- Intimate
- Enduring
- Personal
- Based on ascribed status
- Based in a homogeneous culture
- Enforced by moral custodians (e.g. Church, family)
- Upheld by traditional values
Secondly, and in contrast to Gemeinschaft, Tonnies used an ideal type based on Gesellschaft, a German word which translates as ‘Society – Association’. Tonnies describes large scale and complex industrial societies as Gesellschaft society types. These societies he viewed as being social organisations in which people had weak social ties and in which their relationships were based on need and considerable self interest. These relationships were usually temporary and impersonal. He summarises typical Gesellschaft characteristics as follows :[1][5][6]
- Few important primary relationships
- Contractual and calculative
- Impersonal
- Based on achieved status
- Based in heterogeneous culture
- There is no widely agreed source of moral values
- There are no sustaining traditional values
Tonnies viewed that a shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft was as a result of industrialisation, urbanisation, and the growth of capitalism and the subsequent development of modern urban societies.
For sociologists the term 'Community' has always proved difficult to define and there has been little agreement between definitions. In 1955 George Hillery listed ninety-four definitions of community that he had discovered in social science literature. He concluded that the only common element was the fact that they all referred to people.[2] However, although there has been little agreement on the definition of community, sociologists usually agree that there are three key themes to community:[6][14]
- As a social system (a set of social relationships or patterns and networks of social interaction)
- As a fixed locality (a geographical area)
- As a quality of relationship (the spirit of community or solidarity)
Social Anthropologist Anthony Cohen believes that the word community establishes a symbolic boundary around people and that a difference of being inside or outside a community is being marked. He further suggests that the word is loosely used to imply that a community is a group or category of people, who have something in common with each other, or are similar to each other, which distinguishes them in a significant way from other groups. Cohen therefore argues that community implies both similarity and difference.[8] He also suggests that boundary marking processes can be used to define communities in terms of identity, belonging and exclusion.[9]
There are many kinds of communities, for example, the word community can be applied to places, social groups, politics, ethnic groups or groups of differing sexual orientation. The following are a few examples:
Community Centre Student Community
European Community Community Charge
Community Care Muslim Community
Religious Community Jewish Community
White Community Black Community
Asian Community Gay Community
Each of the above communities are exclusive in that not every person can take part or belong, therefore community always involves a relationship between insiders and outsiders.[6]
Social exclusion may result from association, or lack of association, with groups and places in society. These can include: families and friends, neighbours and the neighbourhood, the workplace, race, age, gender, culture, religion, language, accent, class, appearance, sexuality, lifestyle and ability or disability. In addition, educational attainment, employment status or economic status can contribute to social exclusion.
Exclusive communities such as ethnic minorities, Asian and Black communities have received a great deal of attention by the British Government recently following the number of disturbances in towns and cities in England during the early summer of 2001. The violent community disorders which erupted in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham have been reported as being some of the worst in twenty years. These disorders involved hundreds of young people, predominantly between seventeen and twenty-six, and in which over four hundred police officials and sixty-five members of the public were injured. The disorders also caused millions of pounds worth of damage to these areas. Three hundred and ninety five people were arrested in connection with the disorders of Bradford, Burnley and Oldham. Further details as below:[11]
Factual evidence on disorders obtained from local police forces: Greater Manchester Police, West Yorkshire Police, Lancashire Constabulary, 2001.[11]
These disturbances involved large numbers of people from different cultural backgrounds and in the areas of Burnley and Oldham, local enquires were established in order that circumstances contributing to the disturbances within these communities could be investigated. The British Government also set up a Ministerial Group on Public Order and Community Cohesion to investigate how national policies might be used to promote improved community cohesion. This ministerial group produced the report 'Building Cohesive Communities'. In addition, an independent Community Cohesion Review Team was established in order to determine the causes of the disturbances and what possible solutions might be found to improve community cohesion and avoid future difficulties.[10]
The term 'Community Cohesion' has become increasingly popular in public policy debates. The term is closely linked to other concepts such as inclusion and exclusion, social capital and differentiation, community and neighbourhood.[10] In a report entitled Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood by Ray Forrest and Ade Kearns it is stated that "the simplest observable measure of community cohesion would be of groups who live in a local area getting together to promote or defend some common local interest".[13]
The 'Building Cohesive Communities Report' recognises that within many of the areas affected by disorder or community tension, there was little communication or interaction between members of the different racial, cultural or religious communities.[11] However, whilst each of the outbreaks of disturbance within these areas may have been triggered by different events, the report highlights a number of features that each area shared. For example:
- All of the areas affected by disturbances were amongst the 20% most deprived in the country and that parts of Oldham and Burnley rank in the most deprived 1%, according to the Indices of Deprivation 2000.[12]
- Within all of the areas the average incomes were amongst the lowest in the country.
- Many of the areas involved had low educational attainment standards within the schools.
- Local young white and ethnic minority (Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin) men were involved.
- The disorders took place within the areas inhabited by predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities.
- In many cases, trouble arose following months of racial tension and reported racial attacks, both Asian on white and white on Asians.
- Disturbances occurred between groups in areas where social divides existed on racial, generational, cultural or religious issues and where little dialogue or contact between various groups occurred.
Following the disturbances a Community Cohesion Review Team (CCRT) was established, whose aim was to identify key policy issues, good practice and innovative thinking in the field of community cohesion. The team believed that as Britain is a rich and diverse nation with various cultures, that there was an urgent need to promote community cohesion. The team also believed that community cohesion should be based upon a greater knowledge and respect of cultural issues, and that there was a need for greater contact between the various cultures. This team produced a report entitled 'Community Cohesion' in which the following statement is made:
"It is easy to focus on systems, processes and institutions and to forget that community cohesion fundamentally depends on people and their values. Indeed, many of the present problems seem to owe a great deal to the failure to communicate and agree a set of clear values that can govern behaviour. This failure is evident at both the national and local levels, and it has led to community breakdown in some parts of the country, due to particular circumstances or triggers"[10].
The Community Cohesion Review Team put forward, in their detailed and extensive report, themes and proposals to help ensure that reform takes place. The comprehensive themes and proposals were summarised under the following headings: [10]
- Peoples and Values
- Political and Community Leadership
- Political Organisations
- Strategic Partnerships
- Regeneration Programmes, Initiatives and Funding
- Integration and Segregation
- Younger People
- Education
- Community Organisations
- Disadvantaged and Disaffected Communities
- Policing
- Housing
- Employment
- The Press and Media
In addition to the above, the report puts forward recommendations for each of the topics and offers sixty-seven practical measures, which could be put in place by a range of agencies, and which were aimed at improving community cohesion.[10]
Furthermore, the report acknowledges that there may be resistance to change or lack of confidence in tackling such difficult issues as raised in the 'Community Cohesion' report. Therefore the team have reported that they believe that a new Community Cohesion Task Force should be established to oversee the development of local community cohesion strategies and the implementation of the proposals set out in their report.[10]
In conclusion, interest in the concept of community has been expressed since the mid 19th century and the continuing change in social behaviour, as a consequence of the changes to social structures and interaction, therefore necessitates continued study. Furthermore, in order to enable individuals and communities to participate fully within society, the issue of social exclusion needs to be addressed. Particularly as social exclusion has the potential to affect all types of people, in all areas of life and at all stages of life. In addition, social exclusion varies with time and individuals or communities may experience different forms of exclusion at different times and at different intensities. It is therefore essential that efforts are continued to ensure that society recognises the need for encouragement of an inclusive society.
REFERENCES
1] SELFE, PL. (1993) Sociology Patterns & Trends. Basisingstoke:
Macmillan Press Ltd., pp2,199,
2] BELL, C & NEWBY, H (1974) The Sociology of Community: A Selection of Readings. London: Frank Cass and Co Ltd., p3
3] TRUZZI, M. (1971) Sociology: The Classic Statements: Ferdinand Tonnies On Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. (Online)
Available from:
Introsoc/gemein.html
(Accessed 16 March 2002)
4] THE COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA,5th Ed (1995) (Online)
Available from:
(Accessed 18 March 2002)
5] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: RESEARCH (Online)
Available from: http://icarus.cc.uic.edu/homeindex/research.shtml
(Accessed 18 March 2002)
6] TAYLOR, P et al. Sociology In Focus. Ormskirk: Causeway Press Ltd.,p389
7] MIDWINTER, E. (1994) The Development Of Social Welfare In Britain. Buckingham: Open University Press, p46
8] COHEN, AP (1985) The Symbolic Construction Of Community. Tavistock, London
9] “Community–arianism” Community; ideology and utopia (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 16 March 2002)
10] THE HOME OFFICE (2001) Community Cohesion (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 19 March 2002)
11] THE HOME OFFICE (2001)Building Cohesive Communities (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 19 March 2002)
12] DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS (2000) Regeneration Research Summary:Indices of Deprivation 2000 (Number 31, 2000) (Online)
Available from :
http://www.regeneration.dtlr.gov.uk/rs/03100/pdf/rrs03100.pdf
(Accessed 25th March 2002)
13] FORREST, R., KEARNS, A. (2000) Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood . Paper presented to ESRC Cities Programme Neighbourhoods Colloquium, Liverpool,5-6 June. (Online)
Available from :
cwis.livjm.ac.uk/cities/Papers/Forrest-Kearns.pdf
(Accessed 20 March 2992)
14] “Community–arianism” Chapter: The future of community: values and praxis (Online)
Available from : http://www.communities.org.uk/greg/chap9.html
(Accessed 16 March 2002)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BARTON, H. (2000) Sustainable Communities. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
BATTY, D (2002) Social exclusion: the basics (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 20 March 2002)
BETTEN, N (2002) The Roots of Community Organizing, 1917-1939 (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 17 March 2002)
CROW, G, ALLAN, G. (1994) Community Life An Introduction to Local Social Relations. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf
GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LIMITED (2002) Report reveals Britain's 10 most poor areas (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 20 March 2002)
HUGHES, I (2000) Community Study Knowledge Base: Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 16 March 2002)
HUGHES, I (2000) Community Study Knowledge Base: What is Community? (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 16 March 2002)
LEVITAS, R. Defining and Measuring Social Exclusion: A Critical Overview of Current Proposals (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 20 March 2002)
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT (2000) Socially excluded communities yet to benefit from regeneration policies (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 2 April 2002)
PIERSON, J, SMITH, J. (2001) Rebuilding Community: Policy and Practice in Urban Regeneration. Basingstoke: Palgrave
TRAVIS, A (2001) Yawning gulf that spawned inner city riots (Online)
Available from :
(Accessed 20 March 2002)