The varied and changing conceptions of community have been documented and discussed over more than a century, beginning with significant early contributions in the works of Durkheim, Weber, Marx, Tönnies, and the Chicago School, and on to the renewed interest in community over the past two decades (for examples of these summaries and discussions see Blackshaw, 2010; Cnaan, et al., 2007). The key issues grappled with throughout this time responded to the changes brought about by industrialisation and were viewed through contrasting ‘community’ and ‘society’. It was argued that community involved close ties in kin, structure, economics, and social and emotional experiences, as was present in the rural districts and towns at the time. Further, it was contended that community was being replaced or undermined by society as manifest in the far looser ties of the emerging cities and larger towns of the Industrial Era (Blackshaw, 2010; Bourke, 2001b; Lockie, 2001; Tönnies, 1957). These initial conceptualisations of community were confined by assumptions that community is spatially and temporally contained in that it exists in a geographic space at a particular time, and entails a prescribed way of being, comprising close relationships across all areas of living.
Blackshaw (2010) in his determination to offer conceptual precision to community, describes the pre-industrial community as “pre-modern community” and presents the case for it being the only ‘community’, in that it has a strong ontology in providing the foundation for human existence. Like the early writings on community he considers modern society and versions of community to have much weaker ontologies as while they contribute to identity, the structure and interactions do not define a person’s existence in full as they lack solid foundations, being always movable and
contestable. This perspective clearly highlights the role of community in identity and meaning, and indeed the role of identity in community which continue to be interwoven in community literature.
Defining the only ‘true’ community enters into a historical and philosophical debate. Blackshaw (2010) and Bauman (2008) argue that for conceptual precision, the term community should be used with critical forethought, not in contexts where alternative notions could be used. However, the present research proceeds from a more pragmatic understanding that the form of community may have changed, but ‘community’ continues to exist. These changing forms continue to involve the linking of people via commonalities and are inherently associated with identity.
Recent literature still contains spatial and normative orientations to community, and often in conjunction. Community space is frequently defined geographically by locality, such as towns and regions, and is often referred to as ‘place based’ or geographical community. A community of place includes the relationships of people in a physical location and perhaps more importantly, the meaning people associate with the geographic space and its physical features (Cheers, Darracott, & Lonne, 2007; Taylor, et al., 2008). Even though contained by physical boundaries, the focus here is on relationships and the accompanying meaning and corresponding identity associated with the locality. The physical space of a locality, including services and infrastructure can be considered the settlement, while the community is understood to be the interaction of people within and with the physical space (Cheers, et al., 2007). There are also expectations that a community of place involves strong close ties and people holding a sense of belonging together in the place. An understanding of
place based community overlayed with this normative view of what community should ideally be, has maintained relevance due to the continued existence of both small place based communities and the coinciding individual needs of people that are met through engagement within these communities (Mannarini & Fedi, 2009).
Central to a normative understanding of community is the community experience of its members. This experience is associated with a sense of solidarity or belonging, and is connected to individual and collective identity. There is an anticipation of cohesion in how members engage with each other in the daily living activities within the space of the community. This is evident for example, in the description of a normative view as seeing community as
a structure within which people have a sense of solidarity – being in things together – and this creates a sense of belonging to each other. This in turn results in positive affirmations for people because of their membership of the community. (Taylor, et al., 2008, p. 30) Normative expectations can be applied to place based community as well as other forms of community. For example, there has been research focused on community of place seeking to determine what should be, or what is ‘good’ community (Cheers, et al., 2003; Kenny, 2006). Similarly, although Hunter (2007) seeks to encompass the breadth and complexity of varying forms of community by conceptualising community as a “variable quality” rather than a “thing”, the position is still underpinned with normative assumptions. This is evident in then determining “the degree of communityness” of specific cases of community, based on the three dimensions of shared ecology, social organisation, and shared culture and symbolic meanings.
Community from such normative perspectives is an ideological concept and as such, research founded on this orientation is value-laden. As these ideological understandings exist, it is important that the associated values and meanings not be ignored in community research. However, if values set the direction of enquiry, there is a risk that what is happening in community may be masked by the quest to determine what ‘should’ be community. An endeavour in this research will be to
accommodate the variable conceptualisations of community, studying community as it is found, including but not founded on ideological orientations.
While community is frequently used in connection with the relational dynamics of people in a geographically bounded place, it has long been used functionally to encompass commonalities including demographic, psychological and social factors such as interests, age, economic status or gender, and particularly those aspects that engender a sense of connectedness and involve social relationship (Brawley, 1994; Burroughs & Eby, 1998; Casswell, 2001; Desjardins, et al., 2002; Dibden & Cheshire, 2005; Puddifoot, 1996). This descriptive perspective encompasses community in the varying forms in which it is perceived, and with less regard to spatial and temporal restrictions. It is also evident in community studies where the emphasis has involved consideration of power
relations, meanings informing identity and the symbolic nature in the experience and expression of community. Such research is founded in a phenomenological understanding of community, exploring and describing community as it is experienced by people (Blackshaw, 2010; de Berry, 1999).
A re-occurring topic throughout community studies literature is the concept of communities of interest. The generally accepted interpretation of community in this case is as a group of people with both an interest in common and social interaction of varying degrees in conjunction with the commonality (Blackshaw, 2010; Desjardins, et al., 2002; Kenny, 2006; Komaromi, 2003; Taylor, et al., 2008). The concept covers a broad range of pursuits across for example, recreational, political, spiritual or professional concerns and these are found within and across place based communities (Desjardins, et al., 2002; Kenny, 2006; Taylor, et al., 2008). Like the afore described
conceptualisations of community, communities of interest are seen to provide an avenue for the expression of identity (Blackshaw, 2010) with the ongoing experience of interaction also shaping identity through the shared meaning (Komaromi, 2003).
The concept of virtual communities is a phenomenon describing communication and social
networking of people via internet and mobile information technology. Due to the indirect nature of contact and interaction and that virtual communities are not constrained by proximity or place, there is debate regarding whether these are a different form of community or are better understood as social networks (Blackshaw & Fielding-Llyod, 2010). Although virtual communities are founded predominantly on weak ties, like communities of interest, they afford the opportunity for expressing identity and a sense of belonging (Blackshaw & Fielding-Llyod, 2010). Despite debate, the concept continues to be commonly utilised.
Contemporary Australian usages of community include both descriptive and normative perspectives. It is variously descriptive of social structure, social organisation and belonging, including the
manifestation of shared identity, a geographic locality, and as an administrative unit. There are also the normative value based perspectives of community in terms of ethical public good, as a symbol of civil society at work with shared values, meaning and activity (Cheers, et al., 2003; Dixon, 2003; Kenny, 2006). Research exploring how rural people understand their place based community has similarly found normative and descriptive understandings in participants’ dialogue, as well as a combination of the two (Cheers, et al., 2003).
Thus, community is not a homogeneous concept. The history of varying definitions, perspectives and ideological foundations, also influenced by different political paradigms (Brent, 1997; Shaw, 2008), often highlights what may be considered a weaknesses of imprecision in such diversity of interpretation. Yet it is also recognized that for CD, a conceptualisation of community needs to be sufficiently sophisticated to be able to accommodate the diversity and complexity of, within and between communities in their varying forms (Cheers, et al., 2003; Cnaan, et al., 2007; Connell, 2002; Kenny, 2006; Liepins, 2000). By acknowledging rather than ignoring the paradoxes and juggling both the state and process of community it is possible to strengthen the knowledge-base and
take up these challenges through recognising the complexity, variability and paradox of community, dealing with the normative and descriptive understandings and differing ideological positions as they interconnect with RCD processes. This is begun through drawing on common threads across these understandings. Recognisable within the perspectives reviewed is that community involves the grouping of people by self or others and that this is entwined with peoples’ individual and/or collective identity.