Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the Community Concept

Abstract

Community remains a potent symbol and aspiration in political and intellectual life. However, it has largely passed out of sociological analysis. The paper shows why this has occurred, and it develops a new typology that can make the concept useful again in sociology. The new typology is based on identifying structurally distinct subtypes of community using a small number of partitioning variables. The first partition is defined by the ultimate context of interaction; the second by the primary motivation for interaction; the third by rates of interaction and location of members; and the fourth by the amount of face-to-face as opposed to computer-mediated interaction. This small number of partitioning variables yields eight major subtypes of community. The paper shows how and why these major subtypes are related to important variations in the behavioral and organizational outcomes of community. The paper also seeks to resolve some disagreements between classical liberalism and communitarians. It shows that only a few of the major subtypes of community are likely to be as illiberal and intolerant as the selective imagery of classical liberals asserts, while at the same time only a few are prone to generate as much fraternalism and equity as the selective imagery of communitarians suggests. The paper concludes by discussing the forms of community that are best suited to the modern world.

Locating Communities in Natural Resource Management

“…However, communities are diverse entities comprised of social, cultural and political differences across different spatial scales according to the interests of those involved (Jackson, 1989;Massey et al, 1999). Community as a unified entity representing homogenous ties, cohesion, harmony, shared norms and common interests might be considered a symbolic object of desire and imagination (Brint, 2001;Valentine, 1999). More often than not, community represents heterogeneous values, beliefs, norms and interests signifying difference, contestation and conflict across space and time (Harvey, 1996).…”

“…Rather than considering community as an organic whole, Brint (2001) suggests that a disaggregated exploration unpacking the narrower structural and cultural variables might be more productive. Latour (2005) favours tracing activities, group formation and network associations as an effective means for exploring interactions.…”

River basin management and community: the Great Ouse Basin, 1850–present

“…The problem with this is that communities can be oppressive and exclusive and can have goals that are questionable or worse (e.g. Brint 2001, DeFilippis et al 2006. In the third place, 'community' has been used politically, to de-emphasize socio-economic inequalities, justify cuts in the public sector, and 'mop up the ill effects of the market' (e.g.…”

Reafirmacija susedstva kroz prostorne prakse regulisanja poželjne prostorne i društvene distanciranosti

“…Prostori zajedničkih aktivnosti dimenzionisani -odluka USRS, 101/2005 -dr. zakon, 27/2011 -odluka US i 88/2011) koji otvara mogućnost udruživanja više stambenih zgrada oko pitanja od zajedničkog interesa. 2 Koncept stambene zajednice prihvaćen je 1958. godine kao urbanistički obrazac organizovanja mesnih zajednica u gradovima SFRJ. U uspostavljanju teritorijalnosti stambene zajednice stručnjacima je zadato da kroz urbanističke norme i prostornu organizaciju naselja obezbede 'zavođenje reda u zaokruženoj celini'.…”

“…Drugim rečima, planerski koncept stambene zajednice nije eksplicitno prepoznavao pojam susedstva kao specifičnog tipa društvene zajednice čiji je elementarni osnov uspostavljanja odnosa prostorna bliskost i neminovnost kontakata, a primarni razlog interakcija je zasnovan na zajedničkim aktivnostima u prostoru na koji su susedi upućeni, a ne nužno i na zajedničkim uverenjima (socijalnaj bliskosti) (Brint, 2001.:12-13). Upućenost stanovnika stambenih naselja na sadržaje i prostore uređene na području mesnih zajednica trebalo je da obezbedi socijalnu kohezivnost na ovom prostornom nivou, ali ne i izdvajanje manjih spontano organizovanih socio-prostornih grupa.…”