather than a dynamic process that is open to change. Right on the money!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Lynne Gillett made a comment about your note "Mobility and community":
Partially agree, but think its another symptom of our laziness in not creating new terminology to fit the 21st century too - like trying to find a classigfication for migrants/refuges/second generation BME that doesn't depend on immigration status terminology.
I think the surge of focus on communities also reflected a feeling of loss around group identities, maybe nostalgia, but maybe no-one was brave, or loud, enough to lead new ideas of group identity. Remember lots written on individual senses of identity, but did it ever go further into our need for support structures that don't restrict us but can give comfort beyond ideas of dogmatic religions, nationalities etc?
Wish I had more answers to offer, is a subject I will probably brood on for many years!
Are structures static becasue we need them to be? I prefer dynamic, but so many are so scaed of change, especially those who probably need it most....
Oooh, going to be up all night "finking" now. Thanks Andy, good one! L x
Couldn't agree more. This is a reflexion I have every day I take my daughter to her local primary school and seeing how teachers, parent association and Headteacher try to make both parents and children participate and feel included in the common good of improving our children's educational environment and community. But we must also acknowledge that all of us come from very diverse households, family structure and economic inequalities and this is felt once we leave the school gates and either go to work, enjoy a cappuccino, prepare lentils or quietly drink vodka or cider to numb the pain helplessness This is why community cohesion is such an empty concept that when unpicking it. In a nutshell it is meaningless...
Post a Comment