|
SSWG HOME
ABOUT US
ACTIVITIES
RESOURCES
TOOLS - Catalog
GET INVOLVED
CONTACT SSWG 
Suggested Links:
|
|
Understanding Community-Level Dynamics
Janet Chernela
Professor
University of Maryland, College Park
What is a Community?
Social communities share with biological communities the underlying characteristic of an assemblage whose constituent members are interdependent. However, , human communities are subject to different dynamics and relationships than those that characterize the communities of plants and other animals because humans participate in several communities at once, or may change community participation over time, and because they think about and talk about community belonging. For example, persons may participate in several kinds of communities, basing them on any of numerous criteria held in common, such as shared location, experiences, professions, beliefs, heritage, or values. Social communities may also be short-lived, as this is often the case with communities organized around changing problems or goals.
Human social communities are created through acts of thinking, speaking and doing which are themselves dynamic processes. Rather than fixed, the spatial and temporal parameters of a social community must be reinforced over time through several means, including symbolic production (flags, heraldic insignia, personal ornamentation and dress) and practices (joint activities and event participation). Communities often call upon sacred or secular narratives, such as the (North) American Thanksgiving story, to reassert identities, justify resource claims, and explain events or conditions. Different narratives may arise among different members of a community.
Social communities also share with biological communities differentiation according to criteria of scale. Smaller communities are embedded within larger ones. Larger communities, in turn, are more inclusive and are likely to be heterogeneous.
Because the criteria with which humans organize themselves into social communities are neither "natural," "given," nor "necessary," they cannot be definitively predicted by outsiders. The fluidity of community dynamics and the multiple perspectives of actors involved in them presents the outsider with challenges. Some social scientists rely on a method known as "participant observation" to begin to understand the principles underlying the relationship dynamics in a community. In this method, an outsider attempts to learn by observant interaction and dedicated listening to community members. The process, which involves relinquishing (to the extent possible) prior judgments, may be time-consuming.
Community Dynamics: 1. Structures and Processes of Decision-Making
Leadership describes the phenomenon whereby some participants follow the direction of one or more authorized persons. The degree to which the decisions or recommendations of an authorized entity are likely to be heeded or to be challenged depends upon the community. Some communities, for example, have appointed, inherited, or elected leaders or councils, whose decisions are expected to be followed. When leadership is absolute, violation of commands may be punished through disciplinary actions. Although this form of leadership characterizes some nation-states, it is one of the rarest forms of community dynamics and decision-making. In a more common form, communities are led by those whose roles are based in persuasion or example rather than outright command.
Communities differ, too, in the degree of porosity or collaboration between so-called leaders and so-called followers. A leader may alter a direction to conform to pressure from the community. This explains the well-known aphorism, "A headman is one who tells the community to do what it is [already] doing".
A different type of dynamic occurs when a leader is responsive to part, but not all, of a community. When authorities act on behalf of a subset of the community that subset is, by definition, "powerful." The alliance between the authority figure and the influential subgroup may take the form of overt representation or it may be obfuscated (disguised) and even denied.
Through "participation" community members work together to achieve goals that are broader than those that can be achieved by individuals. Some communities require everyone to agree on a given course of action. This requires discussion, collaboration, and modification of a proposal until a consensus is reached. Other means by which communities arrive at decisions are conceding to a majority (over half) or a plurality (largest block) of the membership. [In many communities, unless participation in decision-making is inclusive, and its processes transparent, there may be objection, factioning, and dissent.]
Community Dynamics: 2. Social Norms
Social norms, also called mores, are the judgments and standards that establish what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to the members of a community. Norms are powerful forces in community dynamics. But, because they are assumed to be understood, their expression is not explicit. Examples of norms include standards for behavioral expectations, including proper ways of talking, eating, interacting, and other expressions of assumed "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things. Through processes of socialization -- in which one learns expected behavior through participation, norms become internalized. As a result, much of ordinary interaction is regulated through individuals' decisions about their own, "proper," or "appropriate," comportment.
Like "community" itself, norms are created and reinforced in the act of speaking or "enacting" them, as when people behave according to expectation in order to be "accepted" or to win approval. These forms of control are at least as powerful, and are far more common in the dynamics of community interaction, than is the exercise of external force. Violation of norms can result in a range of reactions -- from amusement, to subtle or direct criticism, to disapproval, shunning or harsh sanctioning.
In highly organized state societies, some norms are formalized into law. In these cases, a breach invokes formal procedures through legal institutions to judge and then enforce the laws. Communities within larger nation-states often live according to two sets of norms -- one local, and routinized, the other external and enforced through state institutions. Although they may not be the same, each defines that which is allowed, and that which is not.
Community Dynamics: 3. Dissent
Decision-making in a community may be maximally inclusive and transparent or may be exclusive and guarded. [Ideally, all participants will take into account the needs and opinions of all others as they reach an outcome that allows for maximum participation.] Generally speaking, the more broad the participation in decision-making, the more reliable commitment to a course of action. Absence by participants during decisions about actions that affect them can lead to dissatisfaction and dispute.
Communities differ, too, in the manner in which unwillingness to follow a leader or divergence from a collective decision is managed. Dissent often results in the formation of factions. The factions may argue outright, or express dissent through silent non-compliance. In place-based communities, a dissenting faction may opt to leave the parent group to form what is, for some purposes, a new community. However, the newly formed, "bud" group may continue to relate to the other as part of a larger, more comprehensive community of scale. This is but one illustration of how invisible criteria and events, including histories and family ties, contribute to connections across apparently impermeable and fixed community boundaries.
Community Dynamics: 4. Identity and Territory
The extent of the recognized community and its relationship to the lands it inhabits or uses also differs from community to community. For example, in some societies individuals recognize a maximal belonging to a group of extended families, while others recognize relatedness or belonging to tens of thousands of people. Community mechanisms, such as councils, out-marriage, age sets, and other customary processes -- rather than simple proximity -- determine the furthest extent of a community. These mechanisms are altered radically as local groups enter networks based on regional, linguistic, or ethnic ties. These processes have recently become accelerated by the widespread use of electronic media.
Interaction with national or international laws may shift a community's focus from customary rights to contractual legal procedures. The same laws may provide protective mechanisms with which a community may control access to their lands.
Relationship of Community Dynamics to Conservation: Brief History
It is now widely recognized that conservation goals cannot succeed without community involvement. However, actual practice appears to fall short of stated goals. A global survey of the effectiveness of Protected Areas carried out by WWF in 2004 found consistently unsatisfactory results for activities relating to local people (WWF 2004). To cite the survey: "One consistent problem is a failure to manage relations with local communities. Despite a wide recognition of the importance of social issues… the input and participation of local communities and indigenous peoples in management decisions are still not being addressed very effectively." (WWF 2004:15).
Authors who attempt to parse and explain the factors contributing to the gap between policy and practice attribute reported failures to several identifiable sources (West et al. 2006). Prominent among these are: 1) "generification" -- that is, a transfer or superimposition of dominant, international categories and meanings over local ones (Errington and Gewertz 2001; Brosius __; Chernela ); 2) a lack of recognition of the importance of local stakeholders as environmental stewards with experience, knowledge, and motivation (Brosius; Flora Lu Holt__ ;, Pimbert and Pretty 1997); 3) underestimation of the capacity of collective property regimes to limit resource access (Feeny et al.); 4) disregard for ethics and international instruments that guarantee the rights of local peoples to the lands they occupy; and 5) the exclusion of local peoples from the processes of decision-making that affect their lands and livelihoods (West et al. 2006, Chern, Brosius). One attempt to alleviate some of these concerns is the stakeholder approach in which all stakeholders are brought into the decision-making process (Byers 2000). Weeks and Mehta (2004) point out, however, that unless the rights of local peoples and minorities to their lands and resources are acknowledged, these communities may be disadvantaged in the company of more powerful, yet non-local, interests.
The recognition of crisis has driven actors at local, national, and international levels to seek alternatives that place communities at the center of conservation efforts affecting their livelihoods and the lands on which they live. "Community based conservation" and "peoples' participation" are growing responses to existing problems. There are now a number of networks and associations of local communities, such as the Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biodiversity (COP7), as well as several examples of collaborations between local communities and international agencies (Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005; Zimmerman et al. 2001) that may provide models for meeting the long-term needs of local peoples in concert with management and preservation of the landscapes on which communities and their future generations depend.
References
Austin, Diane E. 2004. "Partnerships, Not Projects! Improving the Environment through Collaborative Research and Action." Human Organization 63(4)419-430.
Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understand and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. Biodiversity Support Program. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund.
AWA??
Chernela, J. 2005 "The Art of Listening: Collaboration between International Environmental NGO's and Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon Basin of Brazil." Worldwatch Feb.
Errington, F., and D. Gewertz. 2001 On the generification of culture: from blow fish to Melanesian. J. R. Anthropological Institute 7:509-525
Feeny, David, Fikret Berkes, Bonnie McCay, and James Acheson. 1990. The Tragedy of the Commons Twenty Years Later. Human Ecology 18(1)1-19.
IUCN Indigenous Peoples and Sustainability: Cases and Actions. 1998. IUCN Inter-Commission Task Force on Indigenous Peoples. Pp 240-254
Schwartzman, Stephan and Barbara Zimmerman 2005. "Conservation Alliances with Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon. Conservation Biology 19 (3) 721-
Weeks, Pris and Shalina Mehta, 2004. "Managing People and Landscapes: IUCN's Protected Area Categories." Jrnl Human Ecology 16(4):253-263.
West, Paige, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington. 2006. "Parks and Peoples: The Social Impacts of Protected Areas." Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251-277.
WWF (2004) Are Protected Areas Working?: An analysis of Forest Protected Areas by WWF, June 2004. Gland: Switzerland.
Zimmerman, B., Peres, C., Malcolm, J. and Turner, T. 2001. "Conservation and Development Alliances with the Kayapo of south-eastern Amazonia, a Tropical Forest Indigenous Peoples. Environmental Conservation 28 (1) 10-22
Click here to search tools
|
