Sunday, 18 April 2010

Social justice, trust and generosity

Super post from Julian Dobson about fairness and how our frantic politicians have assimilated it as a central concept as a way of talking about social justice:

'to ensure everyone plays by the rules, we spend more and more time checking for abuses and seek to create fairness by finding new ways to stop people getting something for nothing. So we give destitute asylum seekers a handout of just over £5 a day to meet all their needs, on the grounds that they might abuse the system if we were any kinder.'

It reminds me of a distinction which I still find I have to make occasionally, between neighbourly relations based on trust and neighbourhood watch which is based on distrust. There is something about generosity of spirit and meanness of spirit, which Julian brings out:

'every successful project I've come across and that has made a difference in its locality... has worked by cultivating a culture of generosity.'

 

18 Apr 2010 20:07:17 | Social capital

1 Comment

Thanks for the link (and the generous comments!)

Posted by: Julian Dobson | Saturday, 24 April 2010 at 21:23

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Social inclusion and local sites To Leeds today for the second Talk About Local unconference on local websites - a more relaxed event than the last, exuding a more confident, 'we know what we're doing' getting-on-with-it air. Nice pic of TAL founder William Perrin taken from the Cover It Live coverage here. I got in a huddle with a few others to explore the contrasts between local sites in low-income neighbourhoods and in more affluent or mixed areas. There were about 10 of us, but it must have been a subject of interest because when we emerged, it turned out a separate group had formed to discuss the same topic. That's a risk with the unconference format I guess. They were probably a bit posher than us, I'd say. I bet they had comfy seats. I proposed the session because I'm interested in two possibilities: local sites in low income areas are realistic but may require different approaches, including sustained community development; local sites in mixed areas will appeal to, and be exploited disproportionately by those accustomed to power and influence - crowding-out those in the neighbourhood who might have the most to gain in terms of increased social capital. Anyway we're not proud, so here are a few points (in no particular order) that I picked up or which occurred to me during our session: Bad press (labelling) can be a provocation that gives rise to a local site. There still seems to be little perception in the community development field of the potential of local sites. (Some weary head-banging on this...) In a low-income neighbourhood, the other forms of media that are funded by advertising don’t apply to you, so what else have you got that might speak for you? There may be a tendency to under-estimate levels of internet penetration in these neighbourhoods. (Some credit for the high levels was apportioned to Facebook). A degree of inertia about issues locally suggests the need for an intense level of intervention (but see point 2 above). Get people together in a room. The offline is as important as the online. If you live in a neighbourhood where you can't get people together in a room, you betta get some CD and hope you're not stuffed by point 2 above. Beware the tyranny of text: this tech releases video and sound, so use it. The behaviour in social media spaces is something that some people just don’t get. (Like trust – some people become immediately distrustful in online conversation). We may have to make the case for amplifying the voices that otherwise don’t get heard (but see point 2 above...) I had to leave after lunch but there's a real buzzy feel to this movement now. Back in 2008 I organised an event with CABE which led me to predict that 09 would be the year of local websites. OK, not far wrong.
PREVIOUS POST
Nutrition and community meals Recently I've been building a wiki on neighbourhood support for older people, to try and focus information and understanding on this crassly-overlooked issue. I'll open it soon, but meanwhile if you're interested in contributing please get in touch. Here's the sort of thing that goes into the pot, so to speak: ILC-UK have published a paper by Lisa Wilson on Personalisation, nutrition and the role of community meals. It notes that there is a strong underlying economic argument for supporting older people to remain independent and in their own homes, and for ensuring good nutritional status. It begins with a striking statistic: 'There are currently more people in the UK receiving meals in their own home than there are older people in care homes.' Hence one of the main arguments: 'Meal provision and access to food must be considered a core part of social care packages and meals must be provided to at risk groups, not just to those who have reached the point of being unable to manage themselves.'

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments