Community - chapter for book

There is no middle path. Do we join together to build an economy that is sustainable? Or do we stay with our environmentally unsustainable economy until it declines? It is not a goal that can be compromised. One way or another, the choice will be made by our generation. But it will affect life on earth for all generations to come. Lester Brown, Eco-economy. 2002

The chapter will suggest that it is only through thinking about community as a diaspra of dependencies in the form of freedom, economies, interests and creative possibilities that we have any real possibility of making progress with the urgent agenda for a more sustainable form of life on the planet.

I suggest that community can serve as a forum for engagement, connection and ideas, a forum for local action and for representation in the democratic practice of freedom. As such, it can be a basis of new economy, or more particularly an eco-economy (Brown 2002) or eco-eco (Kelly 2009).

In the chapter I will use ‘community’ as the term which captures a set of capabilities (Sen 2002) – one where we depend upon each other to generate understanding, engagement and participation through which we can respond to social, environmental and economic collapse (Putnam 2000, Orr 1994, Soros 2008). I describe community as a network. It is an interdependent construct of human activity. It functions as a set of capabilities within and between communities of connection, communities of place, and communities of action. School plays a significant part in framing, sometimes impeding, sometimes enabling and focusing the development of these capabilities, but school is only ever a part player, the setting is always within the wider frame of the community (see figure 1).

Community is both defined and at the same time it is boundless. We live our lives in total dependency on systems which have no respect for national boundaries such as the atmosphere, oceans, ocean life, biotic provinces and the Sun, without which nothing lives. All these demonstrate forms of community which function as flow, an entangled alliance, this illustrates sufficiently that community can exist as something visible and tangible and at the same time something abstract.
So, when we think about community and school, it would seem that any form of guidance should take seriously the guidance we might get from an understanding of dependency to others and between others. We might ask what kinds of dependency we prefer, but that's our only choice.
For example, is it preferable to be dependent on institutions we don't know, and which don't know us, or on people, other organisms, and natural forces that we do know? This forms the basis of much of my own work, exploring the practicalities of new forms of what I have come to call ‘local dependency’ (Clarke 2009). Since our world is increasingly connected through cultural, economic and technological, and proportionally ever less physical, the meaning of 'local' is not geographical, at least not only geographical, it explores the ways in which flows of ideas combine as communities in the form of practices, theories, possibilities to be realized as forms of wealth as environmental capital, human capital, social capital, spiritual capital, manufactured capital and financial capital – the flow is between people sharing and playing with these things both in real-time together, and in their own time.

Figure one: Capabilities of an interdependent community













In his Nobel prize winning work, Amartya Sen (2001) describes the qualities of collective action which widen the opportunity for individuals to generate forms of wealth as ‘capabilities.’ It is a combination of these capabilities in the form of dependencies of what I call connection, place and action that I wish to explore when we move forward in our consideration of the role and function of a relationship between community and school.

A community of connection
Governments, regions, communities and individuals are beginning to recognise the scale of the environmental challenge that human beings face in this century as we have to make the move from an oil based industrialized economy to an ecologically focused post-oil economy (Steffen 2008). This transition is starting to happen and recent predictions suggest that it will have to have completed within 50 years regardless of whether we want it or not, as oil is rapidly running out and a looming prospect of energy shortage and blackouts gets ever closer .

Whilst the 20th century is now well behind us, we have not as yet, learned how to live yet alone think, in the mindset we might need for life in the 21st. This should not be all that difficult, as the dominant ideas of the economic and political model from the 20th century have clearly just fallen apart around us in the last two decades and the lessons are there for all to see. These models, have until now been looked upon as mutually exclusive. With the failure of Soviet state socialism in the 1990’s, and now Western market driven capitalism have both defined in their own ways, the ideologies of national systems. However, as Hobsbawn (2009) argues, both are ‘bankrupt ideas’ when we contemplate our futures. We need a progressive model to transcend the old order and respond to the new situation in which we find ourselves.

One particular feature of both of these ‘bankrupt’ models, is the reliance upon institution to perpetuate particular ideological viewpoints. Ivan Illich (1973) argued that modern societies across the industrialized world appear to create more and more institutions, and that the consequence of them is that we live our lives in ever more institutionalized ways. This makes it difficult for people to challenge the existing order of things, and to suggest and to have taken seriously the idea that there are alternative ways of living. 'This process undermines people - it diminishes their confidence in themselves, and in their capacity to solve problems... It kills convivial relationships. Finally it colonizes life like a parasite …that kills creativity' (Finger and Asún 2001: 10).
Institutions do other things too. They create experts, in Medical Nemesis (1975) the book began, 'The medical establishment has become a major threat to health' (ibid.: 11). In much of my work, I maintain a similar argument, that the educational establishment has become a major threat to education (Clarke 2008). The case against expert systems is that they produce damage which outweighs the potential benefits they offer, because they obscure the political conditions that render society schooled but ill-educated, and they perpetuate the idea that people are unable to act for themselves. They diminish the power of individuals to learn and value their personal and social experience of learning themselves through which they might shape their own community.
This problem becomes particularly acute when there is a need to redefine the relationships that exist between school and community. Here, the institutional boundaries can impede the institutional potential to learn from the community, its default position being that it educates the community and not the other way around. Despite plenty of examples that refute this claim particularly coming from recent changes in communications technology (Leadbeater 2000), the underlying cultural message from schools remains the same, ‘we know, you don’t know, how to educate.’
It seems to me that as a result, community and school are stuck in a perpetual cycle of dependency of the worst possible kind. One where professionals and the schools in which they work tend to define the activity of learning as a commodity which they call education, 'whose production they monopolize, whose distribution they restrict, and whose price they raise beyond the purse of ordinary people and nowadays, all governments' (Lister in Illich 1976), and the community receives the product. Extending an earlier notion of schooling, it might be suggested therefore that people are schooled to believe that the self-taught community is being discriminated against; that learning and the growth of cognitive capacity, require a process of consumption of services presented in a planned, a professional form (quoted by Gajardo 1994: 715 my insert of community) In this way, learning is a thing rather than an activity, so any way in which a community engages with a school is inhibited by its failure to present a form of knowledge to the school in a recognizable professional style.

Just like cigarettes, institutions and institutional practices would appear to be addictive. They generate habitual activities and rituals and these are difficult quit once people get hooked on the idea that they are the only way to solve existing problems.

If we are to enhance our capability to learn new ways of living which have a reduced footprint on the environment of the planet, then I think we have to consider how we re-define our relationship with a dominant community based institution – the school.

Having grown addicted to schooling of a certain type (Orr 1994), the action of individuals, communities, regions and countries to overcome the challenges we face from economic and ecological meltdown demand the cleverest of inventions, the smartest of technologies, and the most politic and decorous of societies. It offers immense potential for people to work together in new ways to form new types of economic well-being which serve both personal and societal need (Porritt 2009). By challenging the process of institutionalization, by questioning the notion of expertise and experts, and by critiquing the idea of learning as a form of commodity, we move towards a way of living and working in our communities where collective wisdom is captured and focused with clarity and purpose and without the embedded issue of ownership getting in the way; where people have a clear sense of the purpose behind the initiatives which serve self and others. A transition in thinking about how to live in the 21st century that redefines wealth in the form of environmental capital, human capital, social capital, spiritual capital, manufactured capital and financial capital needs mediation, the basic ideas need to be explored and discussed from which practical actions can flow.

A ‘community of connection’ which develops capabilities to appreciate and engage with alternative solutions, designs and opportunities, helps us to think differently to respond to the eco-eco (Kelly 2009) demands of the 21 century. It serves as a frame for thinking about the contributing factors which inform a dialogue for transforming the relationship between community and school.

A community of place
In a similar way to the failings of the macro system, the micro-level is not without its problems (Klein 2001). Whilst state-led reform of ‘communities’ continues to illustrate systemic failings through alienation and disengagement of the majority of those whom it is intended to assist, other, equally problematic issues arise when the alternatives being pursued are for self-sufficiency. As an idea, the notion of self-sufficient communities has done just as much harm than good. It perpetuates the ‘otherness’ of those beyond one’s own clique, it generates economic inequality just as efficiently as any macro market-led solution. The self-sufficient argument extends now into our current school model, whilst defined primarily through school choice, it is just as much about exclusivity and self-sufficiency. Academies, Trust and Foundation schools are quite possibly the next failed extension of the industrialized, individualized cultural obsession with privacy and isolationist solutions to large-scale problems. ‘We don’t need you, we are self-sufficient, we generate our own solutions’ is as much a lie as that which argues that we can only make cultural, environmental and economic progress with government. The message is clear, there is no dissectable self, we depend on each other.
It is therefore a move towards some other form of dependency, one which connects rather then dissects self from community and from wider networks, that we are urgently in need of developing.

So a community of place is particularly important as a way of making sense of the important role school plays within a context. When one’s environment has a ‘sustained and lasting human value’ (O’Sullivan 1999) the results of globalization, rootlessness, transitoriness, dispossession become more and not less transparent (ibid p245). The dependence on a community of place becomes in itself a value. Place is often cited as a significantly important feature of schools in locations of economic disadvantage, where, in the best examples, students are embedded into activity which demonstrate capability in the form of environmental capital (Clarke 2009), human capital, social capital, spiritual capital, manufactured capital and financial capital (Porrit 2009). However, just as the community of place can be a physical reality it can also demonstrate capability in the form of a virtual reality. Take for example the degree of interest young people have in facebook and other social networking sites.

Our capability to create and maintain a sense of place within a community – school relationship therefore explores both physical and virtual realities. To be successful it needs to generate capabilities which include a sense of identity, a need for protection, affection, understanding, participation, identity, creativity, and friendship.

Community as action
A particular form of community capability is often found in and around schools in the form of active groups who pursue specific projects on behalf of the such as community liaison, parental outreach, after-school and breakfast clubs all illustrate the commodity function of school. Whist they are interesting and in some cases quite powerful examples of ways in which relationships can be developed between school and community they do not go far enough to illustrate the capability I am particularly interested in because it seems to me that it maintains, rather than transforms the possibility of greater levels of interdependence.
However, there are some interesting examples of community as action which are showing signs of redesign of existing systems.
In one example, an action community in the form of a local food production project approached the school to form a community interest company (CIC) which is joint owned between school and community trustees. The CIC applied for and won a significant lottery fund which is establishing a sustainable fish farm eco-business on the school site. The students from the school, working with a number of local businesses and regional agencies are actively involved in all stages of design, commissioning, construction, maintenance and development of the business. There are new school courses being established in land management, eco energy, which will run within the school and the local college. Alongside people from the immediate vicinity of the town who are helping to support and provide guidance, there are students and lecturers from University departments from other countries who have experience of developing this type of farm with associated aquaponics and filtration systems.
Furthermore, to illustrate the idea of community as connection, place and action; the town has partnerships with other communities in Ghana and Tanzineer in Africa who are involved in knowledge transfer, planning and development conversations as they too are undertaking similar projects in their localities.
Conclusion
This chapter has attempted to provide a pathway for a different way of thinking about the complicated issue of school and community. Instead of suggesting more of the same, I have argued that we need to radically realign our concept to take full advantage of the types of capabilities we might need to encourage if we are to truly transform our education system to meet the changing demands of an eco-eco society.
I have suggested that the future of sustainable economy and community depends on the connections we choose, the place we define as local, and the life we subsequently decide to live in the form of deliberate action.




Further reading and references
Birol, F. (2008) World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency. Paris
Clarke, P. (2008) Education and Sustainability. professional development today. Vol 11 no 1.
Clarke, P. (2009) Sustainability and Improvement: a problem of and for education. Improving Schools. Vol 12 no 1, 11-17
Finger, M. And Asún, J. M. (2001) Adult Education at the Crossroads. Learning our way out, London: Zed Books.
Gajardo, M (1994) 'Ivan Illich' in Z. Morsy (ed.) Key Thinkers in Education Volume 2, Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Guardian 16 April 2009. Nuclear plans ‘too slow to stop lights going out.’ P.27
Hern, M. (ed.) (1996) Deschooling Our Lives, Gabriola Island BC.: New Society Publishers.
Illich, Ivan (1975b) Medical Nemesis: The expropriation of health, London: Marian Boyars.
Illich, Ivan and Verne, E. (1976) Imprisoned in the global classroom, London: Writers and Readers Publishing Co-operative.
Kelly, A. (2009) Education futures and schooling theory: adapting Sen’s early work on Capability to choice and sustainability. Personal correspondence
Klein, N. (2001) No Logo, London: Flamingo.
Leadbeater, C. (2000) Living on Thin Air. The new economy, London: Penguin.
Monbiot, G. (2001) Captive State. The corporate takeover of Britain, London: Pan.
Orr, D. (1994) Earth in Mind. First Island Press. New York
O’Sullivan, E. (1999) Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century. London. Zed books.
Porritt, J. (2009) Living within our means: avoiding the ultimate recession. Forum for the future. London
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Reimer, E. (1971) School is Dead. An essay on alternatives in education, Harmondsworth: Penguin. 176 pages. Highly readable analysis and positing of alternatives.
Sachs, W.(1992) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, London: Zed Books. Schwartz, D. (1997) Who Cares? Rediscovering Community, Boulder, CO: Westview.
Sen, A. (2001) Development as Freedom. Oxford. Oxford books
Smith, L. G. and Smith, J. K. (1994) Lives in Education, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Soros, G. (2008) The new paradigm for financial markets. New York. Public Affairs Books.
Steffen, A. http://www.worldchanging.com/ sourced November 11th 2008
van de Veer, J (2008) leaked email to executive board 22 January 2008 sourced for this chapter in Preparing for Peak Oil: Local Authorities and the Energy Crisis. (2008) Oil Depletion Analysis Centre. London.