Friday, 27 November 2009

Changing the acoustics for citizens' voices

The other day I was at CABE for a meeting about community engagement and public space. We seem to have been wobbling on this theme for years without quite getting our balance or momentum, but there are signs that we're all gaining in confidence. Public libraries have been going through a similar process. This is about getting clarity on what constitutes a democratic public realm. Democracy is at last beginning to shift from an emphasis on its mechanics to an appreciation that it depends on the quality of conversations in public. But it's later than you think.

Castleford bridge2 It was an upbeat meeting, including presentations from (among others) Ivan Ball on consultation for Caterham Barracks, William Perrin on Talk About Local, and Alison Drake on the now-famous regeneration work of Castleford Heritage Trust - and that astonishing bridge which, as a public space (as Sarah Gaventa suggests) 'can offer as much as a street, public square, or park.'

Among the themes discussed was the promise that developers will invest in community engagement because it helps them make money. If this is true and becomes acknowledged, it seems to me, it will change the power dynamics: will some community groups come to expect a cut, will they be charging outsiders for their own views about their own locality?

One of the difficulties with discussions like this is that we all make assumptions about the nature of local communities, and have to pass over awkward niceties: like the fact that not all neighbourhoods are neatly defined topographically - and those that aren't are probably easy pickings for unscrupulous developers (if there is such a thing); or the fact that not all neighbourhoods have confident, articulate, respected, energetic local champions like Alison representing their interests.

But what struck me most about the stage of thinking we're at, is that these initiatives imply significant changes to the acoustics for citizens' voices. Organised community action - in meetings around the town as in Castleford or (especially) online as in some of William's examples - is starting to bring about a far more audible articulation of local people's views and experience than we have had before. And don't be fooled by the rhetoric from above, which to use Alison's phrase tends to mean 'big people not listening': much of it is in spite of, not because of, official action.

27 Nov 2009 10:34:50 | Governance and participation, Space and place

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
School-run parking David Hembrow posts about a school stopping ban in the town of Groningen, NL, which he says makes it illegal to stop with a car adjacent to the schools between 8 am and 4 pm on week days. I've only been to Grongingen once but I remember it as a fairly quiet town: the roads really aren't as packed as urban and suburban Britain. As David says, 'By British or American standards, the rate of children being taken to school by car is already extremely low.' I always take an interest in this theme because I recall my mother campaigning on it (with some difficulty) in the 1960s, when levels of car-abuse were significantly lower than they are now. So when I look at the (altogether typical, but scary) images David offers of examples of parking outside a school in England, I find it disheartening. The arrogant selfishness of people when they get into cars has a deep psychology to do with cocooned individual privilege and suspended denial of the interests of others. Steve Stradling's 2004 study in Scotland found that around a third of those surveyed would be able to shift from car to bus for short trips, but just eight per cent were 'both willing and able'. Previously: Unwillingly to school? School run report Yes, kids walk
PREVIOUS POST
Community Conversations I've been talking about conversations in the community development context for years without being aware of a project called - wait for it - 'Community Conversations'. Galling at first, then immediately inspiring. Conflict and Change is a group of people working in east London who have backgrounds in mediation work, and they marry this with a community development approach to help local people explore issues of potential or actual disagreement, misunderstanding and conflict. Conflict and Change recently published a set of learning points from their experience. They've run over 70 conversations with between four and 20 participants in each, including inter-faith, intergenerational and multi-ethnic encounters. I'm told they have just received funding for another three years, which seems like a good thing. The key learning points include these: Community conversations impact on participants by finding common ground and increasing respect for difference. Good facilitation skills – including an ability to work with conflict - are essential to ensure that participation and energy remain high, and that every person’s contribution is given value. It is helpful to develop and utilise partnerships with other agencies to help recruit participants and to ensure that there is a forum for any actions resulting from the conversations. The positive and future-focus of community conversations can enable participants to go on to take part in shared activities. In this event, it is helpful to provide training in participative facilitation skills to participants and to partner agency staff so that the inclusive approach can be taken forward. This experience attracts comparison with Living Library. Community Conversations seems to have a less photogenic style with more emphasis on the local level, is more likely to work with groups, and is more likely to require effort put into the recruitment of all participants. But for both, I'd have thought the pre-negotiation of trust must be crucial; and there are sure to be common lessons which might profitably be shared.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments