2003-08-11
Community and Democracy
Another of my writings in 1994. This second resurrected essay addresses the issue of democracy as well as the problems of community and the disappearance of community life. I have not edited it and so there is no mention of new technologies such as the internet and how they might fit in.
The Erosion of Neighborhood Design and Community Life
Why have we evolved to this point of weakened neighborhoods? How have we lost our communities? And why has the passionate citizen become an endangered species? For the answers to these questions we must turn to history and the development of a hierarchical, capitalist nation-state. It is no wonder that as this capitalist nation-state has developed so to have our communities suffered. We have come to a point when localism has been extensively eroded by the uncontrolled growth of hierarchy and centralization. During the twentieth century "the scale of social organization has been moving away from and not toward the scale of neighborhoods. Not even nation-states are big enough anymore. International business combines arise to crisscross borders. International pacts join nations for this or that purpose" (Neighborhood 3).
In recent years it seems that, as capitalism and the nation-state have become pervasive in our lives, practically every element of life and social life have become commodified. In Community Technology Karl Hess writes that "Even neighborliness and friendship become gripped by the symptoms of growth, so that simple affection of people for each other is replaced by the new industries of introspection, meditation, faddish indulgences, single bars, dating companies, and pleasure consultants".
Again I must stress the importance of the evolving media technologies, and most importantly television. This technology has been a valuable tool with which the capitalist nation-state has tried to sedate the masses. Much of our social contact is with our television sets and other forms of mass media. Often times the television programs which are most popular have as a central theme community life.
Anyone remember Northern Exposure? One episod addressed the issue of community bartering and the interference from the federal government in the form of the IRS. Another episode of this same show highlighted the importance of community traditions, gatherings, and public space. In this episode the viewer saw Joel (a Jewish doctor from New York) perform a sacred death ritual for his uncle with the rest of his Sicily community. Also a part of this episode was one of the many community dance contests/potlucks. During one episode a discussion about community and privacy takes place in the public laundromat, another of Sicily's meeting places. The local radio dj, Chris, says to a friend, Maggie, "You're going to snuggle up to your fiber optics baby and blitz out". This public and community life is in sharp contrast with the experience of most people today and the show's popularity may be an important indicator that people have a strong desire to be a part of such a community.
It should be added that when we are in the physical presence of other people it is rarely without anonymity--it is not intimate social interaction. Do shows such as those mentioned above serve to further fulfill the human need for community or will they be a catalyst for real community development? In all of this we can begin to see a strong correlation emerging. As the capitalist nation-state has grown stronger and more centralized so have all the forms of local community deteriorated and, in many cases similar to the Tamarack sub-division where I grew up, these community forms and institutions were practically non- existent from the start.
The people living in Tamarack were all required, by the physical design, placement, and purpose of the sub-division, to drive cars. Their "work" places were not within walking or bicycling distance and if they were it would not matter much because the roads are designed for automobiles and are dangerous to walkers or bicyclists. Nor did my neighbors grow any of their own food (with the very rare exception of one or two small backyard gardens). Rather, they would drive six or seven miles to a large grocery store which sells neatly packaged products of highly processed, chemically grown food. Most of the vegetables they would buy come from California even though they could easily be grown in the neighborhood. The clothes that they buy are sold by Unites States based multinational corporations which exploit workers in "underdeveloped" countries to make their products. Our lives are no longer rooted in our community. Rather they have become compartmentalized and subordinated to a global market.
This social evolution towards isolation and escapism is described in Neighborhood Power by Morris and Hess who write that:
Americans, like all people, are social. They enjoy living with, being with, working with, loving with, arguing with, and creating with and for other people. A few people, to be sure, just want to live off and alone. One of the problems today is that our entire society is structured as though everybody wants to live that way. Every part of the official structure, both corporate and political, encourages a concept of people as highly competitive, as wanting to be isolated, and as believing that their only hope for survival is to get what they can without reference to other people. Work roles are incredibly isolated and compartmentalized. The most profitable real-estate developments are those, like high-rise apartments, which crowd people together but in which there are no shared interests. Every part of life becomes separated by a maximum distance from every other part of life. Work here. Shop there. Vote here. Play someplace else. Have friends all over. Sleep there. Study here. And so forth.
While the people in our neighborhoods may vaguely recognize each other there is no real development of relationships--I don't know their names and they do not know mine. Nor do we know each other's troubles. We, in no way, share our lives. There is no commitment to the community. Why is this neighborhood in Memphis not aware of itself?
One way of understanding our neighborhoods is to understand them as "tiny, under developed nations. They are owned, by and large, by outsiders who view them as profitable investments. Local money is put into financial institutions which invest it outside the local economy, often in competing industries... The neighborhood, or little country if we follow that analogy, exports labor-intensive services and imports capital-intensive finished goods, paying out high prices for a technology generally unsuited to local conditions"(Neighborhood16).
This passage illustrates how communities have been imposed upon by outside and very unnatural forces. The nation-state and capitalism have subverted and, to some degree, destroyed the many community forms, institutions, and relationships which existed even sixty or so years ago. Small businesses which used to be the economic mainstay of cities and towns have given way to huge mega-marts and so the many face-to-face relationships which people used to have with neighbors and shop owners are practically gone. Neighborhood associations and political clubs have given way to crime oriented watch-dog groups. Community art such as poetry readings, murals, drama have given way to television, high-budget movies, and billboards which advertise products.
This story reminds me of Count Dracula sucking the life blood out of his victims during their night-time sleep, often several nights without them knowing until it was too late... so too has this loathsome system of domination gradually sucked out the blood of civic and community life. Ah, but there is still hope! Our communities are not yet dead! But how do we alert our dazed victim? They have lost so much blood and do not seem awake enough to hear our calls! What has been tried in the past and failed? How do we begin to heal them?
Modern models of community development have taken, for the most part, a top down approach. That is to say that those at the top of the hierarchy (the federal government in most cases) have often imposed their will and ideas upon those at the bottom. This is usually done through the creation of laws and the "earmarking" of federal development money. Federal laws which are legislated by "representatives" of a locality most often are laws which serve to further undermine a community's ability to develop itself socially and economically. In his article "Social Ecology and Community Development", Daniel Chodorkoff illustrates this point when he writes that "community development is not the delivery of services to a needy population by professionals."(Society and Nature: 105).
For most people the idea of community development has come to mean the development of the "local" economy by outsiders. The idea behind this method of development is that when corporations build a factory, office building, retail outlet, or some other structure they are providing jobs for local community members and adding to the tax base of the community. This is the trickle down theory of community development--if General Motors does well in your community then your community will be doing well. But if we follow the analogy of Morris and Hess we can see that this "development" is very shallow. It is simplistic with a very crude edge. In Memphis recently, there was a drive by the city council and local capitalists to bring in an NFL franchise. This, they said, would not only provide entertainment, but would stimulate the local economy by providing jobs, increasing tourism, and improving the image of the city. This is "community development" in 1993!!
Rather than development this is, very clearly, the destruction of self-reliance and the invasion of a dominating outside power which not only gains control over the local economy but the town hall or city council. Small businesses are replaced by Sam's Wholesale mega-stores. Small farms are replaced by corporate farms. Neighborhood street markets are replaced by malls. Citizenship is replaced by consumerism. The profits of the corporation are reinvested in the corporation for more profits and the taxes are used by the city council (which is no longer controlled by citizens) to lure more businesses into the city. In many ways community development has come to mean service to capitalism.
Another traditional method of community development revolves around the idea of urban renewal. Chodorkoff writes that "The failure of ambitious plans for the rehabilitation of massive areas has been well documented. Yet, planners persist on imposing new spatial relations on neighborhoods with the expectation that their designs can create community" (Society and Nature: 107). As Chodorkoff goes on to point out, this is essentially an irrational reliance upon technology for the entire solution to a complex problem.
Community Development as it Should Be
First, we ought to understand that this healing process will take time. The social ecological revolution we are building will be a slow one--more like an evolution. This evolution is taking place in communities and it is being created by people, by citizens. This is community development from the ground up for the empowerment of people. This community development must be seen as the elaboration of the good or rational potentialities which already exist in a community. If these potentialities do not exist then we must create from scratch--kind of like looking for an old garden that hasn't been grown for several years. We must use an reconstructive anthropological approach to develop a critical analysis of our neighborhoods and the many interrelationships of social forms within them. As Chodorkoff describes the process:
The dominant culture has fragmented and isolated social life into distinct realms of experience. The rediscovery of the organic ties between these realms is the starting point for the development process. Once they are recognized, it is possible to create holistic approaches to development that reintegrate all the elements of a community into a cohesive dynamic of cultural change... Are there traditions of mutualism andooperation existent which can help a community to realize its goals, or must new forms be created? How can the face-toface primary ties which characterized prebureaucratic societies be recreated in the context of contemporary community? (Society and Nature:108).
This is a sharp contrast to the very simplistic and harmful methods of "development" already described. Indeed, it is community development as it should be, it is an elaboration from within the community itself and it is highly participatory and democratic.
Original Meaning of Democracy
One of the most crucial elements of community will be the development of face-to-face democratic forms. Let us begin this with the concept of citizenship. What does it mean to be a citizen? This question is crucial if we are serious about recreating society along non-hierarchical and ecological lines. To understand who a citizen is we must turn to history and classical Greece. We will see that this is a story of the city as the polis and at its center was the protoplasmic body politic of citizens. The polis of Athens was not just a "city", rather it was an ongoing process of careful creation. It was structured in such a way as to encourage the growth and education of its citizens. Indeed, the polis could be defined as a humanly scaled ecological city in which people lived face-to-face relationships in their communities. It should be noted however that the polis was far from perfect, and in fact its citizens relied upons slavery so that they might have their democracy.
At the core of the self-governing citizen was the Greek idea of paideia which in a very simplistic and unclear translation to English means education. However, in its original sense it means much more. In his book, Urbanization Without Cities, Bookchin writes that:
The education of a young man involved a deeply formative and life-long process whose end result made him an asset to the polis, to his friends and family, and induced him to live up to the community's highest ethical ideals. The German word, bildung, with its combined meanings of character development, growth, enculturation, and a well-rounded education in knowledge and skills, more appropriately denotes what the Greeks meant by paideia than any word we have in English. It expresses a creative integration of the individual into his environment, a balance that demands a critical mind with a wide-ranging sense of duty"(59).
Thus we have come to the important subject of citizenship and education. How is our socialization and education different from the Athenian citizen? The Athenian citizen was taught from a very young age that public life, citizenship, was at least as important as private life. Individuals were taught and expected to participate in the administration of the polis. In fact, Greeks saw this administration of the polis and individual self-government as education. Politics were an educative process in which citizens taught one another and through this education they created, and were created by, the democratic polis. Thus, "paideia, in effect, was a form of civic schooling as well as personal training. It rooted civic commitment in independence of mind, philia, and a deep sense of individual responsibility"(Urbanization: 59). It could be said that the ultimate ideal of the Greeks during this time was citizenship.
The polis which the Athenians created was both a place with social institutions and a place for process. The democracy which was crafted by the Athenians was an everyday practice which was nurtured by the institutions and design of the polis. One crucial element of the polis was the agora. The agora was the public space in which people discussed and debated philosophy and politics in their general assemblies or during the activities of everyday life. It was often a market place and a kind of park but it was, most importantly, a place for human interaction. In his monumental work The City in History, Lewis Mumford writes that "In the fifth-century economy the agora can be properly called a market-place, its oldest and most persistent function was that of a communal meeting place. As usual, the market was a by-product of the coming together of consumers who had many other reasons for assembling than merely doing business"(148-49).
Another important place in the Athenian polis was the ekklesia. The ekklesia was both the place and the institution in which the Athenian citizens formalized their decisions. If the agora was the Athenian town square then the ekklesia was its town hall. The two worked together and were complimented by the many other forms and institutions of the Athenian polis such as a "theater to dramatize the reality and ideology of freedom, and the ceremonial squares, avenues, and temples that gave it reverential meaning"(Urbanization 80).
In studying the history of cities and democracy it is important to note that the Athenian democracy was vibrant and was sustained by its citizens for more than 100 years until it was weakened by Athens final defeat in 322 B.C. by the Macedonians at Krannon (Urbanization 82). Nor was this the only example of a lived democracy--the Romans also developed democratic institutions although they developed into more republican forms. Indeed, at many other times and places people have aspired to create the ideals of self-government aspired to by Athens and Rome, however different the forms of expression may have taken and muddied the ideals may have become. The French sections during that country's revolution are one of the more inspiring examples of self-government and the creation of neighborhood (or in this case, section) democracy. One of the most horrible of mutilations of democracy is that exhibited by the U.S.
Recreating Community Democracy
How can we begin to recreate the citizenship that we so desperately need? This is a difficult question to answer. In the present moment the ideal of citizenship and the social forms which supported it in the past have been utterly eradicated. We do not, in our time, enjoy the coherent community life that the Greeks and Romans did, or for that matter, that city dwellers of just 100 years ago did. We must, it seems, develop both citizenship and the social forms to support it. Where do we begin this process? This question of place brings us back to the idea of neighborhood.
It is in our neighborhoods where we can begin to develop coherent communities which are based on the relationships between people. The neighborhood will provide us with the fertile soil from which we can grow our community forms and cooperative institutions. It will be through the educative process of creating these forms and institutions that we will begin to learn how to be citizens. As we continue to craft and further develop these communities we will also elaborate our abilities as citizens. Our citizenship will create our communities and our communities, in turn, will help to create our citizenship.
What are these community forms and institutions that we will create? How do we create them? The institutions and forms of which I am speaking include democratic assemblies, gardens, cooperatives, de-schooling resource centers, public squares (or circles if you prefer), cultural centers, bulletin boards, newsletters. These forms and institutions must be created with the ideal and ethic of participatory democracy as their core. The neighborhood assembly may be an outgrowth of an alreading existing organization or just a group of neighbors who are interested in neighborhood issues. Such assemblies may start out with only five people and then grow into true democratic bodies which are acknowledged by the community and which begin to direct and make policy. Such NAs (neighborhood assemblies) may grow into confederations of neighborhood NAs perhaps linked by a community newspaper and large meetings of deputies from the different neighborhood bodies.
Other forms such as economic cooperatives, de-schooling resource centers, and community gardens should not only be community directed but will be, themselves, places for democracy and a democratic process of participation. De-schooling centers, for example, are student directed and eliminate any kind of hierarchical relationships of domination, manipulation, command, and obedience. They are inherently anarchistic and democratic. Community gardens, too, should be designed and operated through a democratic process and may well be places for cultural expression, the exchange of news and ideas--and why not debate local issues while planting the summer's tomatoes and harvesting the winter crop of spinach?
The way in which we will create these forms is really no different than the way one would paint a picture or grow a garden. Quite simply, the question of how, is very easy: we must go out of our houses and into our neighborhoods and do it! Let me explain. We can begin by discussing our ideas with our next- door neighbor or maybe all the people who live on our street. We can organize potluck dinners or block parties to[break the ice[-but a key point is the decision to leave the safety of our home so that we can begin the social process of creation.
One of the first community forms that we can easily create is the bulletin board or the neighborhood newsletter--these, like a potluck, can also be used to break the ice (or to be more exact, the silence). These forms can easily begin with just one or two people and are amazingly simple to start. A bulletin board can be created by finding a location which is both easily visible and central to your neighborhood--you may even want to put two or three up in different areas.
The other item which I mentioned was a neighborhood newsletter. While this project takes a little more work it is also enjoyable and educational. For this all that is required are normal office supplies, a typewriter or computer, access to a photocopier, and, most importantly, your imagination.
It must be remembered however, that these forms of communication are to be, primarily, for the education of neighbor-citizens and, ultimately geared toward the elaboration of community government in the form of neighborhood assemblies. What exactly is a neighborhood assembly? What is its function in the community? How might it work differently in a small town compared to a medium sized city? This assembly would create policies for the neighborhood, help direct community businesses and other community projects such as food and energy production. The assembly would also elect a deputy or number of deputies to carry the voice of the neighborhood to larger community meetings with other neighborhoods. One possible description of a neighborhood assembly would be an assembly of the largest number of people of a neighborhood that could meet in a face-to-face manner and engage in a democratic process of decision making. What this number is will vary depending upon the nature of the community but it should never be so large that people cannot easily communicate with one another--I would guess that no assembly should ever be larger than 300-400 people.
It seems very possible that we could decentralize a small town of 20,000 into 100 assemblies of 200 people but how would this ever work in a huge metropolis such as Chicago or New York? What about a smaller city like Memphis? We must remember that our goal is to create democratic communities. A city the size of New York is far too immense. Why could it not be broken down into a confederation of smaller cities and those smaller cities further broken down into confederations of neighborhoods which form even smaller cities or towns? A key concept in the recreation of the polis is confederalism. In his article "Libertarian Municipalism" Bookchin describes this as the "interlinking of communities with one another through recallable deputies mandated by municipal citizens' assemblies and whose sole functions are coordinative and administrative"(Society and Nature 97).
It is through such a libertarian muncipalist approach that we will recreate a non-hierarchical, democratic, and free society. It must be very clear, however, that libertarian muncipalism is not just a mere tactic to gaining power nor can it be created by a top down approach. A president or governor, no matter how progressive, cannot bestow upon communities such a democratic process and institution. It must be worked for and created from the bottom up and, in time, a dual power, which is rooted in municipalist confederations, will erode and undermine the nation-state and its president and governors to such a degree that they crumble. Libertarian municipalism is both the means and the ends.
August 11, 2003