To all who are stopping by, thank you very much. Right up front I want you to know that I could really use your help. In a moment I will share my thoughts on what makes a community and I really want to see your thoughts as well. In the coming weeks I will be doing some interviews and research about community, and your input will be helpful. Besides that, I think you are interesting and I would love to get your input on the topic as well. OK, me first.
I think that what makes a community a community is people. That may seem like a "duh" statement to you, but I find it profound. Community is not a place. A place doesn't become a community until it becomes populated. before that it is wilderness!
If people are the source of community, then what people are necessary for a community? More to the point, what people make up a healthy community. Let's define "healthy" as a place where people want to live. A place where people live in safety and mutual respect. Even if only for the most part. Think about, or imagine a neighborhood where you would want to live. I think I have said enough as I don't want to lead you to certain answers. Hopefully that is just detailed enough to not be too vague, nor too closed a scenario.
Borrowing from the educational paragon that is Sesame Street, "Who are the people in your neighborhood"?
I think a community is made up of leaders, people with a vision of a future of opportunity and promise. Leaders with a compelling vision will attract followers. There are those who provide. Those who protect. Those who nurture and those who heal. In short:
Soldiers
Police
Farmers
Tradesmen
Teachers
Doctors
Artists
Entrepreneurs
To that list I would add two very broad categories, givers and takers.
In the category of giver there are heroes - unsung heroes who serve the community in virtual anonymity but whose presence, whether known or unknown enhances community.
My questions for you and where I need your help are as follows:
In your opinion, what makes a community a community?
Who would you add to the list of people in the community?
Do you know of an unsung hero in your community? If so, name them and honor them here!
Thanks so much, I am really excited to see your responses.
When I am my brother's keeper n he is mykeeper
ReplyDeleteCommunity happens :)
Hmmm... To me, people are also what make up a community. But for me, I don't see it as a list of the different 'types' of roles (police, farmer, soldier etc), but more of people who share a common heart language or verbal vocabulary or both.
ReplyDeleteLike a group of mums on a forum page - they would be community to me. They might be from different countries, backgrounds, occupations, ages, races and religions, but they all share the common language of love for their children, and thus they can communicate with each other and build each other up (or tear each other down) through their exchanges.
Sth like that :)
I love the community I live in. As a matter of fact I left it and returned three times. This time I plan on staying.
ReplyDeleteA community does not become a community until you as a s member becomes involved. Taking a voyeuristic approach to life is one is only able to imagine the possibilities.
By getting involved you begin to see live and breathe the community. My personal experiences are Board member of the local Land Trust. Being part of the passion for the local environment instills pride and commitment. You become vested in the maintenance of your local environment.
I sat on a number of fundraiser committees. The people I have had the opportunity to work with on the volunteering projects have been inspiring. It is nice to know that the healthy of our community is in good hands of good people who care about the library, stray animals and our children's future. My community will survive. Not only survive but grow and prosper.
As a member of the community get out there and shop locally, walk the neighborhoods, get know people's names. Read the local news know your local leaders become involved. We always are looking for the next great adventure, it could be in your own backyard. Take a look right out your window there is so much to explore, help with and to be proud of.
GREAT input!
ReplyDeleteSoaps - nice and succinct. (you dun follow my blog yet, lah?
Dotz: commonality, from the same root word, common which also gives us communication. Good distinction, there is a difference between being a person and the role one plays eg. policeman. Or is there? Are we defined by what we do? Good stuff for another post.
Branford land trust - didn't you used to beautify the neighborhood in an MG? ;-) Great point about getting involved and "you don't know what you got, 'til it's gone." Appreciate the beauty and blessing all around.
The common thread in your responses seems to be "get involved, don't be a taker."
Writing is not my speciality... so part of me wants to find a way to go out to a coffee shop and enjoy a yummy hot chocolate and discuss this at length with you...
ReplyDeletebut I'm not sure when I will next be in IN - I'm overdue to plan such a time.
but in the meantime
I feel like your list has a lot of great ideas.. but that I'd rather see them discussed as roles instead of as nouns for individual people.
For example, i do believe every community is well served by the spark of the creative. But I don't think that has to come from someone who calls themselves an artist, nor who makes there living as such.
Also, from experience living in intentional community myself in Boston, and watching very close friends live in intentional community here in Chicago, I think that your list seems to lack the concept of "leader", and "vision". It was my experience that a large percentage of the really tough moments for us in Boston circled around topics of decisions because there was no formal leadership. Those that had the leadership did not want it, and those that wanted to step up into it were not granted the authority.. and so there were no rules, no structure, nothing defined or written out, no absolutes, and noone to protect the community's goals or interests, nor to protect them from internal conflict.
That leadership position is not an easy one, I watch a friend who is in such a position, Prior, over a community here in Chicago. But the role is a much needed one and grants much health and freedom for the members as well as the community as a whole I believe.
Looking at both the boston and chicago communities ive known... i come up with a list that more mirrors the gifts of the spirit...
* leadership (someone needs to lead - both carry the authority as far as members are concerned, AND actually walk in and use the authority for the good of the community and its members)
* service (someone(s) needs to clean the flor on the muddy day even though its outside of the regular schedule, etc)
* teaching (we all have much to learn, about ourselves, about each other, about how to learn....)
* healing (bodies, emotions, spirits... much healing is needed, and much can take in community if the structures are in place)
...
and so on
Laura, so glad you stopped by! Great point about the list being nouns or roles, I intended the list to be roles, whether formal or informal. Love your point about the "gifts of the spirit." Wish I'd thought of it! Well, brew a cup of coffee and we'll have to be satisfied with asynchronous communication.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the role of leader is tricky, especially because our species craves autonomy and a leader. As a result we tend to hate our leaders. I don't want this to become political but while I like the "gifts of the spirit" roles I would not want a theocracy, rather use sacred text as a reference. Once leaders start playing the "God card" things go off the rails pretty quick.
Next time you're in Indy or I'm in Chicago, coffee and dialogue!
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI recommend that you read some Wendell Berry on this question - you could start with his essay "Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community" in his book of that same title. I think you may reject too quickly the idea that "place" has little to do with community. We are embodied creatures, and thus occupy space in the world. I think that the decline of community in the modern world has, to a significant extent, resulted due to our belief that place is relatively insignificant or fungible. Yet, only by living in a place - not only over the course of a single lifetime, but generationally, where forbears can be recalled and descendants anticipated - can that true community be formed, what G.K. Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead" or Edmund Burke called the real social contract, a contract between those who are "living, dead, and not yet born." Only by living in a place over a long period of time do we come to care truly for those places (why is it that we have an environmental crisis in the modern age? Could it have something to do with our rejection of the centrality of place in our lives?). Only by knowing a place intimately, even over generations, do we learn to live with and in the rhythms of the land, the weather, the water, the whole organism of a place. And, thus, community - that which is "common" - is extended to the whole.
There is one other feature I would stress - one that is related - which is that community at a certain level rests upon a deeply shared sense of our individual insufficiency and "need." It's not necessarily an awareness that often needs to be part of our conscious thought, though it must occasionally be brought to mind (e.g., I Corinthians 12-13). The modern world has rested extensively on fostering the illusion of our self-sufficiency and autonomy, the belief that we achieve our ends through our own efforts alone ("pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps"). Ironically, this illusion has come to require extensive expansion of the State: only by means of a central authority that ensures our relative ability to detach ourselves from people and places (e.g., see our Interstate Highway System, maintained at absolutely exorbitant costs) can we maintain the illusion of autonomy. Community aims at the opposite, which is the intuitive reliance we have upon other people, and thus, subtly but insistently fosters a sense of gratitude and obligation. A society that has first on its tongues the invocation of "individual rights" is not one that fosters an ethic of community.
I might finally suggest - here, perhaps to coax an interesting, civil, if important discussion - that this the yawning divide between what I have described as community and our modern form of deracination is fundamentally due to debates and settlements in theology. I would submit that Protestantism introduced a dangerous and ultimately corrosive form of individualism that flourished as modernity progressed - one that came to reject authority, place, tradition, and community (as I've described it) as fundamental ways by which we organize our lives together. Rather, the kernel of Protestantism - every man a priest - eventually reached full flourishing in a society that valorizes choice, rights, autonomy and mobility. I'm talking here about a certain logic at the heart of Protestantism, not Protestants (or at least many!), of course, but it's an important point to raise, and one that we must be willing to confront at the level of theology as well as politics.
I could go on - at great length! - but I hope this serves as a start.
Patrick, thank you SO MUCH for stopping by and for you valuable input. I will check out the Berry essay and I love Chesterton. Sounds like you have been on quite a sojourn yourself.
ReplyDeleteWell, I can see there are many posts still to come re: Community.
You are absolutely correct that I dismissed space too quickly. In fact, your comment reminded me of the Interantional Arts Movement conference that I attended a couple of years ago. Check it out sometime. One of their panelists spoke on the importance of city design and planning. To be sure there are ways to design that encourage community and ways to design that discourage community. Most of our current American designs encourage segregation, especially by class. Likewise, most of our suburbs seem to be uniquely designed to separate people, rather than bring them together. In my defense, I will say that the "place" for community becomes what we, as people make it. To that extent is it not people that make community, for it is people that shape the wilderness?
I Love this statement, "illusion of our self-sufficiency and autonomy," which also seems to be theologically based. If we want to go down that rabbit hole I would suggest that Protestantism that has gone off the rails and secular humanism make a potent poison. if we are indeed made in the image of a trinitarian God then we are made for community. Even as God Himself exists in community with Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That settles it, the next post will be "Scrooge Nation." After that we can discuss the dark side of Protestantism and the scandal of Grace.
Dr. Deneen, I am certain that my profs at Gonzaga would appreciate what appear to be strong Jesuit leanings! Thank you again for stopping by, I really appreciate you and your input.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteTo respond quickly and inadequately, I would suggest that we do not wholly "make" community inasmuch as we are always shaped in certain ways by nature (that of the world, and our human nature as well). Our communities will especially reflect the nature of the places we inhabit, as well as the traditions that are built up over time (and which, as part of any tradition, we do not wholly make. Consider a favorite event of our childhood, "The Shad Derby." That was (and remains) an event that reflects the nature of our place - the confluence of the Farmington and Connecticut Rivers - but which built up traditions over time in which we partook and toward which we contributed. The natural and the human interacted together in ineffable ways).
Wendell Berry suggests that we ought to be in "conversation" with the world and the places which we inhabit - but that today we are more apt to have a tyrannical or dictatorial relationship toward the world. If we understand our relationship to the world rightly, we must acknowledge that we neither wholly make our communities, nor are we wholly free to make them: we are both made by them and add to them, just as they are shaped by our natural environments even as we alter that same environment as well. The question is always one of how far either extends - being shaped by, and doing the shaping - and I'd submit that today we are tempted by the Promethean myth of self-creation. It's from that same impulse that we see the decline of community, and the corresponding rise of "the illusion of our self-sufficiency and autonomy."
Yes,yes,yes, I totally agree. Didn't mean to imply that we are not shaped by our communities, merely suggesting that a population is necessary. How that population comes to identify and manifest itself is a complicated process of mutual influence between people and nature. I think we are saying the same thing.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I have loved about my trips to Asia is that I see in the Asian culture a more organic and respectful approach to interacting with nature.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you and Patrick are saying the same thing. . . . It may sound like it in one way, namely: Patrick says you can't look just at people without reference to place; you say you can't look at place without reference also to people - all this in the context of looking at community, of course.
I don't think that Patrick meant to isolate place, though, in the same way it appears you might tend to isolate people, Mike. People would be an integral part of place (certainly in the context of community). I don’t know that the reverse is necessarily true. Not today, anyway, with people coming, going and otherwise exercising dominion over their locale in ways unheard of even 20 years ago. Think of the contours of this exercise alone! There are potentially people from any part of the globe – and changing parts of the globe as they might travel, to wit your recent post from Hungary – all talking “here”.
The initial discussions of community “here”, however, appeared to be wholly people-focused - unplaced - as if their physical location did not matter. It also assumes that the people can “make” their own physical locations as easily as they buy a plane ticket or purchase a house. . . . The decision to move thereby becomes the equivalent of “making” the “new place” I am moving to, which I execute by “choosing” where to live. The assumption is that it’s the people who matter – not the place. When the people show up, they “build community” as I have been hearing it put.
I wonder if we aren’t finding out now that this is not true. Consider for just a moment the problem so many churches seem to be having with the question of community. I think a great argument could be made tracing a decline in our sense of community to the average length of commute the church members undertake to get there on Sunday morning, or in the length of time one has gone to that same church without switching.
[OK - there's a 4000 character limit - so here ends part I!]
Part II - you can stop laughing now, Mike. . . . I know I DO go on! [grin]*****************************
ReplyDeleteI’d like to look at this from a slightly different viewpoint, though, and venture the idea of unities as a major part of what makes up communities. By that, I mean people sharing a unity of place, or purpose, or identity, beliefs or commitment. It seems to me that communities are based on common unities. It is what the word says, after all. What are those common unities, and how and why do we neglect them?
Starting right here, our common unity would appear that we all know Mike. Or potentially there’s someone who stumbled across this blog who doesn’t know Mike, but who has a passion for talking about community. Anyone? I wonder what the prospects are for a community growing out of that sole unity. . . .
In what I hope is an echo – or perhaps a harmony – to what Patrick said, I think the issue of interdependency is crucial to any community. It’s amazing what happens when we truly need each other. I think I can illustrate this pretty easily by reference to the community atmosphere that happens when there’s a blizzard in New York City. Suddenly, people are helping each other, looking out for one another. I’ve often wondered why that was apparently not the case in New Orleans at the time of hurricane Katrina. . . . OK, so this thesis still needs to be worked out, doesn’t it, in that it seems that need (and especially desperate need) can either bring out the best in us, or the worst.
In any event, a unity of interdependence on some level would appear to be necessary for true community. In any attempt at community among independent equals (and yes, that’s our Nation’s ideal, isn’t it?) each of us is free to take our ball and go home anytime the game isn’t to our liking. This destroys the unity of the identity of the community members and is particularly corrosive to any hope of community.
Other common unities have been brought up by those who have left comments here. Yes, Soaps/Lin touches on an aspect of interdependence, from the perspective of caring for one another. Dotz speaks of a common language, the language of what is dearest to them – in her case, the raising of children. She says that that common unity can transcend virtually all other difference, for her, anyway. It’s interesting that the raising of children implicates interdependence in a very upfront way!
Branford Land Trust focuses on service, I would say, which seems to assume caring for those “in” the community. Laura focuses on leadership and vision, detailing the problems that arise when there is no clear leadership or leadership authority to carry out a recognized vision of what is good for the community.
Doesn’t all of this assume the actual identity of the community, and who the members are of it? And doesn’t it also assume a level of abiding commitment to one another? (And not to just anyone) I think it also assumes that we know the common interest as to what is “good” for the community, as well as where the community is heading – its goal. And to get back where I started, it also assumes a unity of some shared location – some place we have in common.
I understand that this blog about community was started as an assignment for you, Mike. I’m not quite sure whether the purpose is just to get people’s thoughts on community or whether it is to actually attempt to experience community at this internet location. If it’s to get isolated reports/thoughts on the topic of community, it would appear that regular correspondence would be just as good. So I suspect that the goal is to have us engaging with another as well. (nod here to Patrick’s emphasis on how place shapes us. . . .) To that end, I submit that more common unity would be required than “knowing Mike” and dropping by this blog if and when we feel like it or as the result of Mike’s request.
and part III:
ReplyDelete***********
Knowing Mike is a good start. To that, perhaps what needs to be added is a common interest in the idea of community (which it appears we might already have) and interest in understanding and fostering it (so, a common goal), and I’m thinking a commitment might help add to the common unities. A commitment perhaps to show up, read Mike’s weekly post and to post something – to interact. Sharing those common unities might then also lead to a commitment to one another, as we work through this project together with Mike, and we might find that we emerge at some point as a community of sorts. . . .
I’m not sure how we would fare with respect to the idea of interdependency, which we’ve discussed as necessary in developing community. Perhaps that arises out of one person not being able to see all angles, but needing the help and vision of others? What I can say is that this treatment of mine about community would not be what it is without having first seen the interaction of what the others brought up and discussed.
all the best to you all!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKnowing Mike... nice LOL We can call this blog Mikeville so it sounds more like a "place." I bet you don't like that idea, and neither do I!
ReplyDeleteI think I see more clearly, community is a function of place and people? You can't have one without the other, right? They will influence and shape one another, even if the "place" is a virtual place in cyberspace. Even so, the nature of this blog community is shaped in part by its place on the internet. Am I getting this?
I like the commonalities you mention:
Common place - this blog in this case
Common interest - community
Common Commitment - learn about and grow our "home" communities or other communities of which we are a part.
Like you, I wonder about interdependency. That can be part of a community, but I don't see it as necessary. How else could we describe the interconnectedness and aid we offer to on another? While a child begins life totally dependent, the goal is to guide and mature that child to healthy self sufficiency, still in the context of relationships and community.
So we are more symbiotic, than interdependent. We choose to exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Meaning we each voluntarily give and take, and are made more complete in our relationships, but we won't die on our own. Or will we? :-) Guess I am getting plenty of blog ideas! Thanks queenie! So glad to have you in our "community"!
Hey Mike - the thing about interdependency that I've marveled at is that it seems to foster community like nothing else! Think of men at war with their buddies. They trust one another with life and death matters. Talk about interdependency. Ditto people who have come through various disasters together. It's why the 'ropes courses' and 'Outward Bound' are so effective, even though the common fight is manufactured, in that it is chosen. . . .
ReplyDeleteFinally, how important is voluntary choice in the matter, I wonder? You seem to value "choice", which is certainly in keeping with our American culture. I have often thought through the question of choice with respect to the kinds of relationships we have. Philosopher Onora O'Neill talks of relationships as 'given' (things like father/child - not rescindable) or chosen (friendship, for example - which can easily be UNchosen again) and I find it fascinating to consider how marriage fits in there. I think this also applies to communities, and is what I meant when I mentioned commitment (and not so much a commitment to an idea, which might fall instead under a common goal. . . .)
Does choice - or independence - factor in, in your distinction between the symbiotic and interdependent?
Honestly, I don't know! That is why I ended with a question.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, I think that, yes, it does. We do NEED to be in community and relationship, but to which community we belong many times we may choose, even as you mentioned friends can be chosen and UNchosen. that being said, you give great examples that point out the power in "forced" community, even if one's presence was voluntary and tragedy hit. In his book, Sacred Marriage, Gary Thomas makes a compelling case for the power of arranged marriages and commitment.
queenie, you make me think and I thank you! I hope you visit frequently.
Interesting discussion. Is this a private party, or can an outsider jump in?
ReplyDeleteBy all means. Please don't remain an "outsider"!
ReplyDeleteI think for me the question is about commitment, and whether it is revocable or irrevocable. . . . I wouldn't try to distinguish on the basis of chosen versus "forced" community, but would instead look at whether the association was a long-term irrevocable one, or one that is more casual and terminable at will. Does that make sense? And yes, the concept of covenant is very much front and centre here.
ReplyDeleteThus, although I would have a tough time arguing against the concept of choice in marriage, I do heartily support irrevocable commitment once the choice is made. . . . It is an element that is increasingly lacking in our "communities", is it not?
I join 'another Mike' in saying welcome, Michael!
Indeed, queenie. give Sacred Marriage a turn when you get a chance. His arguments, though not a plea for a return to the "good old days," for the upside of arranged marriages in compelling.
ReplyDeleteArranged or not, we always have the power to choose our attitude and level of commitment. It does seem that the bar for what is vile enough to break a commitment has been set quite a bit lower. Allegiances are weak these days. I dare say people are more committed to their sports teams than to their spouse!