Pillar Two - The Community
This is one of 3 articles to help introduce and explain the basic ideas and tenets of Sustainable Democracy. The Pillars follow a progression from smallest to largest. From the individual, to the community, to the society. This article will focus on the role of the community and small scale models that might be applicable to society. Availability of resources is also based on that of an industrialized nation, the lack or absence of basic needs in developing or third world nations will be discussed in the article on society.
The Community in Sustainable Democracy
How we build communities is extremely important. Whereas an individual can easily change and adapt over time, communities of all but the smallest sizes quickly become very rigid. It is this inflexibility that may be the greatest cause of problems and social breakdown in our modern world.
Unfortunately we evolve much slower than our social context has. The basis of large cities has been at the behest of industrial and commercial interests that occurred during times when moguls couldn’t have cared less for the effect on workers. This is the reason for surges in urban renewal projects. The cities we have built are not the sorts of places that build any measure of community. They isolate people.. A sustainable democratic community needs to be one that invites the individual and integrates that person fluidly. They are open communities that encourage interpersonal connections.
Think of it this way. You probably have a homeowners association, perhaps a neighborhood watch, there may be a local church or activity group you are a part of. However, none of these groups are connected, nor to they work with each other in many cases. New community structures need to take care of all of these functions and more.
A true community is made of connections between individuals. The fact that you are in close proximity to others means almost nothing if you never connect with them, a neighborhood of strangers is exactly that, and no labels, gates and walls, or promotional pamphlets will make it a community.
It is an odd but understandable fact that online communities are doing much better than local communities at this time. As was stated in the first pillar on the individual; people should be working to invent and create rather then needlessly toil. Communities should be building connections, and integrating individuals to enhance and build the local environment to be better.
Consider: Some of the most productive and innovative companies work in environments that are clean, streamlined, and open to encourage team members to continually interact. The people who work there are happy, they work harder, they are often more innovative, and they actually still spend less time pretending to be busy working and more time actually socializing.
What would happen if your local area were modified like this?
Do you see any problems with a community like this?
All ideas here and insights from comments will be discussed in much more detail focused articles.
7 Responses to “Pillar Two - The Community”
By Myku on Jan 24, 2008 | Reply
Writing a manifesto, are we?
Jokes aside, this is turning out to be a very interesting series you’ve started here. And to answer your questions, I’d look forward to a society more like what you describe here.
Unfortunately, I think as long as big business and industry can game the government, we can have no hope of the kind of society you’re talking about. Those same antiquated powers that be that created the exploitative working and living conditions that you mentioned are the same ones who are stunting progress today.
How can we get those people in power, who are currently profiting from the system “as is,” to look past the bottom line and help bring about change instead of impeding it?
By Chris Schaffer on Jan 24, 2008 | Reply
First to respond to the joke… Yes, apparently I am. It was never really planned that way, but the more I look at it, the more I think that’s true. Funny how that happens.
Your actual point and question bring up an excellent point. How do we fix a system that works (very) well for the people in charge? I think the answer is by side-stepping it. Not avoiding it or destroying it, or even trying to change it directly. Expect a post sometime this weekend that will at least start to address this problem. Thanks so much for asking it!
By Owen on Jan 24, 2008 | Reply
We just moved from Philadelphia, PA to Toulouse, France. We lived in a neighborhood in Philadelphia that people considered very community oriented. It was the loneliest place I had ever lived. No one spoke to each other, everyone went about their business in their community events but none were connected together. Here in France people think Toulouse is a big city and very impersonal but I find it more community oriented. It is actually considered rude if you walk into a store and don’t greet the person with a bon Jour. So while i agree with a lot what you are saying there are cultural elements to what you describe that also keep things in place and I disagree that you can just sidestep them. Anyway, enjoyable reading.
By Chris Schaffer on Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
@ Owen - Thanks for the comment and personal story!
One thing though, by sidestepping I am more referring to avoiding taking on the government or private corporations head-on. I should be posting an article dealing more with this on Saturday that should hopefully clear up what I mean and also hopefully allow you to make much more specific criticism. After all, the only way any idea improves is if people point out the flaws, so thank you.
By Lon Sarver on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
So my community pulls together, builds a solid, positive identity, and starts working to improve our part of town. We focus there, not because we are parochial, but because it’s what we can best reach and what we know.
Another community a mile up the line is doing the same thing. But their garbage gets in the stream that runs through the middle of my community. How do we address that?
They aren’t doing it to harm us. They may have no other choice given what resources they have to work with. But just because it isn’t malicious doesn’t mean it isn’t hurtful.
I play devil’s advocate because I care. I’ve thought along these lines for some time, and I ask the questions I haven’t been able to answer for myself.
By Chris Schaffer on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
@ Lon Sarver - I need devil’s advocates. Without ‘critics’ ideals would never make it anywhere near reality.
I think this problem is where we start crossing the line toward the larger macro scale of solutions needed. Another ideal situation to solve this is, of course, the elegant bureaucracy of incredible efficiency. Although being that the problems we are burdened with are caused by the reality of bureaucracy something else is needed.
I will try to come up with an example dealing with your specific problem. I think that will provide even more fodder to really get this idea moving in a better direction.