Kim, in Christ's Body in Corinth, identifies various approaches to understanding community. It is common knowledge in British community work circles that there are 114 definitions of the word community. The number does vary but the point is that there are lots.
This reflects the fact the politically the word community is contested. Community is universally understood to be 'a good thing'. So, political parties at local and national government levels want a slice of the action and individual politicians and officers see community as a positive career move.
This means that 'boundary protected communities' result from a complex web of interests; not only a simple model of members of the community seeking protection, belonging and identity through identification with that particular community.
Most religious or ethnic groups, for example, will have interests in common and will to some degree seek a boundary protected community. Such groups, whatever degree of organisation they have, are seen by some workers in the community as groups that can benefit from various statutory and voluntary sector initiatives.
The first step is to identify these communities. So, we have Christian and Muslim communities. These have leaders who represent their members' interests. Protestations from their so-called members that these leaders are self-appointed seem to fall on deaf ears.
These approaches can be disastrous in neighbourhoods where each minority groups is identified and equipped with resources to run its own projects. The problem is this not only drives wedges between groups within neighbourhoods as they compete for resources to duplicate similar services, but also splits the communities as power struggles ensue for control of the resources. Gatekeepers, internal and external, make it even more difficult to help neighbourhoods develop their own identities.
Kim writes of the 'boundary protected community' as identifiable through boundaries, identity and power or hierarchy.
- Boundaries identify who is in or out. Internally this may be based upon self-identity but money will also reinforce these boundaries.
- Identity is determined to a degree by common belief or experience. So, recognised communities will at times be asked to pronounce on what is right or wrong for their community, neighbourhood or even country.
- Those the government recognises as community leaders will broker power, so the leader is the person who has the ears of the council officers. Struggles to control resources can tear otherwise close-knit 'boundary protected communities' apart.
The implications of this for ecumenism are interesting. By what miracle have boundary protected church communities entered into protracted ecumenical conversations? It is remarkable that the vision of full visible unity survives between churches that are to all intents and purposes boundary protected.
The ecumenical project has also introduced an element of external control to each church's self-identity. Time and again during the second half of the twentieth century, British Churches have moved closer to full visible unity, only to pull away at the last minute. The paradox is that the talks themselves entrench identity.
So, neighbourhood work becomes more difficult as communities assert their self-identity, having their natural boundaries reinforced by outside interests. Similarly, the churches can move so far towards unity before they shy away from taking significant steps. The reason is that self-identity is reinforced by the conversations aiming for unity.
I think the problem is with our understanding of community. Kim suggests two further alternatives, perhaps looking at community in a different way would help shift the deadlocks?
Comments