community development theory

8/9/2019 Community Development Theory

1/31


2/31

need to publish articles, books and grand policy papers in order to build reputations. Theyview community development theoreticians as people making careers on the backs of the

practical vanguard of community improvement workers and organizers. They see suchcareers as being without substantive contact with their ostensible subject communities.People worried about theory, the story goes, do not muck in nuts-and-bolts efforts

advocating and pulling together improvement. Rather, by definition, they deal withabstractions and produce little more than esoteric analyses and commentaries for self-consumption.

The detractors of community development theory conclude that theory cannot inform practice because it is generated only at a distance. For them, progress rests with thosewho get their hands dirty, take their lumps in the real world and are willing to pass alongtheir hard-won command of tactics to others dedicated to practice (Dodge, 1980). The

byword of many streetwise practitioners remains, "Go with what you know." (Cox,Erlich, Rothman and Tropman, 1977.)

The place of community development theory in the field cannot be understood withoutrecognition of such deeply distrustful views among a considerable segment of practitioners. While these represent the extreme, they highlight normal tensions amongthose affiliated with community development as they face questions about the functionsof theory in professional practice. Practice that is recognized as the Sine qua non of community development, makes even those disposed to consideration of theory a littleuneasy. They fear being branded as not practice oriented.

However, even as such animosity and ambivalence toward theory exists in the field,theoretical assertions have always been at the heart of practice-oriented communitydevelopment. Perhaps some of the common principles emerged as a rationale to justify

the mode of practice. Yet, for the most part, even the most vehement detractors of theorywere moved into practice by a slice of normative theory. From the very beginning,community development practice has been predicated on theoretical propositions. For example, there is the standard community development prescription, "people have theright to participate in decisions that which have an effect upon their well-being" (Littrell,1976).

The normative theory involved is not always so clearly stated; and the interconnectionsamong the several prescriptive propositions (principles) relied on in communitydevelopment practice tend not to be made very explicit. Still, over the years, an elaboratenetwork of theoretical elements undergirding community development practice hasemerged.

This network ranges well beyond a few normative propositions. It involves a wide varietyof descriptive theories drawn from the social sciences and social philosophy. Therefore,the situation is not that community development lacks a theoretical base, but that this

base is the product of an eclectic approach to theory building. Community developmenthas borrowed, and will continue to borrow, models and theories from sources that seemhelpful. With the variety in communities, with the variations in circumstances from place


3/31

to place and time to time, and with the rapid changes going on in the total environment,community development theory has to be dynamic by necessity. The objectives of andthe conditions faced by community development practitioners simply require constantsituational theory building.

The tactic of using an eclectic approach in the selection of theories to inform practice andof allowing the consequences of practice to inform theory, are practical responses to thedemands of community development operations. Community development theory mustalways be moving. Thus, it has taken on the appearance of a jumble of definitions andtheoretical bits and pieces constantly being arranged, modified and re-arranged.However, this maze of mental activity and images is not haphazard. It revolves around,and is anchored in, a core of coherent definitions and propositions. This core is

provisional with points in controversy, and is recognized as subject to change. After all, itis theory and not truth. As long as that is understood, it is possible to present a reasonablyconcise outline of the present fundamental elements of community development theory.What follows represents a somewhat simplified version of this core. Published January

1985.

Core concepts and content

Characteristics of community development

Some observers are apt to label any and all attempts to intervene in community affairs ascommunity development. However, most commentators are more discriminating. For those directly associated with the field, there is a generally recognized set of characteristics that differentiates community development from other forms of community-related activities. Its distinguishing characteristics include:

Focus on a unit called "community." Conscious attempts to induce non-reversible structural change. (The idea of the

change being non-reversible is not always made explicit. However, it is generallyunderstood that once structural change takes place in a community system, thatsystem cannot return to the original configuration. Further, it is recognized thatsome form of structural change may be made to ward off other changes deemedundesirable or to stabilize an existing preferred situation.)

Use of paid professionals/workers. Initiation by groups, agencies or institutions external to the community unit. Emphasize public participation. Participate for the purpose of self-help. Increase dependence on participatory democracy as the mode for community

(public) decision-making. Use a holistic approach.

Some confusion arises because those in related professions frequently shorten the list of distinguishing elements of community development. Often an incomplete criterion isapplied, usually involving only the first five items. The position of community


4/31

development is clear in that it involves more than the concept of public participation. It isthe function and mode of citizen participation in the process that separates communitydevelopment approaches from other types of planned interventions. In addition,community development is distinguished by application of a holistic, rather than a sector,

point of view.

Because of the misconception that any kind of public participation is sufficient to mark an effort as community development, it is common for programs and projects to beerroneously labeled. In fact, there is a considerable body of literature ostensibly providingcritiques, explanations or evaluations of community development that uses subjectoperations that are uncharacteristic of the field. The authors simply made a mistake byselecting projects which, in terms of community development theory and practice, arecloser to anathemas than examples. Not being very well acquainted with communitydevelopment, they chose projects that actually violate its fundamental principles.

For example, Marjorie Mayo includes under community development those programs of

colonial regimes aimed at engendering popular support for government activities. Shenotes that the objectives were to sufficiently indoctrinate colonized people so that theywould participate voluntarily in government schemes for economic expansion (Mayo,1975). While such programs exhibited the first five characteristics, they did not constitutecommunity development.

Such activities of colonial regimes, and the many similar economic development tacticsinaugurated by Third World governments after independence, are diametrically opposedto the community development approach. By definition, the critical characteristics of community development are associated with notions of self-help and participatorydemocracy. While the job of building theory around the basic values supporting these

ideals is complex and incomplete, they are the foundation for community development.Unless the element of self-help and the incremental opening of the decision-makingsystems to participation are features of an approach to community improvement, it shouldnot be designated community development.

Functions of theory

Theory involves propositions or hypotheses that are problematic and not verified (thoughthey may be verifiable). A theory is constructed by formulating a coherent group of

propositions designed to help understanding and/or making judgments. The most familiar type of theory is that classified by content and generally associated with the several

disciplines. Each discipline specializes in attempting to explain a particular class of phenomena. The content of these disciplinary theories is more or less restricted to particular types of circumstances and events. As a matter of course, theories tend to bedifferentiated in this way. Therefore, the usual pattern is to speak of political theories,economic theories, natural theories (physics, chemistry and astronomy), sociologicaltheories and on and on down the catalogue of disciplines.


5/31

Because of the wide-ranging circumstances and workings of communities, content fromalmost all of the disciplinary theories at times may be relevant in communitydevelopment. Therefore, community development theory has used and will continue to

borrow from the theories of the standard disciplines. In a very real sense, most theoreticaldevelopments of the disciplines form a reservoir for community development theory.

Perhaps the disciplinarians would be shocked or even dismayed at the application of their theories. They would be surprised at how their theories may be synthesized withconceptual frameworks which they would consider foreign. While the disciplinariansmay be puzzled or annoyed by community development's use of their theories, the fieldworks on the assumption that when disciplinarians publish their work, it becomes public

property and available. As those practicing community development have neither thetime nor the talent to attempt to re-invent the wheel, they regularly take theories from thedisciplines and often amalgamate them into community development theory on the scene.For example, if economic stimulation is a salient issue in a rural area, communitydevelopment will look at and use any or all appropriate theories of economists (Edwards,

1976).

The demands of practice are such that thinking about theory in terms of its content withinthe separate disciplines is not a practical approach. The object of communitydevelopment practice is improvement in operating communities. Fundamentally, it is anactivity that is normative in nature. That is, it deals with what ought to be, or what is

better. The practitioner needs theory that will provide a guide for behavior in veryspecific circumstances. Thus the primary functions of community development theory areto provide norms or prescriptions for the practitioner's actions and a model of practicalhelp to communities. Action takes place relative to existing conditions that varyaccording to community, time and setting. Therefore, a number of questions have to be

addressed before establishing specific prescriptions for professional behavior and actionsin a particular situation.

As a result, community development theory tends to stress classification of theory, not bydiscipline, but by function. Theories are organized in terms of the questions they attemptto answer. There are five basic questions and five basic types of theories involved withguiding community development practice. These are:

Type of question Type of theory

What is? Descriptive

Why is it? Explanative

What would happen if ...? Predictive

What would stimulate learning? Heuristic

What should be done? Prescriptive


6/31

Community development theory provides a guide to what should be done in a givensituation. In order to do so sensibly, tentative positions must be derived through theapplication of descriptive, explanative, predictive and heuristic theories.

Systems framework

The process of working toward practical prescriptions for behavior supportingcommunity improvement is no easy task. Even in the best of circumstances the processwill be complex, imperfect, incomplete and on-going. Community development theoryheavily depends on general systems and on social systems' conceptual frameworks toorganize and relate the ideas, intelligence and information uncovered and created in the

processes of engagement. Systems frameworks have a number of advantages.Descriptions, explanations, predictions and prescriptions can be expressed readily insystem terms. Placing questions and events in the context of a system also has provenvery stimulating or searching out relationships and patterns of interactions. In addition,system frameworks have the advantage of being used generously in many disciplinesranging from biology to sociology. Finally, the systems framework has the advantage of

being compatible with a holistic approach (Bertalanffy, 1968).

Community development theory ordinarily treats communities as systems. They areconceived as entities that reasonably can be differentiated from what is around them(environment ). They have some kind of boundaries , and interactions take place acrossthe boundaries with the environment. Transactions from the environment to thecommunity systems are inputs . However, the community systems are selective in what isaccepted as input, and have a criteria by which to sort acceptable inputs from other

potential stimuli, coding . (At this stage of elucidating the model, discussion is limited toa stimulus/response framework. Eventually, open systems theory is added to take intoaccount the possibilities for spontaneous internal action and other forms associated withliving behavior.)

Community systems do work and perform transformations with inputs. The products of the work are discharged into the environment, outputs . Information about the reaction inthe environment may be transmitted back to the system as a form of input, feedback . Inthe most general terms, the community system is conceived in relation to theenvironment.

Application of this simple framework requires considerable elaboration. However, thisgeneral pattern is similar to some of the schemata popular in the social sciences (Easton,

1965).

To conceptualize the internal structure of community systems, community developmentturns to social systems theory. While social systems operate by the action of people, the

basic unit is not taken to be a person. The basic unit is a role . While roles in this contextare performed by persons, a person is considered much more than, and is definitely notdefined by, a role (Biddle, 1979). The same person may perform multiple roles in thesame social system, may perform roles in a number of social systems and may maintain


7/31

life spaces not involving social systems. The differentiation of a person from the civicroles they may perform is very important in community development practice.

The pattern of social systems

A social role is a set of expected behaviors in a given situation. It functions to provideincumbents in other roles with reasonably reliable expectations of performance.Therefore, a role operates in relation to other roles (Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Rolesrelating together in a perceivable pattern constitute structures . In larger, more complexsocial systems, structures relating together to handle specialized parts of the operationsform subsystems . In turn, subsystems relating together form systems .

In the simplest form, the constitution of a social system may be represented as:

Role 1 Structure 1

Role 2 Subsystem 1

Role 3 Structure 2

Role 4 System 1

Role 5 Structure 3

Role 6 Subsystem 2

Role 7 Structure 4

Role 8

This is a fairly standard way of conceptualizing the pattern of social systems. It highlightsthe idea that, even when reduced to a high level of abstraction, community systems areconceived as compound, complex entities. Further, community systems are not static butdynamic. The elements of motion and change have to be attached to the mode.

Speaking of motion and change requires taking into account the dimension of time. Onestep in this direction is to attempt a classification of the types of work or tasks thatordinarily can be expected to be performed in a community system. There are anynumber of functional classifications, such as Gabriel Almond's interest aggregation andinterest articulation, which can be useful (Almond, 1970).

A highly recommended and extremely helpful classification that has been adapted for community development theory is taken from the work of Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn(Katz and Kahn, 1966). It involves the notion that there are genotypic functions thatshould be carried out by any mature social organization, system . In the course of development, specialized subsystems can be expected to emerge around these functions.


8/31

Genotypic functions

Adjusted for the purposes of community development, the genotypic functions are asfollows:

ProductionThe tasks directly related to the basic work of the system. Fabrication of thegoods and services produced by the community system.

Support and maintenanceThe tasks of bringing support inputs, e.g., raw materials, to the productionfunctions and servicing the work processes.

Managerial/politicalThe tasks of decision-making regarding the interaction of the production andsupport/maintenance functions and regulating the input/output transactions withthe environment.

Planning and adaptationThe tasks of considering actions that may affect future operations and making

provisions for adjustments or changes in the system's configuration and activitiescalled for by events in the environment.

It is expected that the type of structuring and patterns of interactions will or should varywith the function.

One explanation for the limitation in capacities of existing community systems is thatstructures and patterns are not sufficiently varied with the variation of functions. Thisrelates to the historic tendency of communities to attempt to use a single principle of organization, e.g., hierarchy, for all functions. The effectiveness of the system is held

back because the structure is not adapted to the demands of the functions.

This model of genotypic functions can be used as predictive theory regarding the stagesof structural development. It suggests that the sequence of the emergence of specializedsubsystems would follow this order:

The support and maintenance subsystem would differentiate from the productionsubsystem,

the managerial/political subsystem would follow, with the planning/adaptive subsystem developing last.

It is logical that specialized systemic capacities to plan and adapt would come late indevelopment. This matches the empirical world. Existing community systems are oftendeficient in planning/adaptive structures and processes. They tend to have no or onlyrudimentary specialized structures for planning and developing systemic adjustment tothe changing environment.

Communities commonly attempt to handle the planning/adaptive function through themanagerial (political) subsystem, but the imperatives of short-run considerations, and


9/31

resistance to structural change in this subsystem, usually leave planning and adaptationneglected. Thus, community development theory works from the assumption that criticalsystemic deficiencies are most likely to deter effective performance in planning andadaptation. Parts of the system attempting to carry on these functions probably are theleast mature elements in the operating system.

A definition of community

The systems framework can apply to many types of social systems. Communitydevelopment intends to focus on a specific type, though it is obvious that communitiesinteract with many other types of systems.

It is necessary to differentiate communities from other classifications of social systems.There are many ways to define community (Christenson and Robinson, 1980). Each of the standard definitions may be sufficient in most situations, but they vary in terms of theelements included.

For a general operational definition, the following is suggested.

A community is a particular type of social system distinguished by the followingcharacteristics:

People involved in the system have a sense and recognition of the relationshipsand areas of common concerns with other members.

The system has longevity, continuity and is expected to persist. Its operations depend considerably on voluntary cooperation, with a minimal use

(or threat) of sanctions or coercion. It is multi-functional. The system is expected to produce many things and to be

attuned to many dimensions of interactions. The system is complex, dynamic and sufficiently large that instrumental

relationships predominate. Usually, there is a geographic element associated with its definition and basic

boundaries.

The distinguishing characteristics involve matters of degree. For example, the predominance of instrumental relationships does not imply the absence of affectiverelationships. It is practical to work from the assumption that people take part incommunity systems as a means rather than as an end. Communities are expected to

produce goods, services or situations.

Careful attention must be paid to geographic characteristics. Everything and every personwithin the geographic area is not associated with the community system. In thegeographic area used as a reference in defining a community, alien people, structures or even communities may be present. Communities of different scales may overlap in ageographic area. Further, all the people available to perform roles, and all the roles and


10/31

structures operating as part of the system may not be located in the referenced geographicarea.

Conventional nature of communities

There are many theories that treat communities as natural organisms that are properlysubject to natural law (Plato, 1945). Community development theory chooses to treatcommunities as conventional systems. Community development theory accepts that it isnatural for people to have regular arrangements for social interactions.

Yet, at the level of organization required for community systems, the forms and practicesare devised. The configuration of the community system is thought of as a humaninvention. Therefore, most significant behavior in the community context is approachedas learned behavior.

This leads to the proposition that communities are subject to change and that new patternsof behavior can be learned. The operational premise is that the system is not determined

by nature. People, with some hope of some success, may act to change or to adjust thestructure of a community when it is deemed to be operating ineffectively or is consideredotherwise deficient.

Development

Conceiving of communities as conventional systems is compatible with the idea of consciously induced systemic change. In some situations development is used as asynonym for growth. When used without reference to quality or consequences,

development may be good or bad.

However, in the context of community development, development is a concept associatedwith improvement. It is a certain type of change in a positive direction. While theconsequences of efforts to bring about development may not be positive, the objective isalways positive. Development efforts that fail to produce positive results may constitutework intended to bring improvement, but would be unsuccessful in bringingdevelopment.

There are no objective measures of what constitutes improvement. Objective indicationsof change certainly are possible, but that which is better than a past condition must be a

subjective judgment. That which constitutes development is a judgment that can only bemade by people according to their own values, aspirations and expectations.

In the case of community systems, this must be a collective judgment. The system must provide itself with a process by which to make judgments as experience accumulates andis processed. Since people are different in many ways, the chances of finding unanimityabout what constitutes improvement are slight. The community system must develop


11/31

capacities to reach provisional judgments that permit actions and must accept that actionis required before the emergence of consensus.

In a mature system, the fact that development policies and activities take place in the presence of dissent is used to advantage. The lack of consensus assures that a few roles or

structures in the system will be pressuring for reconsideration. This provides amonitoring of events and stimulates the system to watch consequences as they begin toappear.

On the other hand, consensus has the property of assurance that leads the system to act asthough monitoring processes and their consequences are unnecessary. Unintended results,sufficient to overtake the expected positive ones, are apt to go unnoticed until past the

point where practical corrections are possible.

In community development, the term development is taken as a reference to a particular type of conscious effort to stimulate improvement. In this sense, all positive changes are

not the result of development. There is a set of ideas used to differentiate developmentfrom other forms of positive change. These are:

A system subject to change exists. Change will take place incrementally, within a process, over a rather extended

time. Once this process has begun, it is very unlikely that the system will be able to

return to the original state. The process is stimulated and given direction by conscious effort. During the conscious effort to provide direction, a theory/model of development

provides reference points and expectations.

At each stage, the system is in a configuration it has not experienced before. It operates as a learning process. Accomplishments in the process can be evaluated only in terms of the judgments

of people in the system. The results are judged to be more positive than negative and worth the costs.

Holistic approach

Many theories are used in community development. The earliest ones tended to adapteconomic or agricultural development models (Mezirow, 1963). From that time, therange of theories called upon has increased, spanning from symbolic interactionism(Foote and Cottrell, 1955) to cybernetics (Parsegian, 1973). Each provides someunderstanding or guides action regarding a particular capacity of people or structuresexpected to have strategic value in improving capacities of community systems. None arethought to be sufficient to cover more than a limited part or aspect. None are consideredoperationally complete theories with which to effectively guide the entire development

process.


12/31

Each of the theories that may be used is watched in the context of the whole. The firststep is to build a concept of the whole, even if incomplete and inaccurate in somerespects. This is based on the position that a reasonable notion of a whole is possible

before its constituent parts are understood.

Just as it is possible to understand and even to operate an automobile without knowledgeof the place and function of the carburetor, a community and its movements relative tothe environment can be understood broadly before knowledge of the place and functionsof a part, e.g. culture, in the system. The concept of the whole serves as a backdrop. Asvarious theories are applied to parts, e.g., culture, the whole is kept in mind and a searchis maintained for indications of relationships with other parts. For example, culture can

be thought of as a part, but it does not operate discrete from the rest. The expectation isthat cultural parts will relate to politics, economics and physical surroundings in aninteracting mode. It affects and is affected by other elements conventionally abstracted asentirely separate spheres or events.

The holistic approach is nothing more than a conscious effort to place emphasis on thefunctional relationships among the parts and the whole. It does not require dealing witheverything all the time. Dealing with any aspect related to community systems is done ina way that keeps in mind the whole and other parts. Even before particulars are known,the expectation is that each part or aspect will operate with reciprocal relationships. Theholistic approach involves relational thought. Instead of thinking about each element byitself, each is envisioned in the context of a totality (Ogilvy, 1979).

Community development's advocacy of a holistic approach is largely a reaction to thefailures of sector approaches. Often other strategies for development try to isolate theseminal sector. Usually, these have been thought to be economics or agriculture. Efforts

then concentrate on and in this single sector. This theory works as if the selected sector isthe primary source for community or societal improvement. If change is in a positivedirection, as in an increase of per-capita income or of agricultural production, it isexpected that the whole system will be better automatically.

This theory suggests that there is one piece of the system on which everything elsedepends. Strategically then, it is not necessary to directly consider things beyond thechosen segment. The idea is that a trickle down process is normal. It involves the notionthat if the most important part is improved, it is the nature of things that benefits will seepdown through the rest.

This theory, and operations in line with it, are frequently recommended as an efficientapproach. The justification goes along the line that there are not enough resources,knowledge or energy to deal with everything, so it makes sense to concentrate whatever is available in the most important sector.

Community development theory responds with the proposition that in fact there is not amost important sector. Conceptually, and for analytic purposes, it is possible to think as if economics, politics, culture, psychology and physical environment are separate.


13/31

However, functionally they are interactive and interdependent. The idea that each of theseaspects is discreet is an invention of the human mind devised as a practical way tostructure thinking. It is, and is known to be, a distortion of reality. It is a helpful distortionas long as it is accompanied with the realization that it is an artificial view. It is helpful tothink about a single dimension, as long as it is remembered that people, communities and

societies are multi-dimensional. In fact, each dimension, traditionally treated as separateconcerns organized by disciplines, touches and is touched by the others.

Therefore, it is necessary that concentration on a single dimension must always bemoderated. To be practical, intelligence about a single sector must be interpreted in thecontext of the whole, the totality or the system. The advisability of such a perspective isindicated by experience. Many examples exist.

There are cases when thought was given only to technology designed to increase production with the result that on its introduction, the cultural system was destroyed andanomie emerged (Eckstein, 1966). There are also cases that show it working in the other

direction. Modern technologies have been introduced only to have the cultural system prevent them from reaching the anticipated level of increased production (Nair, 1979).The emphasis on the holistic point of view guards against improvements in one sector

bringing unintended consequences in other sectors the negative impact of whichoutweighs the intended benefits.

Integrated design

The holistic approach provides a way of looking at situations that stresses relationshipsand interdependencies. It functions as an aid to the design of integrated developmentactivities. If, as community development theory maintains, communities are systems inwhich everything is interconnected, activities intended to stimulate different parts and

processes need to be interconnected.

In practice, activities start in different sectors at different times and each sector is likelyto be in a different stage of structural development. They do not begin integrated witheach other. The process involves incrementally connecting one thing with another. Anintegrated design is in a constant state of building. The holistic point of view, which is inconstant application, provides clues as to what operations can be brought into a consciousrelationship with each other.

The patterns involved in integrated development activities are varied with the scale andfunctions being performed. The degree of operational coordination among specificactivities fluctuates. Further a substantial number of action areas perform with a highdegree of independence. The intelligence, information, resources, technologies, designs,skills and energies generated by such independent operations may be integrated only after they reach the stage of outputs of the constituent structures. The trick is for the system todevelop the capacity of becoming aware of their existence.


14/31

The best illustrations are those situations in which experimentation is necessary toincrease knowledge and experience, when there are uncertainties about possibilities.Many uncoordinated trials going on at the same time makes sense. In such events, the

productive pattern is to proliferate the places and premises where experiments take place.This increases the probability of breakthroughs.

As Phillip Handler suggested in reference to Medical research, skillful opportunism and atype of "semi-planning" are useful approaches in the system when creativity andexploration are required. It then is up to the system to eventually integrate the severalrelatively disjointed increments thus produced (Handler, 1965).

From the system perspective, search, discovery and invention are supported when thesystem encourages or at least tolerates considerable variety in the modes and locales of inquiry. Creative enclaves paying little attention to external directions tend to be thesource for new ideas and methods. These enclaves may be self conscious research groupsor emotional cores of incipient social movements. Integration does not happen by

interfering in these enclaves and instructing them to behave in prescribed ways.Integration follows their activity as the system monitors and processes the messagesemanating from them (Gerlach and Hine, 1973).

The stress on allowing diversity to flourish in some functions of the system is not to denya place for highly regulated and uniform processes as well. However, communitydevelopment theory has to counter the popular image of integrated activities as beingalways marked by centralized control, and as working from a preconceived model of the

proper configuration.

This popular model can be applied effectively in the production function. When

dependable production of goods and services that are considered satisfactory is theobjective, and all the tasks necessary for their production are known, centralized designand control may be efficient. A stable design integrating a wide variety of activities in acontrolled sequence can work very well.

The point is that this is not the only way to work toward practical integration. Themechanistic approach to integration is applicable in some situations. However even in

production functions when there are uncertainties a more organic style of organizationworks better. When new or insecure situations are involved, "a hierarchical, top-directed,and strongly regulated organization is ... less feasible" (Abrahamsson, 1977 p. 133).

Therefore, an integrated approach turns on the capacities of the system to differentiate thekinds of integration that fit the variety of circumstances. An integrated approach is likelyto involve both centralized and decentralized control patterns. Its effectiveness dependson the system's ability to articulate various modes of structuring. The capacities of thewhole community system profit from the variety of ways the constituent parts can work.

Democracy


15/31

The central mode of structuring for community development is the democratic mode.Theory postulates that capacities of community systems will expand with the introductionand increasing use of democratic structuring. Increasing dependence on democraticstructuring, regardless of its extent at the initial stage, helps to stimulate development andto support improvement in the quality of planning, adaptation and decision-making

within the system. Community development theory suggests that as the levels of complexity and uncertainty increase, democratic structuring becomes more suitable.

These seem surprising propositions. The common expectation is that democracy becomesless suitable with complexity and uncertainty. The normal view is that democracy fits

best with small, stable and homogeneous communities. The popularity of the assumptionthat democratic structuring is impractical for large, dynamic communities is related to theconstant exposure to elitist theories of democracy.

There is a substantial body of literature expounding what has been labeled"contemporary" democratic theory. It involves redefinitions of democracy either for the

purpose of modernizing it, or to argue that it is inappropriate (Pateman, 1970). Theseredefinitions form the basis for a wide variety of theories of democratic elitism and anti-democratic elitism.

All these "contemporary" theories share the element that "classic" notions of democracyare unfit for the modern environment. Like the ancient historian Tacitus, manycontemporary theorists proclaim that old style democracy, involving substantive citizen

participation in governance, could fit only:

"a simple form of culture, a small state, a face-to-face society where everyone knew hisneighbours, and where all men were more or less equal." (Cranston, 1968).

Those elitists who profess to maintain an allegiance to democracy in some form, do sowith the proviso that it must be a form that discounts the functions of citizens in the

process of governance (Bachrach, 1967).

A legacy of longing for small and simple communities from the early advocates stilltouches practitioners of community development (Morgan, 1942, 1957). Communitydevelopment theory, however, is clear in the proposition that democratic structuring can

be appropriate regardless of community size. It is probably more necessary in larger systems. It takes this position while retaining the idea that democracy must involvesignificant citizen participation.

Carl Cohen expressed the basic notion consistent with community development theory inthe statement:

"In fact, all genuine democracy is participatory; that adjective serves only to remind oneof the true character of democratic government." (Cohen, 1973).


16/31

Community development theory may one day be proven incorrect, but it is not naive or implausible. Theorists of democratic elitism see participatory democracy as an unrealisticideal in modern communities because of their lack of understanding of classic democratictheory. They have no model of popular participation except as mass behavior, and nomodel of citizens except as the stereotyped masses. (Dye and Zeigler, 1972).

Community development builds from the proposition that every person is different. Eachis distinguishable from all others, indicating that each has something unique in his/her

person. It also takes the position that each person probably has some bit of information or insight not available through anyone else.

While it is impractical to collect, aggregate and process all the bits of intelligenceembodied in the population, it is possible to extend the civil systems' net to trap andevaluate more of the diverse intelligence that does exist. It is a matter of shifting the

patterns of structuring from those that preselect sources of intelligence to those thatattempt to take advantage of diversity.

The theory starts with a proposition that everybody knows or sees something and that, asa system, not enough is known to anticipate the total consequences of actions in andaround the system. As long as the operations and development of community systems arecomplex and dynamic, a considerable degree of ignorance about them is inevitable(Marburger, 1981). The degree of ignorance can be reduced by broadening the range of information, experience, ideas and assessments available to the system. It becomes aquestion of elaborating the civil system so as to extend the probability that it can come incontact with and use what anybody might know (Churchman, 1968).

Thus in community development theory, democracy is valued as a means, not as an end.

It serves the instrumental purpose of broadening the inputs available to the system. In thefirst stage of the process, the existing intelligence carried by those who are active isallowed to penetrate the system. At the second stage, after activities of citizensattempting to influence events has been recognized as legitimate and has beenencouraged by the proliferation of points of involvement with and in the system, theoriginal state of intelligence is enhanced.

Individual participation in society

This idea goes back to a very significant but frequently overlooked element in classicdemocratic theory. This proposition is that participation stimulates the learning anddevelopment of individuals (Lively, 1977). At times when this consequence of

participation, i.e., increased learning and individual growth is considered at all, it isconsidered in terms of a benefit to the individual. However, experience does not indicatethat benefits of learning and development through civic participation fall so clearly to theindividual.

To a specific person, the considerable costs in time, energy and frustration may outweighdirect or tangible benefits. At least the direct returns of learning and development through


17/31

participation in public life seem problematic, given the definition of "rational behavior"common in rational choice for those following the dictates of selfish utility maximization(Laver, 1981).

From the point of view of community development theory, the benefits from broad and

open participation accrue to the system. Individuals may profit or suffer from the learningand development gained through their own civic participation. However, the system has anet increase in its potential as persons become active and as incidents of participationdiversify.

In the abstract, it may seem that any increase of knowledge, sophistication andresourcefulness regarding public affairs that results from participation would be evidenceof personal improvement. Yet, in any particular case, the reasons for participation and theadjustments of expectations, behaviors and views of the world that follow from theexperiences of civic involvement may bring changes for the individual that he/she deemsto be negative. In other words, an individual in his/her own eyes may be worse off, or

farther from the realization of personal preferences after active participation than before.

Even when this is so at the individual level, the system still profits. The aggregate resultof civic participation expands the information, skills and comprehensions of individualswithin the system. The reservoir of ingredients on which the system draws is enriched.Their participation extends the potential of community systems. It increases the

possibility that needed or useful intelligence, skills and information will be available toimprove the systems' competence and capabilities.

Of course, community development theory postulates that increased capabilities andeffectiveness of community systems brings substantial benefits to the people who are

members. There would be no purpose in working for the elaboration of communitysystems to improve abilities and performance unless there was the expectation that thiswould bring benefits in excess of cost to the people served.

In fact, theory accepts this proposition as the basis for concentrating on actions at thecommunity level. Stress on the fact that community development theory is directedtoward improvement of community systems, and not toward individual improvement isnecessary. It helps to avoid any misleading expectations on the part of individuals aboutthe consequences of civic participation that are suggested by community developmenttheory.

The theory does not imply that positive results from participation in community affairsfall directly to the individual participants. It does not suggest that individuals whoincrease their civic involvement and/or their participatory skills will necessarily improvethe circumstances of their personal life.

The prescriptive proposition of community development, that people should becomeactive in citizen roles whenever such opportunities and their own inclinations converge,is based on the idea that extensive involvement is a mode of systemic capacity building.


18/31

It is not based on the assumption that each participant will secure or be moved closer totheir personal aspirations.

Democratic characteristics

In the context of community development the concept of democracy relates to patterns of community structuring that allows the system to:

Take advantage of the data, ideas and energies available from any member, and; Place information, perspectives and preferences from many sources in interaction

to force learning, synthesis and creativity.

Depending on the history of the community, the system's configuration and a widevariety of circumstances particular to the system, the patterns of democratic structuringwill vary.

As the application of democratic principles and behaviors expands within the system, thearrangements for governance will undergo a more or less continuous process of structuraladjustment and change. Democracy is envisioned as a state subject to structural variationsand not as a particular type of fixed state. The participation of citizens has influence onsystems' design and institutional arrangements, as well as on policy decisions. Thecommunity system that exhibits a significant level of responsiveness to activities of citizens is likely to have dynamic structuring. The particular configuration existing at anytime in a system with substantial dependence on democracy is provisional. Almost everyfeature of structuring is susceptible to change. There are no absolutes concerning thestructural characteristics of democracy, except that the system is open to consequentialinvolvement of its members.

A democratic system can be expected to be liable to an ongoing series of adjustments andto experience transformation over time through a process akin to evolvement. The elasticand protean characteristic of democratic systems prevents ossification of the system andallows progressive adaptations to shifts in demands and/or other internal andenvironmental conditions.

Resort to revolution is less attractive and less likely in systems with sufficient reliance ondemocracy to activate capacities for structural variability. Structural rigidity of institutions and community systems in the face of substantial change, not social change assuch, is the precursor of revolution (Johnson, 1966). Democracy's structural flexibility inresponse to shifting demand inputs provides adjustments that can be the means to avoidtraumatic up-rooting of community structures.

The relatively common notion that expansive participation is associated with instability isan error (Crozier, Huntington and Watanuki, 1975). Paradoxically, the pressures for change likely to generate from broad participation are the best insurance a communityhas against obstreperous actions and unpredictable results of revolution. Institution of adevelopment process increasingly dependent on democratic modes provides an


19/31

alternative to revolution when change and changing demands of people fill theatmosphere of public life.

Citizen roles

Democracy has the characteristic of flexible structuring, and the ready potential to usemultiple patterns of organization. Therefore, it cannot be distinguished by specific rulesof the game, like majority rule, that traditionally have been suggested as mandatoryfeatures of democracy (Prothro and Grigg, 1960).

There is an understandable problem of definition. Prominent differences exist as to whatthe basic principles of democracy are, and how these would be reflected in the design of ademocratic system. The idea of democracy, while widely held up as a worthy ideal,generally comes across as an ambiguous concept (Benn and Peters, 1965).

With democracy a central idea of community development, its theory has to clarify whatdistinguishes the democratic principles of social system construction. While it isexpressed in a number of different ways and formulations, community developmenttheory proposes that the situation of citizen roles in the public system is the basic featurethat differentiates democracy. The recognition and legitimacy of autonomy or self-direction in citizen roles is the element that is unique to democratic systems (Voth,Jackson and Cook, 1979).

As generally used "citizen" is not a very refined term. Often it is taken as a person actingin almost any type of civic role. In the context of community development theory and theassociated theory of participatory democracy, "citizen roles" have a restricted meaning.They refer to voluntary sets of civic behavior in which the incumbents in the roledetermine the behavior. That differentiates "citizen roles" from subject and other kinds of

prescribed civic roles.

Classifying citizen roles

One helpful way to classify the types of roles through which people participate incommunity systems is as follows:

Mandatory prescribed (subject) rolesSets of behavior demanded of people in certain circumstances to abide by the

decisions of the community, the laws, rules of the game and traditions regardlessof the preference of the incumbent. Accepted prescribed roles

Sets of behaviors, taken on by people voluntarily or in exchange for some specificcompensation, designed to perform tasks deemed helpful to the system by thesystem. Incumbents have some choice of whether to accept the role or not, butonce in it are expected to conform to the prescriptions provided by the system.


20/31

Autonomous (citizen) rolesSet of behaviors determined and directed by incumbents based on their judgmentas to how to influence public affairs given their own circumstances and

perceptions of the situations and patterns of the community systems.

A democratic community involves a system that recognizes the legitimacy of suchautonomous roles, supports such independent civic activity by the norms of thecommunity, and in which the authorities tolerate self-directed civic activities of community members intended to influence the course of events and/or structuring of thesystems.

Individual community members play all three types of roles. Every member will be calledupon to perform subject roles, e.g., taxpayer. Most community members will findthemselves in other types of prescribed civic roles either as a voluntary service or for direct compensation. An example of a voluntary prescribed role would be a solicitor in alocal fund raising campaign. Bureaucratic jobs, with their detailed written position

descriptives, are obvious examples of prescribed civic roles taken on in return for remuneration. In a community system with at least a modicum of democratic tendency,members have openings for civic involvement of their own design and carried out under their own recognizance.

In this context, it is clear that "citizen" does not refer to a particular segment of community members, or to an ascribed status in community. "Citizen" denotes a

particular type of civic role distinguished by its independence of supervision anddirective by authorities. It is a behaviorally defined role the performance of which isvoluntary and transitory. Community members who are incumbents in official or

professional roles in the community system may step out of such roles to act on their own

in a citizen role. A member of parliament, an agency director or a scientist may from timeto time perform as a citizen, unencumbered by the requirements of their other prescribedcivic roles.

Practical considerations of role identification

In practice there are difficulties with this. Since occupational and official roles ofteninvolve a high level of identification between person and role, it is hard to separate themfrom it. The incumbents may identify themselves as persons substantially in terms of their particular prescribed role. When they are actually acting as citizens, independent of the prescriptions of their formal role, they may attempt to clothe their citizen behavior

with the authority associated with their institutional position.

Other members of the community may have considerable difficulty in separating citizen behavior from highly visible formal role performance. The usual patterns of socializationdo not very well equip community members to separate roles from incumbents or torecognize behaviorally identified roles not determined by social position (Biddle, 1979).This is complicated further by the fact that the knowledge, abilities and stylesaccumulated in prescribed role experiences may be brought into play in the design and


21/31

execution of citizen roles. (One of the more explicit presentations advocating thatmembers of a profession use their knowledge and perspectives acquired in its practice incitizen roles conducted independently from the authorities is Jack Primack and Frank Von Hipple's work on scientists in the political arena. They suggest that scientists mustavoid being restricted to the roles prescribed for them by government, and extend their

behavior to that of "citizens" (Primack and Von Hipple, 1976).)

Difficulties in perceiving citizenship in these terms relates to having very vague notionsof citizen functions and position in community system. It is not related to the lack of autonomous civic behavior. Nor is it unusual for people to attempt to take influentialaction independent of the preferences and directions of authorities. In community systemsdisposed toward democratic structuring, self-created participation is considered normal,legitimate and, at least to a degree, something to be encouraged. The limits of acceptableindependent civic activity in the democratic setting are wide.

Autonomous civic behavior also appears in non-democratic systems. There it is defined

as abnormal, disloyal, irresponsible or recalcitrant behavior. In such systems the modelfor citizens is the same as the model for subjects. In democratic systems, both mandatorysubject roles and voluntary citizen roles are intrinsic elements in the constitution of thecommunity system.

In considering autonomous or self-directed behavior, it is necessary to note that suchcivic activity does not imply isolated action. On their own volition, regulated by their own judgment, people may design civic roles to interconnect with other citizen roles.Structures in the community system very well may be formed entirely of self determinedroles.

Most likely such structures would be transitory and/or intermittent, but for a time theymay perform significant functions in the system. In addition, people may design roles tointerconnect with existing prescribed roles or formally constituted civic structures. For atime, these may operate as part of established structures, as adjuncts to them, or aslinkage mechanisms with other structures. At the same time the incumbents in thesecitizen roles can continue to control their definition and performance.

Consequences of choice

Citizen roles in democratic structuring are matters of choice. The incumbents are neither able to choose what the system will decide or do, nor even how it will respond to their citizen activities. However, they can choose how to use themselves in efforts to influenceevents and the workings of the system. Choices to participate or not to participate,legitimate choices in a democratic system, and choices regarding patterns of participationare extremely significant to the system. Theory does not assume that all people will makegood decisions for themselves or their communities; only that these choices in theaggregate will have a great deal to do with the capacities and directions of public affairs(Cook, 1975).


22/31

The range involved in choices of citizen roles is considerable. They include the followingwhich incumbents determine for themselves:

Whether to perform; When to perform;

Where to perform; How to perform, and; What direction the citizen role is to take.

Since each individual is different from every other individual, the probabilities are highthat each will make different choices. While it often happens that a number of people in acommunity share a similar position relative to the system or to salient issues in it, thisdoes not mean they will behave in the same way. The variables leading to differentchoices are wide ranging. There are variations in self-perceptions, definition of thesituation, motives of workings and ways of the system, prior experience, skills andinformation and judgments. These represent just a few of the dimensions involved. The

list could go on and on.

The consequence of choice about participation coupled with the variation of individualcircumstances and estimations is differential participation. This proposition markedlychanges expectations of how citizen participation looks when taking place. The tendencyhas been to think of citizen activity as mass behavior. In fact, when choices about

participation patterns are available to community members, people taking up citizen rolesdo not act alike. Citizens do not become active all at the same time, same place, in thesame way, or about the same things.

The results of choices in the design and activation of citizen roles, which community

development theory suggests is the critical feature of democracy, are that suchinvolvement takes many forms in different places around various issues. The involvementof different community members will vary in style, duration and intensity. Therefore,most of the time, democracy yields selective, differential and intermittent patterns of

participation among the citizenry. It will not be the scene of uniform, unremitting anduniversal involvement (Cook, 1979).

Judging from empirical evidence, constant and concentrated civic activity is most likelyin totalitarian systems which are the antithesis of democracy (Grodzius, 1963). In thesesystem participation is forced or directed. This is likely to produce much higher and moreregular levels of overt popular involvement than under democratic conditions where

people are free to either participate or not in citizen roles.

Building on diversity

Building from the proposition that community members are diverse individuals producesthis dramatically different prediction about citizen activity under democracy. Whencommunity development prescribes incrementally opening the system to involve citizenroles, it does not imply that this will result in everybody becoming active as citizens all


23/31

the time. Unfortunately, it is common for people to assume that advocacy of citizen participation centers on an ideal of having everybody in on the act of deciding each public policy or on the choice of modes to handle each decision (Cleveland, 1974).

Perhaps this notion goes back to some of the more traditional ways of describing

democracy. For example, a typical description might be "... full participation of allmembers of a society in regulating their communal life," (Bottomore, 1979). It is termslike "all" and "full participation" that trigger a vision of everybody involved in everysignificant aspect of communal governance. This, along with the habit of thinking of the

body of citizens as a homogeneous class of community members, creates the image of anideal democratic community as a place in which the mass is completely and constantlyinvolved.

Democracy as defined in community development theory does not present total participation as the ideal. Rather, selective participation, which results from the freedomof people to decide for themselves when and how to take part as citizens, is valued.

Instead of creating a model of one ideal type of citizen role as the guide for everycommunity member, the desirable situation is to have many models of acceptable citizenroles. This allows the system to call upon a wide range of behaviors, experiences,information sources and energies. It permits people to use their own uniqueness in civicaffairs. Making their contributions in ways they judge appropriate for themselves makesmore contributions available to the system than the traditional tendency to attempt toschool all members to conform to a single civic role model.

Diversity, distribution and variations in citizen involvement should be expected from a body of human beings. Rather than trying to collect everybody into the same structure to behave in the same manner, democracy attempts to take advantage of the diversity of the

population. It allows people to work, to think and to act in different places in the system,dealing at different times with different things. It accepts the possibility of productive useof the heterogeneity of civic behavior, rather than gearing toward inculcatinghomogeneity in the exercise of citizenship. Structuring to allow the diversity of people to

be taken into account and responded to in and by the community system stimulates the building of capacities in community systems.

The tolerance of independent and diverse citizen activities has the result of moving thesystem closer to the characteristics of an open system. All inputs cannot be predeterminedor restricted to those requested by the authorities. Since a democratic system is nottotalitarian, that is it limits the coverage of the community system to allow people to haveliving space beyond the community's control, energies and ideas can enter from outsidethe community system.

Citizen roles often play this function. Importing matter and energy from outside allowsthe system to counter normal tendencies toward disorganization or entropy. In addition,spontaneous activity within the system is expected and legitimate. This is another sourceof experience and intelligence. Democracy, the open system model for communities, is


24/31

not only amenable to dynamic adjustments but may evolve toward a more complex order (Buckley, 1968).

Stability and change

Community development does focus on change and on the increase in the ability of community systems to create desirable change, to adapt to unavoidable change and toward off undesirable change. It works from the proposition that community systemshistorically have not been well equipped to direct, to respond to, or to moderate changeand its consequences. As the rates and range of change accelerate and expand,community capacity to deal with change has become even more critical.

Yet stability also is important in serving the public needs of community members.Communities are considered instrumental systems. People associate with them in order tosecure returns through the production of certain goods, services, environments and the

preservation of valued conditions. Dependable performance and production is required.

For a community system to work in terms of return to its members, it must incorporatethe capacity to continue operations that are satisfactory and to change those that are noteffective. It also needs the ability to add or subtract operations with shifts in theenvironment, demands and aspirations of the population.

Community development theory recognizes that maintaining roles, structures and processes which are performing well is vital. However, the established modes of organization in communities usually are strong on maintaining that which is being done.Structural weaknesses revolve around the lack of ways to end anachronistic conduct, tomodify or correct operations having difficulties, and to introduce innovations whenappropriate. In turning attention to elaborating the system, in order to improve handlingthe control and direction of change, the value of preserving that which is working wellcannot be lost.

The working community system has a dual structure. One side is designed for stability,for regular performance, and for predictability. The core of this side of the system ismade up of the subject and other prescribed roles. The other side of the system isdesigned for evaluation and change. The core of this side of the system is made up of autonomous citizen roles. When these two sides interact, tension is usually experienced

between them.

When a community system is experiencing difficulties coping with internal or external pressures for change, community development intervention concentrates on elaboratingand strengthening the side geared for change. The side designed to support adaptation andchange is generally weak, underdeveloped and afforded low status in the system. Theintroduction of democratic principles, modes of organization and regime norms isintended to add roles and behaviors to the system. Citizen roles do not displace butaugment official roles. Citizen roles are not more important than official roles. Both arenecessary. They differ in the functions performed in the system. Citizen roles provide the


25/31

inclination to evaluate performance and to make changes. Prescribed roles provide theinclination to keep things as they are. Deficiencies in systems tend to be in the lack of legitimate influence of citizen roles. Increasing the use of and dependence on democracyis the single known way to balance the system in order to handle the stability/changedilemma.

Conservative/radical balance

Community development theory accepts the proposition of classical conservatism that thecumulative opinions and rules of communal life are to be respected. Summarysubstitution of rationalized schemes of community system structuring for traditional

patterns is dangerous. It involves assertions of knowledge and of certainties that areunwarranted, and are likely to put the community on a course to which short termexperiences provide the only guide to action (Burke, 1967). Yet the worship of traditionand the sanctification of existing modes of organization and decision making asunchangeable legacies of a pristine era, are equally dangerous. They reduce communitysystems to powerless victims of their own history, unable to consciously respond tochanging conditions.

In the dynamic environment in which most community systems operate, bothtechnological and social invention will happen. Social inventions, that is new ways and

procedures of relating, are apt to alter people's situations more radically thantechnological ones (Leinwand, 1976). It is these social inventions that tradition-boundsystems have trouble recognizing as anything other than illegitimate aberrations. The newways may become well established in actual practice while the community system refusesto grant status to any objective input about them or their results. This is a means to

preserve the image of adherence to tradition even as the reality has changed.

Community development theory suggests a balanced respect for the potency of bothtradition and social invention. The systems should invite critical thinking abouttraditional patterns and innovation. Community systems should work on the dual

premises that blindly following tradition can limit capacities, and that uncriticalimplementation of innovation can bring unintended negative, sometimes despoiling,consequences. Abilities to be developed involve the creation of the competence todifferentiate parts of traditions that ought to be maintained from those to be modified or displaced by innovations.

In assessing the state of community systems, community development theory proposes

that it is far more likely for the system to overweight the conservative side. Existingcommunity organization favors maintenance of the status quo, and is geared to regularity,dependability and predictability in system performance. Generally there are a very few,highly constrained legitimate patterns in the system to handle planning, adaptation anddecision making related to new situations, aspirations or agendas affecting the

population. Roles and structures dominated by prescribed behavior based on prior experience tend toward exclusive control of the resources and attention of community


26/31

systems. This overprotects the existing patterns and policies from legitimate challenge based on new evaluation of the situation and performance of the system.

The community development tactic is to incrementally elaborate the system with rolesand structures designed to increase autonomy. Since the predominant characteristics of

community systems work in the direction of restricting involvement and pre-determiningstyle, timing, locale and purpose of involvement, the community development process promotes radical departures from common community practices. At the same time, itdoes not displace the prescribed roles and structures with citizen roles. It aims atenlarging the system's potential by increasing its open characteristics and its range of interaction among elements protecting existing patterns and pressuring for change.

Preservation and change are both necessary, yet there is a good chance that the first is not possible without the second in the contemporary circumstance. When, where and how tosave and shift is not self-evident. These things have to be re-learned in specific times and

places. Interactions among those charged with maintaining existing operations and those

advocating changes are a means for a community system to learn. This will work,however, only if the system provides a reasonable level of equal standing for those whowould do things differently. Laws and customs provide a solid standing for the prescribedroles. Community development theory advocates that in addition, community systemsshould allow an equality of standing for citizen roles.

Absolute equality is neither possible nor logically a worthy ideal. Yet, there must beconsideration of the practicality of some type of equality for citizen roles regardless of the social standing of the incumbents. It may be that the modern world cannot avoid

being subject to the cultures of inequality (Lewis, 1979). Still, some substantial equalityfor citizens in community affairs is possible and practical.

In the ancient Athenian community there was a principle "they called isegoria , an equalright to be heard in the sovereign assembly of the state before public decisions weretaken," (Dunn, 1979). Today there are not many such sovereign assemblies around.Decision making is seldom centralized in this manner. Rather it is dispersed among manystructures and processes. Yet, community systems can recognize that a right of citizenship is to be heard before public decisions are made. If this can be accepted as aworking principle or an aspiration, the points of access and modes of being heard can beworked out in the context of each community system.

Summary

Community development does not provide detailed prescriptions appropriate to everycommunity system. It does not distribute a particular improvement program. Rather,community development theory expresses a unique perspective on development. Itsupplies, to those who would consciously intervene in community systems, a conceptualframework. It presents a logical basis for and general guides to the use of open system or democratic structuring, and the application of a holistic approach in efforts to stimulatethe building of capacities, and to improve the performance of and in community systems.


27/31

General community development theory establishes an orientation toward communitysystems and human behaviors to be considered relevant in and for this level and type of social organization. It does not purport to give answers to the basic questions of what,why, or how for every community system. It does provide a conceptual platform or grounding for the building of community, setting and time specific theory by which to

guide and assess intervention in each particular system.

Time for the incremental establishment of an on-going, expanding process of learningthrough interaction, experimentation, monitoring and experience is required. It cannot beused when the circumstances and culture demand rapid action determined by summary

procedures.

It is a theory of development that assumes the existence of a community system which, atthe time of initial contact, has some semblance of order and is capable of performing atleast a minimal level of production to serve its members. Great deficiencies anddissatisfactions may exist substantial deficiencies and dissatisfactions, in fact, are

necessary conditions if conscious development activities are to be considered but thesituation of the system and its members cannot be catastrophic if communitydevelopment theory is to be used.

In addition to time, and to some level of functionality in the existing system, acommunity development approach requires a degree of identification with the system andwith other members of the community. This must be sufficient to support considerablevoluntary activity that is self-constrained enough to tolerate involvement of others whodo not agree. Something at least approximating a sense of community is then a conditionfor use of community development theory.

When the state of affairs is such that these prior conditions exist, communitydevelopment theory involves certain assumptions about people and community system.These include the following:

People are diverse. Community systems can organize to take advantage of thatdiversity.

Community systems are not totalitarian. People have life spaces outside of thecommunity structure.

Breadth of experience, intelligence, information and energies represented in a population far exceed that which the community system takes into account.

People learn from participation in community systems and community systemslearn from the participation of people.

People are capable of exercising a considerable degree of autonomy, whileexercising self-restraint required for social order.

People have the capacity for a significant level of empathy with others that permits tolerance and voluntary relationships within the community systems.

While people prefer justice and fairness in community systems, they often perceive it differently.


28/31

Imperfections will mark every community system. A degree of inequity will existin every community system.

Resorting to absolutes is likely to stand in the way of finding practicalaccommodations within the community system.

Working from the principle that everyone affected by a decision has a right to

participate helps the community system locate areas of difficulty and expands therange of potential intelligence available to the system with which to address thesituation.

People are likely to display different patterns of participation that are subject to changeover time and to changes in situations. Community systems can accommodate manydifferent and variable patterns of participation. Therefore, it should be expected that theactive structures of community systems will vary with changes in participants, time andcircumstances.

There are many possible configurations even in the same community. System capabilities

lie with the ability to use and to experiment with different configurations. The ability tovary structures, and relationships among structures, according to the requirements of thefunction to be carried out is critical in effective community performance.

A developing community system is in a continuous process of elaborating itself and of incorporating a wider range of participation patterns. It expands attention given toconscious structural adjustment and to the pulses of participation.

This mode of control depends on thought and action related so as to inform each other.Participants are encouraged to think and to act in sequence. The community systemgovernance works on a thought/information/action cycle similar to a cybernetic control

model, i.e., thought/information, action, feedback, adjustment; thought/information,action, feedback, adjustment; ...

However, control is not an automatic process but a function of human judgmentresponding in the thought/action cycle. Further, as the community system takes on moreopen system characteristics, it also is affected by spontaneous activities of people andenergies imported from outside the system.

As the situations faced by community systems become more complex, dynamic andsubject to change, there is need for more and greater variety of intelligence to govern thesystem. Members of the community have been, and are, an underused source of

intelligence and information. Open democratic processes give the system access to thisreservoir.

In addition the action in and of citizen roles stimulates learning. It creates tension between and among citizen, official and other prescribed roles in a systematic way thatencourages creativity in the processes of tension reduction. Participants learn and thesystem learns. Learning is the requirement for, and the product of, the communitydevelopment process. (Botkins, et al, 1979.)


29/31

Bibliography

Basic community development theory

Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Community Development. Community Development and National Development. New York: United Nations, 1963.

Almond, G. "A functional approach to Comparative Politics." The Politics of the Developing Areas. In Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman (eds.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.

Abrahamsson, B. Bureaucracy or Participation: The Logic of Organization.Volume 51. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Library of Social Research, SagePublication, 1977.

Bachrach, P. The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston: Little, Brown andCompany, 1967.

Bailey, Roy, and Brake, Mike, editors. Radical Social Work. New York: PantheonBooks, 1975.

Benn, S.I. and Peters, R.S. The Principles of Political Thought. New York: TheFree Press, 1965.

Bertalanffy, L. von. General System Theory. New York: George Braziller, 1968. Biddle, B.J. Role Theory. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Botkins, James W., Elmandjra, Mahdi and Malitza, Mircea. No Limits to

Learning. New York: Pergamon Press, 1979. Bottomore, Tom. Political Sociology. Colophon edition. New York: Harper and

Row, 1979. Buckley, Walter, editor, Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist.

Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968. Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Number 460. New

York: Everyman's Library, Dutton, 1967. Christenson, James A., and Robinson, Jerry W., Jr., editors. Community

Development in America. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1980. Churchman, C. West. The Systems Approach. Delta Edition. New York: Dell

Publishing, 1968. Cleveland, Harlan. "How Do You Get Everybody in on the Act and Still Get

Some Action?" Educational Record 55, pp. 177-182, 1974. Cohen, C. Democracy. New York: The Free Press, 1973. Cook, James B. "Democracy and Rural Development" Training Materials. MU

Department of Community Development, June 1979. Cook, James B. "Advocacy of Grassroots Citizenship." Journal of Community

Development Society, (Fall 1975): 22-29. Cox, Fred M.; Erlich, John L.; Rothman, Jack; and Tropman, John E. Tactics and

Techniques of Community Practice. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock, 1977. Crozier, Michel J.; Huntington, Samuel P.; and Watanuki, Joji. The Crisis of

Democracy. New York: New York University Press, 1975. Dodge, Willard K. "Ten Commandments of Community Development or one

Middle Aged Graduate's Advice to New Graduates." Journal of the Community Development Society. (Spring 1980): pp. 49-57.


30/31

Dunham, Arthur. "Community Development in North America." Community Development Journal. 7:1. (1972): pp. 10-40.

Dunn, John. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Dye, T.R., and Zeigler, L.H. The Irony of Democracy. Second edition. Belmont,

California: Duxbury Press, 1972. Easton, D. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1965.

Eckstein, Harry. Division and Cohesion in Democracy. Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1966.

Edwards, Clark. "The Political Economy of Rural Development: TheoreticalPerspectives," American Journal of Agriculture Economics. 58, 5:914-921.(1976): pp. 914-921.

Foote, N., and Cottrell, L. Identity and Interpersonal Competence. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Gerlach, L.P., and Hine, V. Liveway Leap: The Dynamic of Change in America.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973. Grodzins, Morton. "Centralization and Decentralization." In A National of States.Robert A. Goldwin, editor, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Handler, P. "National Planning of Medical Research." Science. June 1965, pp.1688-92.

Johnson, Chalmer. Revolutionary Change. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,1966.

Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organization. New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

Laver, Michael. The Politics of Private Desires. New York: Penguin Books, 1981. Leinwand, Gerald, editor, The Future. New York: Pocket Books, 1976. Lewis, Michael. The Culture of Inequality. Meridian edition. New York: New

American Library, 1979. Lively, Jack. Democracy. Capricorn Edition. New York: G.P. Putnam Sons, 1977. Lotz, Jim. "Training in Community Development." Community Development

Journal. 1970. pp. 67-75. Marburger, John H., III. "How to Cope with Inevitable Ignorance," The Chronicle

of Higher Education. Sept. 9, 1981. Mayo, Marjorie. "Community Development A Radical Alternative," In Radical

Social Work. Edited by Roy Bailey and Mike Brake. New York: Pantheon Books,1975.

Mezirow, J.D. Dynamics of Community Development. New York: ScarecrowPress, 1963.

Morgan, Arthur E. The Small Community: Foundation of Democratic Life. NewYork: Harper and Bros., 1942.

Morgan, Arthur E. The Community of the Future and the Future of Community.Yellow Springs, Ohio: Community Service, 1957.

Nair, Kusum. In Defense of the Irrational Peasant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Ogilvy, J. Many Dimensional Man. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1979.


31/31

community development theory

Documents