Tuesday, 21 June 2011

The 'good society'?

Compass conf 2011 BSN A quick heads-up, I've been asked to speak on a panel at the Compass conference in London this saturday, on the curious theme of 'How do we build the Good Society in our own neighbourhood?'

If that logo on the left is meant to echo the one on the right, is it witty, inspirational, tasteless, or shallow, would you say?

 

21 Jun 2011 21:00:25

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Juxtaprose 6 ‘Rep’ing’ (representing/ defending) a turf has become increasingly common and a significant proportion of reported killings have been linked to ‘postcode wars’. Gary Hewett, of Community Action Team in East London, told the Working Group that ‘so many young people are afraid of travelling across the borough because there’s so many different territories’, and this has been echoed throughout the Working Group’s hearings. For some inner city young people gang-impacted areas are becoming no-go areas. One 17 year old male from London said: ‘There’s certain places in South London where 100 per cent you can say if you’re not from there you’ll get stabbed.’ Dying to belong, CSJ, 2009. Perhaps most interesting about the cartography of the nobility is the tendency for members of noble factions to map the city according to lines of hatred, an emotional mapping that complements the moral cartography implicit in the vicinity. When members of the two noble factions testified in court about the emotional context of their violent exchanges, they painted an image of the city and its neighbourhoods as polarized by hatred. In their testimony, the defendants in the trial that followed on the heels of the great battle of 1351 created a mental geography that carefully partitioned the city into territories controlled by the Vivaut and the Jerusalem and by their allies. From testimony given at the inquest, it is clear that the invading Jerusalem were thought to have offended the residential space of the Vivaut. Daniel Lord Smail, Imaginary cartographies, 1999. Previously juxtaprosed.
PREVIOUS POST
The neutering of community development? It’s fair to say that a vacuum was created by the recent abrupt ending of government funding to the likes of Community Development Foundation, Community Development Exchange, and Urban Forum. From slightly to one side (the usual angle) it appears as if the Big Lottery Fund’s People Powered Change programme is swelling within that vacuum. People Powered Change is the over-arching theme for Big’s investments in England. It encompasses a range of approaches to support and develop community action. The banner signals an intention to stimulate and facilitate local efforts to improve the quality of life in neighbourhoods, using information and various tools to multiply the benefits of community-based initiatives. Of course, the government’s hands-off approach is unsurprising. But at a PPC event on Monday I was struck by the picture of Jim Diers and Cormac Russell from Nurture Development, at the door of No.10 Downing Street. I have no doubt that their presentation would have been inspiring and thought-provoking. Jim spoke at an event I co-organised with Shared Intelligence last year: we already know how powerfully he conveys the value and impact of community action. As I wrote in a piece for the Guardian’s voluntary sector network, Cormac and Jim promote asset based community development (ABCD). This was heavily reinforced at the PPC meeting and it seems to fit sweetly with Big’s approach. So the question is not just whether it is enough for PPC to dominate the vacuum left by the weakening of key funded community development agencies (and to be fair I'm sure Big would welcome more agencies with clout alongside them, in that space); we should also take note that the dominant ethos is a particular brand of CD. So what? Quite rightly, ABCD places great emphasis on the strengths, skills and resources - the assets - that exist at local level. But to do so, it seems to have to imply that established community development works from a deficit model – over-emphasising the negatives like crime, poor housing, poor health and anti-social behaviour, especially forces external to the neighbourhood. There is a strong sense that, for instance, community action should not be complaining about environmental injustice or the local fallout from a trashed economy and depleted public services. Echoes of ‘moaning minnies’? I would argue, first, that all decent community development is asset based, not deficit based; and secondly, that there are real dangers in appearing to dismiss those who challenge external negative influences, especially at a time when we do not have strong, influential agencies promoting other CD values like equalities and genuine empowerment. I wrote: 'Good community development practice doesn't over-emphasise disadvantage and injustice; but it isn't seduced into ignoring it, and it also has the robust courage to challenge the causes. In lieu of experienced agencies promoting these values, let's hope they get reflected in the People Powered Change programme.' I welcome the positive implications of these guys crossing the threshold of No.10 and potentially influencing thinking in there, cos that is...

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments