Ordinary people are now fashionable

Today saw the launch of a new Demos report on civic participation and the public realm, Start with people. I wish they had. I have enough respect for the authors, John Craig and Paul Skidmore, to be confident that the report will be a sound and thought-provoking read, when I get the chance. I say that because the launch event felt like a strong attempt to put me off bothering. The think tanks have discovered the community sector, as have politicians, and that's not unwelcome. It doesn't mean that these powerful and influential people sitting round discussing how ordinary people set about confronting the processes that reflect the disadvantages around them, in terms and values which are alien and offputting to the rest of us, is not close to offensive. People have been busy at local level - sometimes struggling, sometimes well-supported - getting involved and doing what they can collectively, for a lot longer than think tank wonks and politicians have taken their endeavours seriously, or recognised the significant social value of such endeavours.

Maybe I heard through tired ears, but I did hear culture minister David Lammy, for instance, start off on an unfortunate note by saying that when new labour came to power in 1997, we didn't all understand the project, the voluntary sector was a bit behind, and the community sector was just 'somewhere else.' There really is a need for a rather more sensitive attitude. It's just possible that the community sector wasn't and isn't 'somewhere else;' the politicians and the wonks have been somewhere else. I worry that some of them still are.

I arrived late for the meeting and felt duly contrite, knowing that I may have missed something and needing to allow my understanding of what was going on, to develop over a few minutes. Conceptually and on a rather different timescale, something similar may be needed here.

Comments

[Hana Loftus]

I completely agree - the late bandwagon-jumping and triteness of so much political rhetoric around 'community' is nauseating and insulting to the 'community' itself - and the lack of precision around the use of that word itself is symptomatic.

Behind all the confident rhetoric of the pamphlet I felt like the message was still vague as always. Having personal experience of the US voluntary and community sector, it's also interesting to compare the debates. I personally think the assumptions about 'civil society' and 'social capital' need a bit more of a radical shake-up...

[more vaguely related ramblings here (http://virtualhana.blogspot.com/2005/06/myths-of-social-capital.html ), more related to the US debate than the UK one, but still...]

[Paul Skidmore]

Kevin and I have crossed swords over the design of events before. On the whole I tend to think they are disappointing, and in many cases involve talking to the same Westminster village elite. Take it from me that we did try, both in terms of attendees and speakers, to get a better balance but failed for which I apologise. But with respect Kevin, I could just as easily point to the one CDF did at the ODPM as being a long way from a paragon of inclusiveness.

But without getting unduly defensive about an event that I myself wasn't wild about, I'm afraid I do take issue with your broadside against "wonks".

The role of think-tanks has always been to occupy a space between a whole range of organisations and sectors that often find it very difficult to talk to each other. But what more proof do you need of how crucial that role is than when, the moment you talk about "community" (or for that matter, education or science or culture), you are immediately flamed by people within that sector whose principal objection seems sinmply to be that your credentials are somehow not authentic enough?

Can I suggest that "newcomers", though I would strongly dispute that in Demos' case that is what we are, might be better welcomed not as an invading army but as reinforcements?