ChapterPDF Available

Types of Community

Authors:
  • Royal Society of Queensland

Abstract

The notion of community suggests positive aspects of society, a ‘good thing’ that will improve individual well being. Community has emotional overtones, implying familiarity, social and emotional cohesion, and commitment. It implies a degree of attachment and belonging which offers a common sense of identity. Community is anticipated to offer beneficial contributions to build a strong and vibrant society. Although difficult to identify precisely what a community is, it is recognized that many different kinds of community exist. Different communities are based on diverse arrangements of associations and types of connections. Relationships may be personal or at a group level. Interactions may be physical, ideological or virtual. The degree of commitment and involvement may be strong or weak. The feeling of community among members may be positive or negative. Clearly there are different types, and the variety means it is important to have a clear understanding of which type of community is being discussed.
1
1
In H. Anheier & S. Toepler (eds), 2010, International Encyclopedia of Civil Society,
pp. 539-544. Springer.
TYPES OF COMMUNITY
Heather Douglas*
INTRODUCTION
The notion of community suggests positive aspects of society, a ‘good thing’ that will
improve individual well being. Community has emotional overtones, implying
familiarity, social and emotional cohesion, and commitment. It implies a degree of
attachment and belonging which offers a common sense of identity. Community is
anticipated to offer beneficial contributions to build a strong and vibrant society.
Although difficult to identify precisely what a community is, it is recognized that
many different kinds of community exist. Different communities are based on diverse
arrangements of associations and types of connections. Relationships may be personal
or at a group level. Interactions may be physical, ideological or virtual. The degree of
commitment and involvement may be strong or weak. The feeling of community
among members may be positive or negative. Clearly there are different types, and the
variety means it is important to have a clear understanding of which type of
community is being discussed.
DEFINITION
Community can be considered as a theoretical concept and a philosophy, such as
‘community spirit’ or ‘connected community’. Alternatively community may be
considered as a practice of engaging and connecting with others for instance ‘creating
community’ or ‘building community’. No agreed definition exists of exactly what
constitutes a community. It is often used as a substitute term for locality, but
community exists well beyond physical places, indeed Hillery (1955) identified 94
different types. Brint (2001) suggests communities are connected primarily through
common emotions and personal interests in one another. He defines communities as
‘aggregates of people who share common activities and/or beliefs and who are bound
together principally by relations of affect, loyalty, common values, and/or personal
concern (i.e. interest in the personalities and life events of one another). This
definition is, however, a little romantic by not attending adequately to negative
communities. Community is not always positive, proactive and committed. Not all
community interactions are friendly; yet strong communities can exist even if
relations are not amicable, or the aim is not to benefit others, or the motivation for
interaction is not moral.
A community may be defined as a set of meaningful social connections in a group of
any size where members have something in common. A community is social. It is a
web of some kind of relationships. A community operates within certain boundaries
that are agreed among members either tacitly or explicitly. Each community
establishes traditions and patterns of behavior which may be implied or written as
rules. Members of a community share some kind of a bond such as location, interests,
background or identity, situations or experiences. Thus a community is a social
2
2
institution, that is, a stable structure and agreed set of procedures and conventions that
provides social order and meaning (Scott, 2001 p. 34).
An alternative definition of community is more functional and focused on the purpose
of the activity. For instance Porter (2006) defines a virtual community as an
aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest,
where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and
guided by some protocols or norms’. This definition has some merit. It considers the
special nature of the shared interests along with protocol and norms, and as in Brint’s
definition above, it implies aspects of a relationship. Many virtual communities are
social exchanges shared between people who may, or may not, be able to identify
respondents. Porter’s definition, however, has some limitations in that not all virtual
communities are connected to business.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The notion of ‘community’ usually is credited to Ferdinand Tönnies ([1897] 1951).
Tönnies compared and described modern life and proposed modern society was in
transition from village to urban settings. Since educated people of this time were
expected to know English, French and German, there was a lot of interaction and
transfer of information between scholars, and other early sociologists extended this
notion of community. Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim investigated the
social transformation of traditional communities associated with industrialization and
urbanization. Durkheim scrutinized modern social relations in organizations such as
the church and care institutions. He proposed community as sophisticated and
complex interactions with religion as a bonding mechanism that sets norms of
behavioral interactions and ties communities together. Weber also examined religion
although he is better known for his work describing the internal communities
entrenched within large bureaucracies. Marx concentrated on the emergence of
capitalism and examined the divisions in society and disruptions to social traditions
and relationships during urbanization. The hub of sociology moved to the US as the
two World Wars interrupted academic life in Europe.
In general, the early community researchers in the US undertook place based studies,
with the Chicago School leading the way in urban ecology techniques. Studies such as
those by Gans (1962) and Young and Wilmott (1960) provided rich descriptions of
community life. These studies painted rich, in depth understandings of activities,
functions and rhythms of life in villages, small towns and rural communities. Warmth
and supportive social connections are described as a core part of small community
life, but studies also identified a variety of divisions, conflicts and social stratification
in communities that on the surface appeared cohesive. In general these studies are less
concerned to categorize different types of communities than to describe the
functioning and relationships among community members. Later studies commenced
during the expansion of sociology in the 1970s examined fringe communities, such as
gays, street dwellers and community activists.
COMMUNITY TYPOLOGIES
3
3
Many different types of community exist. Each type has different characteristics,
purpose, membership requirements, and traditions of interactions. Each community
institutes accepted arrangements of engaging with other members, establishes
customary forms of relationships, and determines particular conventions for
interactions and ways of maintaining contact. Researchers, policy makers and
practitioners have a clearer understanding of different types of communities if they
are systematically and precisely defined, however, few typologies of communities
have been published. This is quite surprising given the lack of consensus regarding
appropriate definitions, or agreement on categorization.
Tönnies distinguished two types of communities. On the one hand was the simplicity
of village life (community or Gemeinschaft), then there were complex social
relationships in urban environments (society or Gesellschaft). In Tönnies view, these
two kinds of communities had alternative and opposing characteristics. Community is
relatively childlike, where interactions are close and frequent among small numbers of
familiar residents and members have a common way of life and beliefs. In
community, traditions and systems of interactions are relatively stable. In contrast,
[urban] society is proposed as mature social relations where interactions are more
distant and infrequent among a large number of relatively unknown citizens whose
lifestyles and beliefs are different and change constantly. This view has some merit as
an analysis of the rapidly changing urban culture of the time. It still offers a useful
starting point to study rural and urban populations, but it is less relevant to distinguish
among the many and varied types of communities that exist in urban and rural areas.
By the middle of the 20th Century, different types of communities were classified
according to rituals, density of relationships, and involvement with organized
activities particularly in small groups (Brint, 2001). Less tangible cultural elements
also categorized different types of communities, particularly common belief systems
and the perception of similarities among the population. Hillery (1955) identified
elements that characterized communities as geographic area, kinship, self sufficiency
or separateness, common lifestyle and type of social interactions(Marshall, 1998 pp.
97-8).
Worsley (1987) organized Hillery’s elements into an early typology of three different
community types. Locality forms the foundation of the first kind of community.
Neighborhoods, villages and some bounded urban areas can be identified by residents
and outsiders as a community, thus they have a ‘sense of place’ (Stedman, 2002). In a
second type of community, members share some common features and have some
sense of collective identity. This is sometimes called a ‘sense of community’ (Kim &
Kaplan, 2004). This may be based on an identifiable characteristic such as ethnicity,
or a common experience of disadvantage, or to those who belong to a particular
profession. The third type of community is established by common feelings,
understandings and sense of belonging among members who establish a ‘community
spirit’ (Etzioni, 1993; Rovai, 2002). Members have a sense of connection based on a
network of relationships and interactions which may or may not be through physical
interactions. The relationships are mostly positive and reciprocal, but not always. For
example, this type of community is evident among those who have a strong
commitment to a cause.
4
4
Worsley’s typology extends earlier concepts and the two types of communities
proposed by Tönnies, but it is still very general. Others have proposed typologies of
specific types of communities. For instance, Schubert and Borkman (1991) outline an
organizational typology based on organizational structures. While this is only
intended to apply to self-help groups, it offers some helpful concepts to consider a
broader range of types of communities. The two dimensions of this typology (internal
power and authority systems and external dependence on resources) result in five
types: Unaffiliated, Federated, Affiliated, Hybrid and Managed. This typology is
helpful to understand the different organizational systems, but it relates more to
communities of organizations than to other types of communities, for instance, it has
limited applicability to virtual communities.
Wellman (2002) describes three iterations of modern community. The first is
traditional, closely knit communities that Wellman describes as ‘Little Boxes’. These
traditionally place based communities have tight, dense ties among members, the
community is tightly bounded, and regular interactions among residents provide a
wide range of social support and companionship (1999 p. xiii). In essence, these
traditional communities are similar to Tönnies Gemeinschaft. These traditional
communities have transformed into ‘Glocalized’ networks in which clusters of
households are linked both locally and globally. In Wellmans view, modern
community now has become ‘Networked Individualism’ where individual members
are sparsely linked without regard to physical space. These contemporary networked
communities are loosely bounded, that is most ties are not within a single locality.
Interaction occurs between a minority of members, and communities provide a limited
range of social support and companionship to members. Although the interactions
among members of contemporary communities are not visible, they are no less
important in the contribution they offer to the well being of individual members.
Brint’s (2001) typology is one of the few available to classify distinctly different types
of contemporary communities. The foundations of his community typology are 1)
physical interactions among members, 2) the frequency and priority placed on
interactions among members, and 3) the primary motivation for interaction. Brint’s
typology has four levels of variables with alternative options at each level:
Basis of relationship: geographic or choice
Reason for interaction: activity or belief
Location of other members: concentrated or dispersed in space
Amount of interaction: frequent or infrequent
Eight community types emerge from these alternatives:
Geographic communities:
1. small scale communities of place and neighborhood groups
2. local friendship networks, primarily activity based
3. communes and collectives
4. local friendship networks, primarily cultural
Choice based communities:
5. activity based elective communities
6. belief based elective communities
7. imagined communities
8. virtual communities
5
5
Brint’s typology attempts to provide a systematic process to organize communities. It
assists to understand some of the varieties evident in contemporary communities,
however there are some limitations. This classification system does no explain
different types of membership systems. It does not cover many contemporary
communities, such as the specialized community of education and learning practice
(Barton & Tusting, 2005; Wenger, 1998). Likewise the dark side of community does
not fit readily into this framework, for instance crime syndicates which have strong,
bounded connections that are not necessarily based on friendships, activities or
beliefs. In addition, socially oppressed or excluded communities such as the
homeless or slavery are not easily accommodated into Brint’s typology. The
addition of some of these concepts into a new typology would assist to further clarify
different types of communities.
In essence, the characteristics of the community members and system of interactions
differentiate different types of communities. These structural and intangible cultural
characteristics are equally applicable to distinguish various types of modern
communities, for instance virtual communities; however they are insufficient to
classify the many different types of modern virtual communities.
KEY ISSUES
A community implies a sense of belonging, connection, communication and
interaction. Attachment to a community is known to confer benefits and improve well
being. Belonging to community is viewed almost a necessity to have a meaningful
life. For example, Kegley (1997) writes about engaging with ‘genuine community’ as
a means of improving individual well being by strengthening knowledge,
intentionality and enlightenment. In this sense, community is a substitute for
spirituality, a way of engaging in and understanding a greater force for good that
offers guidance and personal philosophy for living. In general this is proposed as an
individual benefit, however the ‘health’ of different types of communities also varies
(Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999).
The process of engaging and building connections within a community is described as
‘building community’. A sense of community connection can be built among
members either accidentally, or via a deliberate and informed process. Systematic and
deliberate community building involves thinking, feeling and doing. Kelly and Sewell
(1998) describe this method of community building as using ‘head, heart or hand’.
Head is a capacity for knowing: a logical, rational, thinking connection based on a
judgment of anticipated benefit to the person or others for whom there is a close
attachment. Heart is a facility for feeling: enacted with a sense of purpose,
commitment and emotion. Hand is a competence of doing: a service based on various
techniques to achieve a result. While these may be combined as pairs of actions,
combining as all three is much more powerful and successful to form a strong and
stable attachment to a community of choice. The process can be applied to build all
types of contemporary communities, even those that may have no physical
interactions, or those without a positive goal.
Some types of communities function well and have good connections among
members. Other types build connections among members aimed not to accomplish
social cohesion, but rather have negative anti social goals and aim to achieve social
6
6
disruption. Dark types of communities are strongly oppressive or exploitive and result
in systematic social exclusion of those who do not conform to an expected behavior or
condition. The foundation of exclusionary types of communities may be class, race or
nationality, gender, sexuality, disability or possessions. Anderson (1991) expands on
‘imagined communities’ formed around nationality that build a sense of purpose, and
then may engage in nationalistic endeavors such as invasions or ethnic cleansing.
Weiss and Friedman (1995) provide a comprehensive overview of exclusionary
community based on gender. Likewise Paoli (2003) describes the mafia crime
brotherhood as an exploitive community. When oppression is not considered
legitimate, however, the oppressed may bond into their own tight knit community to
offer mutual support or engage in counter actions.
Over time, communities change. The activities, membership and ways of interacting
may alter. Communities may falter and fold, or evolve into new forms. Many lament
that community is disappearing in modern, industrialized western societies. For
instance, Brock (2008) insists modern communities are fragmented and at odds people
living in their ‘own worlds’. The loss of community is tied to a supposed depletion of
social capital where fewer citizens now belong to civil society organizations (Putnam,
1995). There is no doubt physical interactions occur less regularly among residents,
especially in modern cities, however others are less despondent that community is in
decline, but suggest instead that new types of community are emerging.
Contemporary communities are qualitatively different from traditional place based
communities. Contemporary communities rely less on regular physical interactions,
than on virtual contact that informs the member and fulfills a need for information or
interaction. A sense of community may be established among members even when
contact is irregular and members never meet. The need for meaningful relationships is
now provided by virtual friendship communities rather than from regular interaction
with a close knit family. Virtual communities offer members a sense of belonging,
communication media, and personal benefits. Members who belong to social network
systems, virtual dating and chat communities are as much involved in their
communities as residents of traditional neighborhood communities. Virtual
communities exist around common interests without members ever needing to meet
physically. The common interests are diverse, for instance ham radio operators, world
wide book crossing exchange groups, or professional communities of practice
connected via the Internet.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
There is a clear need to develop a new typology of communities to help organize and
understand the variation evident in different kinds of communities. Modern
communities are a network of relationships which form around an interest or other
aspect members have in common. Each community evolves particular conventions of
behavior and actions. This concept helps to understand the variation in connections
among members of different types of contemporary communities, but offers little to
help appreciate the differences that distinguish one type of community from another.
Membership of each type of community varies: it may be established by voluntary
association, or conferred by existing members. Communities may be established by
geography or choice; they may be based on activities or beliefs. Different kinds of
community result in various arrangements of interactions, exchanges and
7
7
relationships, and the various kinds of community offer different kinds of
contributions to daily life. With so many iterations of community types, an agreed
typology would be very useful to assist researchers and practitioners alike to extend
understanding of how various types of communities form, function and fold.
SEE ALSO
Civil society and social inequality
Civil society, early and mid 20th Century
Collective action
Communitarianism
Community development
Community development organizations
Community based organization
Empowerment
Social cohesion
Uncivil society
Voluntary and community sector
*Heather Douglas is a PhD Candidate at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Heather has been a community practitioner for 30 years. She has researched
community networks, facilitated community building projects, engaged in community
activities, and written on issues.
REFERENCES/READINGS
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. London: Verso.
Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: language
power and social context. Learning in doing: social, cognitive and
computational perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the
community concept. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 1-23.
Brock, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: rights, responsibilities, and the
communitarian agenda. New York: Crown.
Gans, H. (1962). The urban villagers: groups and class in the life of Italian
Americans. New York: Free Press.
8
8
Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociology,
20 (2), 111123.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1999). Crime: social
disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science & Medicine, 48(6),
719-731.
Kegley, J. A. K. (1997). Genuine individuals and genuine communities. Nashville,
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kelly, A., & Sewell, S. (1998). With head heart and hand: dimensions of community
building. Bowen Hills, Brisbane: Boolerong Publications.
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of
community - New urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village.
Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313-340.
Marshall, G. (Ed.). (1998). Oxford dictionary of sociology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Paoli, L. (2003). Mafia brotherhoods: organized crime, Italian style. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Porter, C. E. (2006). A typology of virtual communities: a multi-disciplinary
foundation for future research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
10 (1), 631-5171.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1).
Schubert, M. A., & Borkman, T. J. (1991). An organizational typology for self-help
groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(5), 769-787.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place - Predicting behavior
from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and
Behavior, 34(5), 561-581.
Toennies, F. ([1897] 1951). Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft (community and
society).Translated by Charles P. Loomis. New York: Harper.
Weiss, P. A., & Friedman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Feminism and community. Philadephia:
Temple University Press.
Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village: life in comtenporary
communities. 1999: Westview Press.
Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2362, pp. 337-343).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Worsley, P. (1987). New introductory sociology. London: Penguin.
Young, M., & Wilmott, P. (1960). Family and kinship in East London. London:
Harmondsworth.
... There are many different ways of defining community. Community has been described as a form of shared identity (Douglas, 2010;Slack, 1998) Community has also been described as a form of collective identity, whereby uniting factor(s) create a shared psychological space, one can opt into based on subjective identification (Deaux, 1996) this means that one can fit into the category of a community, but not consider themselves part of the community, and entry is not de facto to the category. Community is described as having emotional overtones of familiarity, social and emotional cohesion and a sense of commitment (Douglas, 2010). ...
... Community has been described as a form of shared identity (Douglas, 2010;Slack, 1998) Community has also been described as a form of collective identity, whereby uniting factor(s) create a shared psychological space, one can opt into based on subjective identification (Deaux, 1996) this means that one can fit into the category of a community, but not consider themselves part of the community, and entry is not de facto to the category. Community is described as having emotional overtones of familiarity, social and emotional cohesion and a sense of commitment (Douglas, 2010). ...
... Traditionally, community has been thought of in terms of geographical regions that denote community membership, while more modern definitions have linked it to a social space, whether geographic or not (Slack, 1998). Thus, interactions may be virtual, ideological or physical (Douglas, 2010). Connectedness may be considered as a community spirit and belongingness or considered as a practice of connecting and engagement (Douglas, 2010). ...
Thesis
This thesis aimed to investigate the role of minority stress (MS) and autistic community connectedness (ACC) on mental health (MH) and wellbeing in the autistic community. Multiple methods were used, across four studies. Study one consisted of a qualitative study using grounded theory tools to create a measure of ACC, as none existed. The findings indicated that ACC compromises of three sub-domains – belongingness, social, and political connectedness. Stigma and identity both informed the level of ACC experienced by participants. In study two, a measure of ACC was created and validated in a new sample of autistic individuals (N = 133) using confirmatory factor analysis to test factor-structure and for item purification. Results indicated factorial, convergent and discriminant validity, for a 10-item scale. Studies three and four consisted of a cross-sectional and longitudinal survey where 195 autistic and 181 non-autistic people completed questionnaires at baseline and 99 autistic participants completed measures nine months later at follow-up. Resilience resources, ACC, MH and wellbeing, and MS were measured both times. Study three showed that the differences in MH, wellbeing, and resilience resources between the autistic and non-autistic sample persisted beyond demographics and general stress. Higher MS predicted lower MH and wellbeing, while ACC moderated the relationship between MS and MH, ameliorating the effects of MS. The longitudinal study (study four) showed that higher MS scores at baseline were associated with worse MH and wellbeing nine-months later, while higher ACC was associated with better MH and wellbeing. The results suggest a model of ACC and MS whereby autistic people may experience differing levels of ACC depending on experiences of stigma and autistic identity. This ACC in turn moderates the impact of MS on MH.These findings and implications of the research are further integrated into autism, MS, MH, and community literature.
Article
Purpose This paper aims to identify the aspects that social actors consider in constructing shared futures in communities. In their application in emerging countries, especially in the Global South, the socio-cultural particularities of communities and actors are often overlooked, generating friction or social conflicts. This paper presents two critical elements contributing to the debate: the importance of understanding Social Actors within a model of generating community futures in emerging countries; and the relevant factors that influence the actors in an exercise of building futures in communities. Design/methodology/approach From qualitative research, a case study of community foresight of the future was used: the future of Puerto Gaitán 2037 (Meta, Colombia). A method of information collection was applied from observation of the participants and analysis of documentation. The analysis method was the deductive qualitative analysis (DQA). Findings The participation of the social actors presents a model of five relevant elements that influence the actors for the successful construction of futures in communities. The first four factors, revealed from theory, are presented in real life. Likewise, a fifth factor is proven, Long-term thinking, which is evidenced by a model of application of futures studies for the specific context, applicable to the case of communities in countries of the Global South. Originality/value Although there are isolated examples of recommendations regarding studies to generate the future of communities, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study that presents concrete factors that contribute to guiding the construction of community futures from social actors, especially in countries of the Global South such as Colombia. It is also one of the first studies to use the DQA as a method of analysis in a topic of futures studies.
Article
Full-text available
Autistic people report greater comfort socialising and easier communication with each other. Despite autism being stereotypically associated with lack of social motivation, an autistic community has been described briefly in the literature but is not well understood. Autistic community connectedness may play a role in promoting wellbeing for autistic people. This qualitative study involved interviewing autistic individuals (N = 20) in-person, via a video-based platform, a text-based platform or over email to investigate autistic community connectedness. Critical grounded theory tools were used to collect and analyse the data. There were three elements of autistic community connectedness: belongingness, social connectedness and political connectedness. Belongingness referred to the sense of similarity that autistic people experienced with each other. Social connectedness referred to specific friendship participants formed with other autistic people. Political connectedness referred to a connectedness to the political or social equality goals of the autistic community. Participants described the benefits of autistic community connectedness as being increased self-esteem, a sense of direction and a sense of community not experienced elsewhere. Lack of connectedness involved ambivalence with an autistic identity and/or feelings of internalised stigma. Experiences of autistic community connectedness may have implications for autistic people’s wellbeing, as well as how they cope with minority stress. Lay abstract A sense of being connected to other autistic people has been reported anecdotally. Friendships and connectedness may be important to autistic people and beneficial for their wellbeing. Our research aimed to understand the autistic community by interviewing 20 autistic people about their experiences of being connected to other autistic people. Participants were interviewed in person, over video, using a text-based software to type or over email. Participants detailed three parts of autistic community connectedness: a sense of belonging, social connection with autistic friends and political connectedness. The friendships autistic people had with one another were deemed to be very important to participants because it gave them confidence, provided companionship and made them happy. Some participants did not experience connectedness to the autistic community. These participants also found autism to be less important to their identity and had fewer positive feelings about being autistic. This research is important as it raises awareness that community connectedness is viewed as important to this group. It is possible that community connectedness may help protect the mental health of autistic people when they face stigma or negative life experiences in society.
Article
Full-text available
The unification of territorial communities allows forming an effective and convenient system of management of the territory in which they live. However, the unification of territorial communities in Ukraine is uneven, which raises the question of why this is happening. The purpose of the study is to analyze the level of social-economic development of united territorial communities in Ukraine and the choice of sustainable development strategies (adaptation, innovation, anti-crisis) for UTCs of different levels, identify problems of social-economic development and outline areas to address them. Research methods: generalization and scientific abstraction; system-structural and comparative analysis; economic and mathematical modeling; clustering. It has been established that the unification of different territories in Ukraine took place unevenly (with different levels of social-economic development). The study found that the unification of different territories in Ukraine took place unevenly due to different levels of their socio-economic development. It has been established that throughout Ukraine, communities with a low and high level of development predominate and to a lesser extent with a medium level of development. According to the results of the analysis, territorial communities were grouped into 3 regional clusters: cluster 1 – UTCs and territories with a high level of social-economic development (Kyiv and 9 regions); cluster 2 – UTCs and territories with an average level of social-economic development (6 regions); cluster 3 – UTCs and territories with a low level of social-economic development (10 regions). It has been proved that the social-economic development of UTCs is ensured by the improvement of financial, innovative, and investment activities of enterprises operating in communities. It has been proposed to apply an adaptation strategy of sustainable development for the territories of cluster 1; for cluster 2 - innovative strategy of sustainable development; for cluster 3 - anti-crisis strategy of sustainable development. Continuation of research in terms of determining the impact of enterprises on the socio-economic development of UTCs is promising not only in scientific terms but also to address the applied problems of developing a strategy for sustainable development at the level of individual UTCs in Ukraine. The studied methodology for the unification of territorial communities can be used to predict the further formation of UTCs in Ukraine and can be applied for territorial and administrative reforms in countries with uneven regional development.
Article
Full-text available
emic circles as Amitai Etzioni's latest manifesto on communitarian politics,' which has finally been published in Britain, more than two years after its initial publication in the United States of America.2 The interest in communitarianism in Britain has grown significantly over the past year. Communitarianism began as a philosophical critique of liberalism and its excesses in neo-liberal political rationality and libertarian legal philosophy.3 As such, communitarianism identified a number of salient philosophical contradictions and ambiguities, with close parallels to some European critical theory.4 As an explicit rejection of New Right politics, Etzioni, and communitarians more generally, have met with a favourable reception within the Labour Party, as it seeks to redefine itself under the leadership of Tony Blair.5 'New Labour' has seized upon The Spirit of Community as offering something which lies between the untamed 'market' and the outof-favour ideals of'socialist social solidarity'. In this book, Etzioni attempts to go beyond critique and to set out a positive vision of communitarian politics. Consequently, it is a bold, although unfinished, piece of work. It is, however, one which is trapped within a number of empirical, philosophical and political solecisms. The book comes with a very short, four-page preface to the British edition, which identifies a host of prominent people, from across the political spectrum, who claim to have been inspired by it. This should immediately alert the wary or cynical reader as to how an agenda can appeal simultaneously to such diverse interests. The book is divided into three broad
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Article
Despite geographers' increasing concern with place-based politics, the effects of place-based social relations on collective political action remain largely untheorized. By emphasizing the free rider problem--why a rational, self-interested individual would engage in collective action when his/her impact is negligible and the benefits of collective action are public and free--rational choice theory correctly problematizes collective action. Its reliance on the essentialist homo economicus model of human nature, however, often leads to untenable solutions that do not consider nonstrategic forms of rationality, collective identity formation, and the crucial effects of place-specific social relations. Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, in contrast, provides a broader conception of rationality that recognizes communicative as well as strategic and instrumental forms of rationality and focuses on social interaction rather than on isolated individuals. Individuals reach common understandings, form communal bonds, and construct collective identities through communicative action. The relative importance of communicative versus strategic forms of action coordination varies geographically and historically and cannot be understood apart from systemic processes. As communicative forms of action coordination (based on communicative rationality) are "colonized" by systemic forms of action coordination (based on strategic and instrumental rationality) and destabilized by capital hypermobility, communal bonds break down. Places become less significant as bases for community and more significant in corporate location and investment decisions. These processes, however, engender resistance. Strong place-based communities mobilize when threatened and new forms of collective identity arise through channels created by time-space compression.
Article
Journal of Democracy 6.1 (1995) 65-78 As featured on National Public Radio, The New York Times, and in other major media, we offer this sold-out, much-discussed Journal of Democracy article by Robert Putnam, "Bowling Alone." You can also find information at DemocracyNet about the Journal of Democracy and its sponsor, the National Endowment for Democracy. Many students of the new democracies that have emerged over the past decade and a half have emphasized the importance of a strong and active civil society to the consolidation of democracy. Especially with regard to the postcommunist countries, scholars and democratic activists alike have lamented the absence or obliteration of traditions of independent civic engagement and a widespread tendency toward passive reliance on the state. To those concerned with the weakness of civil societies in the developing or postcommunist world, the advanced Western democracies and above all the United States have typically been taken as models to be emulated. There is striking evidence, however, that the vibrancy of American civil society has notably declined over the past several decades. Ever since the publication of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, the United States has played a central role in systematic studies of the links between democracy and civil society. Although this is in part because trends in American life are often regarded as harbingers of social modernization, it is also because America has traditionally been considered unusually "civic" (a reputation that, as we shall later see, has not been entirely unjustified). When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans' propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. "Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition," he observed, "are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types -- religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America." Recently, American social scientists of a neo-Tocquevillean bent have unearthed a wide range of empirical evidence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions (and not only in America) are indeed powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement. Researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty, unemployment, the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health have discovered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities. Similarly, research on the varying economic attainments of different ethnic groups in the United States has demonstrated the importance of social bonds within each group. These results are consistent with research in a wide range of settings that demonstrates the vital importance of social networks for job placement and many other economic outcomes. Meanwhile, a seemingly unrelated body of research on the sociology of economic development has also focused attention on the role of social networks. Some of this work is situated in the developing countries, and some of it elucidates the peculiarly successful "network capitalism" of East Asia. Even in less exotic Western economies, however, researchers have discovered highly efficient, highly flexible "industrial districts" based on networks of collaboration among workers and small entrepreneurs. Far from being paleoindustrial anachronisms, these dense interpersonal and interorganizational networks undergird ultramodern industries, from the high tech of Silicon Valley to the high fashion of Benetton. The norms and networks of civic engagement also powerfully affect the performance of representative government. That, at least, was the central conclusion of my own 20-year, quasi-experimental study of subnational governments in different regions of Italy. Although all these regional governments seemed identical on paper, their levels of effectiveness varied dramatically. Systematic inquiry showed that the quality of governance was determined by longstanding traditions of civic engagement (or its absence). Voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in choral societies and football clubs -- these were the hallmarks of a successful region. In fact, historical analysis suggested that these networks of organized reciprocity and civic solidarity...