Amid the constituent communities, agendas associated with the purpose, values, meaning and identity of belonging to the community, were frequently evident. These underlying principles, motives or ideals (Oxford English Dictionary 2007) were held either individually or collectively, and informed how individuals or communities interacted.
The existence of agendas was apparent as constituent community activities and roles within the rural community were discussed. Members rarely described the motivations behind their collective activities as an agenda. Yet, for example, economic growth for the town was described by all members of one constituent community interviewed, as being the underlying motive for their activity.
“.. it gives people the reason not to go to [Regional town]. .. And that is the thing that I could see really benefiting us here [rural town] as a business ..“ (2h)
At times agendas were spoken of directly, particularly where they were identified as benefiting an individual.
“Someone obviously had their own agenda, and more obviously going to get something out this if they could stand up and say, ‘We’re doing this, and I’m doing this’ or whatever. ..” (3e)
Agendas represented the meaning a boundary held for that community; the significant components of belonging and identity associated with community membership. Community values actioned as community agendas were particularly apparent where there were conflicting agendas between communities.
“.. you have alternative life style development over there, and there tends to be a bit of a you know, we’ve got our ideas, you’ve got yours and they don’t mix together.” (1c)
The difference between each community’s “ideas” (pointing to the underpinning agendas) was raised, identifying a boundary process of conflict. The presence of the agenda signified the process of maintaining, negotiating or constructing a boundary. In this manner, the agenda highlighted the importance of individual and collective identity and meaning associated with being in community.
In voicing values and ideals, members were negotiating the existing community values or
establishing a new community based in those values. These could be adopted in full or part. When a member’s values clashed, this identified and maintained the community boundary. That member had to choose either to adopt different values and meaning or to not continue within that
“By being involved in .. your local committees. .. And you’ll get your own point of view. .. if you’re influential or you know what you’re talking about, people will listen to you and you can then steer it .. But .. if you don’t fit you’re pushed out. ..” (1c)
The following outlines three examples of constituent community agendas. Given communities are more apparent at their boundary of difference with other communities, many were presented in contrast to another community value set. Conflicting agendas between constituent communities highlighted that agendas were about values, meaning and identity. RCD constituent community values and agendas are presented in Chapter 6.
5: 2.2.1 Forestry/agriculture and Green/alternative agendas
As presented in 5:1.2.3b, there were clear boundary processes active between the conservation and forestry communities. Conflict between the two was high, and emotive language was used by members of each community about the other, intimating the strength of meaning the issues presented for members.
The differing values of these communities were highlighted by this conflict which was visible to the general public, even influencing where people chose to live. These communities were unable to compromise the core values that identified their community. For the Greens the values were centred in environmental and social issues, while within forestry and agricultural communities the orientation was resources and resource management.
5: 2.2.2 ‘Progressive’ development and social values agendas
Two distinct agendas emerged relating to the concept of progress. An economic and regional development agenda with a strong focus on growing business with the related community benefits, and a social agenda focused on maintaining infrastructure associated with historical memory within the rural community and the community status quo.
“Effectively I’m thinking there was then a significant increase in land values .. And that
brought with it a wave of new investors and a different style of person. .. And really um [Rural town] and community changed, but with change of course comes adversity. And there was bit
of adversity, property developers were being challenged by the traditional land owners and all types.” (2i)
These agendas were clarified as different value orientations to the seemingly akin forestry or Green agendas. The below quotes voice that pro-development is not necessarily pro-forestry and
development is not necessarily anti-Green, yet also demonstrates a strong perceived alignment. “.. And I mean he has a lot of respect within most of the community. Because of his, he’s pro forestry, he doesn’t have that [respect] with the anti-forestry group. But, you know, well he’s pro-development rather than just pro-forestry. ..” (1a)
“.. It’s not a for or against Green or anything, it’s a, to keep progress moving you’ve got to be receptive to change and new ideas and a lot of those people aren’t.” (1c)
Where an economic agenda was part of the constituent community’s values, the associated
discourse focused on the benefits of these activities in terms of the economic improvements for the rural community:
“So that will benefit the local businesses which in turn, all local businesses which are successful are putting money back into the community either directly or indirectly. .. So I think it will add to the affluence of the town. Because of the structure, and that is that most of the profits go back into the community, I think it will help to knit the community together.” (2c)
As a secondary advance, social benefit was considered a likely flow-on effect of economic benefit, through the rural community potentially experiencing increased social cohesion in the process.
In contrast to this economic focus, was an agenda placing more weight on valuing and ensuring an historical memory. This value was apparent in the desire to preserve both buildings or landmarks which might otherwise be demolished for ‘progress’, and also the low key approach to life which was considered synonymous and was thus stereotyped as part of the rural identity and way of life
(described in 1.2.1a). This valuing of the rural lifestyle did not exclude change and growth but involved seeking to contain it, letting it develop slowly so it did not change the life style abruptly for those who had a lengthy connection with the rural community:
“And that’s where some of the board people from Melbourne and that, probably see it
different .. [Growth] at all costs type thing more than, hang on lets service what we’ve got and let it grow natural.” (2a)
Progressive and social agendas were often contrasted, highlighting the existence of these boundary processes within the rural communities. Participants all described an affinity with one set of values more strongly than another and were clear where their values lay. The following quote is an example of how, for some, social interaction and belonging was valued far more than a commercial agenda. Experiencing an embodiment of both values firsthand brought opportunity for decision- making as part of boundary processes. People chose membership based on the agendas associated with the different communities.
“I went onto the committee, because I was encouraged by a group of members who are not on the committee to try to steer it into much more of a commercial direction .. After about 6 months, I was being deeply involved in everything that was happening. It was such a joy to be in an environment that was totally volunteer .. it created an environment and an atmosphere in the club which you could never create commercially. So I (laughing) I decided I don’t want this job, I don’t want to destroy this club, I want it to stay as it is (laughing). .. But it’s one of the friendliest ones I’ve ever been to and anyone can walk in there on a Friday night, and you’ll be immediately introduced to other people and picked up. .. And we’ve got a comparison, because the [another sporting] club .. is a fully fledged commercial operation and it’s
absolutely dead. I mean it’s awful. You go in there any day and there’s hardly anybody there and there’s a little cliques on a few tables ..” (2c)
The discourse around an agenda for progress and economic development was focused on the economic benefits available to the community, yet also connected social benefits as a secondary outcome. A contrasting agenda placed social values first, both in maintaining a sense of history with a connection and respect for the past, and maintaining a lifestyle that valued social interaction, connectedness and belonging ahead of commercial benefit. The presence of the different agendas signified the existence of boundary processes occurring between constituent communities, founded
in the values they represented. When presented with actioning these agendas, people usually made a clear decision about which side of the boundary they belonged at that point in time.
5: 2.2.3 Funding source agendas and the community voice
Funding for projects came with the agendas of the funding source. Local committees held values and agendas about local community control that were constantly being balanced with funders’ agendas.
Funding source agendas identified included: ensuring a preferred identity was clear in project names; achieving outcomes usually determined quantitatively; seeking community sector involvement to secure project success through the anticipated contribution of passion and local financial support; and seeking partnerships and linkages. As exampled below, these were
frequently linked back to local, state or commonwealth government strategic documents that were used to determine the outcomes and benchmarking to be met by projects.
“But all this is part of the Tasmania Together policy, it all boils back to the Tasmania Together. .. I mean if you look at that you’ll see that all these things that [we] do is really is based on that document.” (3f)
Community members were very aware of funder agendas and consciously worked to balance them with their own agendas. These boundary processes were a source of frustration when members felt that if given greater local determination of the activities, funder outcomes could be achieved at the same time as meeting other community needs. Three sets of agendas were often juggled, that of government policy, funding sources and the local voice.
“I guess we were frustrated that they didn’t see the advantage to them in what we were doing. You know, we are the local eyes and ears, and if we can score some points for them and still do our other jobs, still get the numbers which is what they were interested in. .. it gives what they [government] want, [funders] get what they want and the community gets what they want. So I just think they should just cut us loose, and let us do what we’re doing.” (1a)
These were just some examples of conflicting agenda’s which identified the boundary processes between constituent communities. All participants clearly described their communities’ agendas, though not using the term agenda unless associated with a negative influence. The agendas
embodied the values that connect with members’ identity, and were not considered something that could be compromised. Members felt strongly about these values, defending and thus highlighting the boundaries when conflicting agendas met.