COMMUNITY STUDIES An introduction to the sociology of the local community Colin Bell and Howard Newby Praeger Publishers New York + Washingtonvv Theories of Community IN considering the concept of community, the sociologist shares an occupational hazard with the architect and the planner: the more he attempts to define it in his own terms, the more elusively does the essence of it seem to escape him. The concept of community has been the concern of sociologists for more than two hundred years, yet a satisfactory definition of it in sociological terms appears as remote as ever. Most sociologists seem to have weighed in with their own idea of what a community consists of ~ and in this lies much of the confusion. For sociologists, no more than other individuals, have not always been immune to the emotive overtones that the word community consis- tently carries with it. Everyone - even sociologists - has wanted to live in a community; feelings have been more equivocal concerning life in collectvities, groups, networks or societies. The subjective fet that the term community conjures up thus frequently lead 10 a con- fusion between what it is (empirical description) and what the socio- logist feels it should be (normative prescription). ‘The reasons for this enduring confusion can be related to the history of sociology itself, What the concept involves has not proved t0o difficult 10 elaborates attempts to describe what itis, however, have proved impossible without aking value judgements. The Theoretical Inheritance “Community” was thought to be «good thing, ts passing was to be deplored, feared and regretted. The events surrounding the supposed causes of its eclipse ~ the democratic political revolutions of America and France and the industrial revolutions of Britain and, later, the remainder of Western Burope - were to a remarkable extent the starting point of Tocqueville, Comte, Ténnies, Le Play, Marx and Durkheim, some of the most eminent of sociology's founding fathers. What they understood by community makes an appropriate starting22 COMMUNITY STUDIES place for a discussion of community studies, for in the nineteenth fentury ‘community’ occupied a position in the minds of intellectuals Similar to the idea of ‘contract’ in the Age of Reason, The concept of community, however, was not a cold, analytic construct. On the con trary, the ties of the community, real or imagined, came from these thinkers” images of the good life. Community was thus used as a means of invidious comparison with contemporarily exemplified society, yet ‘community, consisting as it did of what the particular writer believed it ought 0 consist of, was cupable of encompassing any number of possibly contradictory values which each saw fit to include, This Amorphous quality allowed an endless array of social thinkers to unite in their praise of community, no matter how diverse their interpreta- tions of it might be.! Overlying this positive evaluation of community, there was frequently a pervading posture of nostalgia ~ of praising the past to blame the present ~ and the two themes combined when present ‘society’ was criticized with reference to past ‘community’. ‘The upheavals of industralization enabled these feelings o be given full rein. Industral society ~ and its ecological derivative, the city ~ was typified by competition and conflict, utility and ‘contractual relations; the community ~ and its ecological derivative, the village or, at the the most, the small town ~ was the antithesis of these. The impersonality and anonymity of industrial society were highlighted by reference to the close personal ties of the community. The trend peared t0 be away from the latter and towards the former: thus ther in writers such as Comte an anguished sense of the breakdown of the old.2 Comte’s sociological interest um community was, as Nisbet has pointed out, born of the same circumstances that’ produced his Conservatism: the breakdown or disorganization of the traditional forms of association. The community, in other words, was viewed as man’s natural habitat. Sit Henry Maine was not concerned with the community as such, but his work exercised a great influence upon his contemporaries and successors and, most importantly from our point of view, upon ‘Ténnies. Thus, while we should be wary of plundering the corpus of his work looking for antecedents to our present concerns, Maine's "For an interesting account ofthis theme in relation to the Bets trary ad phityopicaltadon see W. Letcteon, “The Tolga Oxia ot sre marion Dunes of Plamen Janel, SW, 1968, pp. 160-70. See AC Nubet, The Sociological Tradiin, London, Heinemann, 1966, chapter 3. "RC f Burrows, Evouion ond Soci, London, Cambridge U.P. 1966 for the dangers inherent in the Whigeish interpretation of ninetesnih century inlets history. ‘THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 23 ‘work forms an important prelude to later, more narrowly sociologically inclined, thinkers, What Maine wanted to know was how the institu- tions of his day had evolved from those of antiquity. On the basis of the carly writings of the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans, Maine argued that early society was patriarchal, the oldest male having held absolute supremacy over the extended family. Society us a whole was a con- slomeration of familial units. In contrast, Maine noted, the basic unit of modern society was not the family in its extended form but the individual. Using the legal system as evidence, he discovered that primitive law was concerned with family groups as corporate entities defined by kinship. Crime was a corporate act, land was held jointly. ‘When societies expanded, however, locality rather than kinship became the basis of organization. The crux of Maine's argument was that the powers, privileges and duties once resident in the family had shifted to the state. And the nature of men's interrelations, instead of being based on his starus, became based on individually agreed con ‘Another who used law as an index of social change, was of course, Emile Durkheim. While Comte’s overriding emotion was anguish, Durkheim's was concern, concern for the ‘moral consolidation’ of the society in which he lived. If Durkheim's work was ‘a memorial to the ability ofa gifted man to utilize the work of others in the pursuit of his ‘own designs’ it is as well to he aware of what these designs were. What Durkheim feared was the disintegration of social relations into ‘anomi a state of ‘normlessness’ where there was complete social breakdown ~ but what he perceived in contemporary society was not so much the breakdown of community as the transition from community based on cone kind of social relations to community based on another, from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity.® According to Durkheim the increased division of labour in more advanced societies leads to ‘organic solidarity ~ solidarity based upon the interdependence of spec- ialized parts, on diversity rather than similarity. He used legal indicators to show that as one type of solidarity advances, the other regresses; and it was organic solidarity that was increasing. Durkheim was gratified to conclude that, far from community disintegrating, society was be- coming one big community. If there is a founding father of the theory of community, however, the label perhaps suits Ferdinand Tonnies more than any other in- dividual, Tinnies’ book Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (usually trans- “HL Stuart Hughes, Couciousness aul Society, New York (and London), ‘MacGibbon nd Kee, 1967, p. 280, 2, Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society, New York, Pree Press, 1964 (London, Collier: Macmillan).COMMUNITY STUDIES. lated as Community and Society) was first published in 1887. Tt has provided a constant Hi of ideas for those who have dealt with the of the community is relatively homogeneous, for it must be so if roles ; continued the nineteenth-century theme that community makes for | translated as ‘society’ or ‘association') which essentially means every- c. MK c ation of * See for example, J. C. McKinney and C. P. Loomis, “The Applica Goneinschafe and Gevelichft as Related to Othet Typologics’ in the introdie- tion tothe American edition of F, Tonnies’ Camnuoity and Society, New York, Harper Torchbook, 1957, pp: 12-29. i { THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 25 thing that community is not. Gesellschaft refers to the large scale, {impersonal and contractual tes that were seen by the nineteenth century sociologists to be on the increase, at the expense of Gemeinschaft. Here is the central idea that runs through so many community studies social change is conceptualized as a continuum beween two polar types: Geneinschaft or community and Gesellschaft ot society. For Tonnies, ‘here are three central aspects of Geneinschafr: blood, place (land) and mind, with their sociological conscquents of kinship, neighbourhood land friendship. Together, they were the home ofall virtue and morality. Geselchaft, however, has a singularity about it; in ‘Tonnies’ terms ‘all its activities are restricted to a definite end and a definite means of obtaining it? This rationality is, of course, usually sen as a key aspect in the development of western capitalism. Indeed it might be claimed that in Gemeinscha/t would be found what Max Weber calls ‘traditional authority where as Gesellchaft incorporates what he would call ‘rational- legal” authority. Yet it should be understood that whereas the loss of community is something that is treated as a consequence of capitalism by Marx—and others since then, making it a strong tradition today ~ tor Tinnies capitalism was treated as a consequence of the loss of com munity. Chicken-and-erg arguments are rarely easily soluble and no attempt at a solution is made here. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that the conferring of causal status on the concept of community is at the very essence of Ténnies’ typological use of it ‘Tonnies’ greatest legucy is this typological usage ~a typology usually expressed in terms of a dichotomy. The ‘community-socicty’ dichotomy slong wich ‘authority-pover,‘status-class’,sacred-secular, ‘alienation progress’, have been represented by Nisbet as the wnit ideas of the sociological tradition, They are, as he wrote, ‘the rich themes in nine= teenth-century thought. Considered as linked antitheses, they form the very warp of the sociological tradition. Quite apart from their con~ cxptual signiticance in sociology, they may be regurded as epitomizations of the conflict between tradition and modemism, between the old order made moribund by the industrial and democratic revolutions, and the new order, its outlines still unclear and as often the ciuse of anxiety us of elation and hope.’6 ‘These ideas were not, of course, new to the ninetcenth century ~ Sorokip, for example, takes the basic idee of community back 9 Confucius and runs through Tbn Khaldun und St Thomas Aquinas.’ ‘They remain, though, the most relevunt theoretical inheritance for modeiu eostumunity studies, and must be the starting place for more recent conceptualizations ofthe concept. 2 Tonnies, op. cits p. 192. 4 Nisbet, op. cit, p. 6. * See his introduction to Téanies, op. cit26 COMMUNITY STUDIES ‘The Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft dichotomy can be incorporated into the iruetural-functional theories of Talcott Parsons. What Parsons Be atpattern variables’ form the bess of his system forthe analysis of (Egha sction, ‘They are seen as continua or ‘ranges’ between polar Spposites, each of which expresses a ‘dilemma’ of choice Between «wo opPamnrves that every ‘actor’ faces in every social situation. As Parsons area he clusters at the ends of these continua ‘very closely characterize sie in much sociological literature have been thought of as polar types ‘iifotitutional structure, the best known version of which perhaps has Gacn the Geneinschaft-Gesllzchaft dichotomy of Tonnies’.10 ‘These pattern variables are: 1. Affectvity versus affective neutrality: which refers to whether im- mediate self-gratifcation or its deferment is expected. 2 Specificity versus difuseness: which refers ro whether the scope of relationship is narrow, like that between a bureaucrat and his client, se broad and inclusive es between # mother and her child or between spouses. 4. Universalism versus partcularsm: which refers to whether js govemed by generalized standards (equal opportunity) or in terms fs reference scheme peculiar to the actors in the relationship (€-8. nepotism.) ‘i Quality versus performance (also called ascription verses achieve: tment): which relers to whether the characterization of each actor by {he others is based on who or what the person is or on what he can ddo, on whether he is the son of a duke (ascription) or a college sraduate (achievement). Community would seem to involve particularism and ascription and Siifuseness and afectivity ~ as a consequence, for example, of Kinship Seing important and of stability and ‘knowing’ everyone. On the other andy the emergent pattern in most industrial societies is that of uni~ Versalisin and achievement and specificity and affective neutrality. There {ra clear tendency for these pattern-variables to co-vary between the Txtremes, although all societies show mixtures of the two sets of Characteristics, ‘The relative emphasis clearly differs and the pattern— Sarlables ean be used as more precise analytic tools to describe the loss br othervise of community. It should be noted, however, that Parsons fe not uilking particularly about local social systems but society in gen- tral The pattern-variables can be applied to all forms of social action, huving emerged opt ofthe classic dichotomies ofthe sociological tradi= ‘New York 16-T, Pacsons and E, Shils, Toward « General Theory of Acton, and Landon), Harper Torchbook, 1952, pp. 207°8. ‘THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 7 Sony and thir application to o: é amity represents only smal par of Parsons’ much grander theoretical scheme, i atl Definitions of Community Whi hori i dese ns hy iin prosoely what tke term haw bee bticwed to dense The dfs Inve ints Somenat nt ak have sca bee aloe Bey sco sy ns pond hit fw comico of epi Pte hi sof what sed So ti de orn on ea sue sologs have ecndy uch ne detng eo Se Sidon ar we ne tine in Te ple oon or Gest A He Js aaa can iat oe definitions in his paper, “Definitions of ony Aa af Rene Raton, he vy an tangs acme indeed Ilys cen ha sncioavne hasnt nee vee tre af many Arran socogas be conlodedy "There one Zens toner ct neu nae een sn Te Aiea laces ith people Rayon is common tah thee bo agrement This ae seems very encouraging. i kaye elroy Inver ee not enily wasted for fom mys te hie nts he Wo theo dace he aisiacted stern consipos These concps se ned By toes two Site mbit nd hgh ema ped ster ene ity We hn towed Hil in net ono dtogu tg reps Gouricommniy lon whe ete er coment acl mR tom ert sea iol pa tect commun The esas eh Tey Scrat conning emmys seca ap can be sccn as the continuing presence of the anti-urban tain seilogy refed a cavler, We have foloed iy n be ving tn the itn of denon into re communi °" G. A, Milry Js, ‘Deitons of Communiy: : Rural Sociology, 20, 1955. eee es Sas pt28 COMMUNITY STUDIES ; jc empt to delimit the and ‘rural community’ is not a logical one, the attempt to delimit th Characteristics of community contained in the latter should not be discarded. ‘A Classification of Selected Definitions of Community (after Hillery) DISTINGUISHING IDEAS OX FEMENTS NUMBER OF MENTIONED IN THE DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS Generic Community A, Social Interaction 1. Geographic Area A. Self-sufficiency 8 B. Common Life 9 Kinship 2 C. Consciousness of Kind 7 D. Possession of common ends, norms, means 20 EB, Collection of institutions 2 F, Locality Groups 5 G. Individu 2 2, Presence of some common characteristic, other than area A. Selfsulicency” 1 4B, Common Life 3 CC. Consciousness of Kind 5 D. Possession of common ends, norms, means 5 3. Social System 1 4. Individuality 3 “Toralty of Attitudes 1 6. Process 2 B. Ecological Relationships 3 ‘THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 29 TI. Rural Community A. Social Interaction 1, Geographic Area A. Self-sulliciency B. Common Life 3 C. Consciousness of Kind 3 D. Possession of common ends, norms, means 3 E. Locality group 5 YorAL DEHNITIONS on Despite Hillery’s conclusion that there is an absence of agreement, beyond the fict that community involves people, a considerable amount can now be salvaged from his analysis. A perusal of the table should lead to :he conclusion that not all the definitions can be correct, ‘that isto say that community cannot be all of these definitions in theit entirety. A community cannot be an area and not be an area, though significantly Hillery found that no author denied that area could be clement of community. All but three of the definitions clearly mention the presence ofa group of people interacting; those that do not have an ccological orientation, This is one reason for examining the ecological approach more closely later in the chapter. Sixty-nine ofthe ninery-four definitions agree that community includes social interaction, area and some ties or bonds in common. Seventy, or almost three-quarters, agree on the presence of arew and social interaction as necessary elements of community: but more than three-quarters (seventy-three) agreed on the joint inclusion of social interaction and common ties. ‘Thus a majority of definitions include, in increasing importance for cach clement, the following components of community: area, common ties and social interaction.!# If the reader now believes that we are achieving sight of the trees after having hacked away much dead wood, the progress since Hillery's analysis is a salutary warning against optimism. A consideration of a few definitions that have enjoyed wide circulation since Hillery's analysis will serve to show what we mean, Sussman has produced a particularly fine example of an omnibus definition: ‘A community is said to exist when interaction between individuals has the purpose of meeting individual needs and obtaining group goals . . . a limited geographical arca is another feature of the community... . The features of social interaction, structures for the gratification of physical, 1 Bid, p. 118» COMMUNITY STUDIES social and psychological needs, and limited geographical area are basic to the definition of community.’'4 ‘The utility of this definition is, however, severely hindered by the fact that the specification of individual and group goals is an exceedingly troublesome task, This ‘will be demonstrated in Chapter 7 on community power. ‘Kaufiman’s paper, “Toward an Interactional Conception of Com- munity’! argues ~ in @ manner consistent with the traditional formula~ tions discussed above - that centralization, specialization and the in~ cerease of impersonal relationships are hastening the decline of the community, The first two aspects of his formal definition are very Similar to those of Sussman - that community is a place (a relatively small one at that), and secondly, that community indicates a con- figuration as to way of life, both as to how people do things and what they want, that is, their institutions and their collective goals. Kaufman's third notion is e more radical departure and concerns collective action: "Persons in a community should not only be able to, but frequently do act together in the common concern of life."!* There are thus three tloments in Kaufiman’s interactional model of the community: the community participant, the community groups and associations, and finally the phases and processes of community action. In other words, ‘who, with whom, does what, when? This would scem very relevant to the study of, say, local politics, but of less relevance to the analysis of the community as an object or unit of study. Kaufman’s difficulties become more apparent later in the paper when he conceptualizes, ‘again very traditionally, community as an independent rather than dependent variable: “One may visualize the community field as a stage With the particular ethos of the local society determining the players fand the plays."!7 While Kaufman admits that this is “much more an ‘enumeration of elements . . . than a precise statement of their inter~ relationships’,'® one feels justified in asking where the community is in all this, Since he refers to the community field itis presumably not the ‘stage’, Is itthen the ‘thos’, the ‘players’, the ‘play’ or perhaps the most likely candidate, ‘local society’? But the use of ‘local society’ merely ‘begs the question: semantic sleight of hand is not substitute for rigor~ ‘ous definition. ‘Sutton and Kolaja add some variables to the study of action in the ‘community, but do not really elaborate a definition despite the title of 1 Macvin B. Sussman (ed.), Community Struerure and Analsis, New York, Crowell 1959, pp. 1-2 TP Hasold E, Kaufman, Toward an Interactionel Conception of Community’, Socal Forces, 38, 1959. TW Tbids Bs De 1 Did, p. . © Bid, ps 10. THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 31 their paper “The Concept of Community’. Community is define in the by-now familar way aa numberof fais residing in a lative small area within which they have developed a more e less complet socio-cultural defniton imbued with coletveIdenifcaen andy teins of which they solve problems arising ffom the sharing of 24 area The four ercial valle a they se them aes Number of actors “Awareness of action 3. Goal of action 4 Recipients of action ete eee ne eee can be used to classify community action. POSS ES the sociological tradition out of which emerged "Parsons? it 4 community ‘a collectivity of actors sharing in a limited territorial area *arsons originally wrote ‘common’ not ‘limited’ so erg obvious te ht ewan to nce se ssn of en cn 9 crucial. There has been, as Hillery’s discussion showed - and it is more Wilts A. Suton and Jivi Kol, “The c si lis A Suton and Ji Kolin, “The Cancer of Conan’, Rl Ear 8 Taet Patsons, The Soa! Sytem, Londun, Ty : aca lon, The Sota Sy, Lond, Twink Pain Scie tenons fvioc, 985, pigs Kol Peony of sa Hat Pos “The nie! Satie of Community nh and Process in Modern Society, but originally in Friedrich, Commoty, sage Alden SS eran Can Fly Cont 1952,COMMUNITY STUDIES 32 As Parsons states, the territorial reference is central, though it is bel shy to trey eh that e sul bcm th ‘pons i pect tothe territorial location of both partes... . The population, then, i. (Pt 920, Ih, pe ago (our copies). “Tid, aso (emptor in the eign). 3 GE Bhd, Conmunel Organizations Chisago, Chicago UP. 1969, P- THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 33 "unity specifically exclude notions of soci inceretion The ecg, then, have a distinctive view of community, regarding the solidarity and shared integests of community members as a function of their common residence/jindeed, there is often a great emphasis in their writings on the physical nature of the neighbourhoods in which the residents live, $0 much so that itis difficult to remember, as Don Martindale has Pointed out, that social life isa ‘structure of interaction, not a structure {of stone, steel, cement and asphalt, etc’. The ecological approach has 1 Ssone ofits major premises ‘that there is a continuity in the life patterns | of all organic forms’ The term human ecology wae, in fact, eoned ty 1921 in Park and Burgess’ An Introduction to the Science of Socioleey and the tendency of the ecologists to stress biological analogies and to use biological terms (at least as metaphors) has remained ever since, The | other distinctive aspect of the work of the ecologists is their stress on the spatial consequences of social organization. Amos Havey’s Human Ecology: A theory of Commaaity Structure is the most carefully developed and comprehensive statement of the ecologists’ theoretical position, In it he wrote that ‘the community has often been likened to an individual organism, So intimate and so necessary are the interrelations of its parts ... that any influence felt at one point is almost immediately transmitted throughout. Further, not only is the community a more or less self-sufficient entity, having inherent in it the principle ofits own life process, it has also a growth or natural history with well-defined stages of youth, maturity and senes~ cence. It is therefore a whole which is something different from the sum of its parts, possessing powers and potentialities not present in any of its components. If not an organism, it is at least super. ‘organism.’ All the key elements of the ecological analogy with biology are here, Hawley goes on to discuss both the nature of the biote ‘community and man's place in it, He says of the biologics! community (though he could, as far as many ecologists are concerned, be writing of the human community) “that it is the patterns of symbiotic. and ‘commonalistic relations that develop in a population, itis in the nature of a collective response to the habitat, it constitutes the adjustment of organism to the environment’ Clearly Hawley and other ecologists feel that the customary sociological stress on the uniqueness of man — for example, because of his culture-producing capacity ~ is an over- Dn Martindale, “Introducion’ to Max Weber, The City, New York, Free Press, 1958. p. 29. Amos Hawley. Human Ecology: A Theory of Gommunity Structure, New York, Ronald, 1950, p. ve 2° bid, p. 50. 8 Thi b. 87.Eve COMMUNITY STUDIES vps. Ecology tits finest proved sharp and accurate descriptions SP spl aps of comsurites. In some cies could be july Shi ht "he quo ho mn sate hemes another re lie in abit itn a escrntion of community suc preGrms of its overt and measurable features,’®= What ecology so often aoe. howe, fs to provide explanations of these relationships. a eer every self only a fut source of hypotheses con see ne community rather thn testing of them. = ‘cn he mal ccolgel approve (meaning that practised in cheng in the 1930s su the subject of part of Chapter 4) bas, Comiied with ster approche sy tnt of Weber op oe easy cae Me coctlogally satisfying esplanations of spa paterns thd proces ca be cborsed. One such epic tat of Rex and Maer thei analy of Sparkorook in Birminghary,¥ which will speared inmone detain Chapter 6 In thelr spat analysis the eco- Tues’ pave Tocted in the urban spatial structure what they call sae etsy and these are oowupied by “sub-communitis'. These ‘Novcommunis in Chiago were the subst of separate mono, Fae Thasher onthe gangs, Zorbuugh on the “Gold Coos’ and the Sham 38 Thee ia bli a the work of Thrasher ‘hat there 3 Teneny for Bam bean tefl mone way oc ater the Ti caer of th em wih or, Mun nes Hi bases thelqiound and must ef necety relate his et lsc mile The ccs im ft prose 2 defaion of Smut 2 srt any oe cpt loth 2 sar cre they do tend 10 omit notions of sci “i ; Haley oe example, writes Formally define, community refers oth | structure of relationships through which s localized population provides seesgy cegeirements 2 This is stringy sir to that produced by Pe SAP Te the consequences of thee diffrent interests produce 2 raily diferent accant of eommurits, Like many other scio- sy outs ako res the great advantage of deting With th witelysmell and ooveiet at for mest peste by the Community, In addition Hawley disarns criticism by writing that Sat atempe to exhaust fe Possibles of community oly ke Nags ee no concerned with pajehoogy, seus, 2 Ble PTB a atoare, Race Communi and Conf. Vanden. Oxford onsen : and E°49%, uate, One Thaound Bey" Gangs in Chico, Cag and onto’ Gunso UIP ssa. Harvey Zorba The Got! Gast and te Shon, See nd Lando), Creage UP. 19. Se Fysher oo oe Hey ah cp 80 THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 35 sentiments, motivations and the like . . , not because they are un- important but because the assumptions and points of view of human ecology are not adapted to their treatment. On the other hand, the results of ecological research provide a framework, ie. knowledge of community structure, which should prove useful 10 psychological srady.227 What exactly do the ecologists mean by community structure 2 Clearly it does not refer to the attitudes of individuals but is a property of the aggregate. Indeed, what is now known as the ‘ecological fallacy” in sociology refers to making statements about individuals from aggregate data.*# Hawley states that community structure connotes some sort of ‘orderly arrangement of discrete or at any rate distinguishable Parts ... 10 all the essential functions and their interrelations by which 4 local population maintains itself™.%® The community structure exists independently of particular individuals for ‘generations succeed genera- tions without disrupting the pattern of interdependence that constitutes the community’.#9 Hawley fists the ‘parts that make up the whole” — for example, families, associational corporate units, territorial corporate units, categoric units (age, sex and, more dubiously, class), cliques, Clubs, societies, and neighbourhood associations. In an important and pregnant footnote Hawley states the central problem, but makes no attempt to answer it: “To what extent are they units of the community? ‘The test, no doubt, is the degree to which they affect the functioning of the community as a whole. This may be difficult to determine, ‘What is at issue here, of course, is the matter or relevance, clearly one of the most crucial problems in social science. It hinges, in this case, ‘upon the clarity and demonstrability of the definition of the communal uunit. That, in turn, requires a great deal more exploratory research than community structure has received to date."*® Thus, the ecologists themselves are not unaware of some of the problems that emerge fram their approach, Communities as Organizations ‘The ecological approach relies heavily on analogies with biological organization, There is another approach that also treats communities & Tid, 3 See W. 8. Robinson's classic statemenc, “Revlugical Corretations and the Behaviour of Individuals’, American Sociological Review, 15. 1950. 3 Hawley, op. elt, p. 208. 0 Bid, p. 206. 88 -This seems 10 us to show that Hawley recognizes that power i differentially sistibuted and can affect the collective response to the habitat” Hawley, op. et, p. 218,36 COMMUNITY STUDIES as organizations, but organizations in the scciological sense. Earlier in this chapter it was noted that several definitions of the community, for example the recent ones of Sussman, Kaufman, and Sutton and Kolaja, include some notion of goals or action, Organizations, unlike communities, are social arrangements for achieving desired goals. “Therefore some sociologists have found it wseful to treat communities as organizations. Hillery has continued snd expanded the definitional exercise outlined above in a more recent book, Communal Organizations: A study of Local Societies In this he takes three social systems ~ the village, the city and the total or custodial institution ~ in order to compare and contrast them. Hillery takes the village 1 be a small agricultural settlement*? while, following Louis Wirth, the city is defined as ‘a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially hetero- ‘geneous individuals’. In his definition of the total institution, Hillery followed Goffman's use of the term, ‘being a social system that not only tended to regulate the total lives of the inmates but which also set barriers to social interaction with the outtide’® Using these three types of organization, Hillery’s aim, then, is to develop a theory of commu What rclation does community bear to these three social systems? This is Hillery’s first problem because no one has developed satis- factory taxonomy of community. Hillery decides to confer the term community on the village, on the grounds that ‘no definition could be found which clearly stated that the phenomenon of community was zor to be found insuch a social system’. The village, then, is assumed to be community, though community covld de found in other types of social system. Tt’is used as an object of comparison with other social systems whose status as communities is more questionable ~ the city and the total institution, Once Hillery establishes the villageas community, he appends the adjective folk’ 7 Hillery, treating communitiesin this way as, ‘objects, neatly sets up the eight logically possible hypotheses to test against the data concerning the three social systems. As can be seen from the diagram, these hypotheses concern the differences, quantita- tive and qualitative, between the folk village, the city and the total institution, Hillery's procedure is similar to that in his paper on the definitions 42 Hillery, op. cit, p. 12. thie Be. # Ibid pata. Thad ps 12, 1 This it derived from the work of Robert Redfield and is considered in more eral later in this chap THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 37 v v v van yan L\ vy v c ieee: T v v v c ‘ . 4 Teac ; T V = Village —— Ditference in degree c= city tH Ditterence in king T = Toto! institution Hillery's Typoiogy of Communal Organizations (from Hillery {1968} Pe 15) sabe which ar ict ye cope spa eoeaton Taking his nineteen components of the total institution, however, he found that on only three are the differences qualitative. Total institu, 4 Hillery, op. its pp. 29 1 Tbid., p. 61. ee38 COMMUNITY STUDIES Unie those wi have ued communis as clogs oe ogi tim rhs approach i speialy concerned wih what canbe learned tom’ comreny ues ahve mara reese, Ma seine Book Te Elia of Communi dseses the ie URGES, thins nependac and deceed ol sorry ea Be sated om th sal procesc of urbanation, ndustazation an Goreurtauon, Ses oak sopresets genera endeney hin the a commniy studs toe ois i vo sted pro iene sie aicaty af gerne fom nda mnuniy studies and the need for an adequate theoretical framework within Inch co lcate the communiy studied ina sequence of change ‘At the beginning of his book, Stein deals with some of the American 9 hid, p. 142, quoting Parsons, The Structure ad Process of Modern Society, oy Hillery, op. cit., pp. 185-6. 2 fp . eco terminology, “those shat nce vis and tht vl acid’, aid, p86 ids Bi sein, The elise of Conmniy, New York (and London), Harper Row, 1964 ‘THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 39 studies that will be examined in more detail in Chapter 4 ~ namely those of Robert Park and the other Chicago ecologists; the Lynds’ ‘Middletown’ and Lloyd Warner's ‘Yankee City’, all of which were written in the 19205 and 305. Stein uses theit work ‘as case studies showing the ways in which large-scale social processes shaped human affairs in local settings”. These processes are urbanization, elaborated with Chicago deta, industrialzation, elaborated with data from the ‘wo Middletown’? studies, and the growth of bureaucracy, with data from the five Yankee City volumes.*® Stein would be the first to admit that his are selective accounts and that, in any case, community studies are always confined in time and space. The studies he used are not ‘representative in any statistical sense, but Stein claims that these communities ‘were undergoing processes of structural transformation that affected all American cities and towns to one or another Uegrec, and therefore could be used as laboratories in which to study these representative social processes’s” And the best community studies have always been of transitional processes. After dealing with those classic American studies, Stein analyses the slum (through William Whyte’s ‘Sereet Corner Society) bohemia (through Caroline Ware's Greenwich Villag)* the Deep South (through Davis's and Gardner's Deep South and Dollard's Caste and Glass in a Southern Toten) the US. army (Ghrough The American Soldier by Samuel Stoulfer et al) and Suburbia (through Secley, Sim, and Loosley's Crestood Hejghe and William Whyte's The Organisation Man) Stein has ‘reflected? on The Eclipse of Community and makes it clear that the book is a Kiad of sociological autobiography, most of the communities having personal and symbolic significance for him. He enthusiastically quotes Robert Park, who insisted thatthe student should deeply involve himself inthe life ofa particular community whose problems he should take over and make his own, Whilst the precise consequences of this sort of approach Will be discussed in the next chapter, it should be noted here that, though Stein is clearly deeply involved, albeit ar second hand in the communities mentioned above, that is no substitute for reading the original. So rather than increase the distance from these studies ~ © Ibid p. 59 See below, np. gt-t0r, 8 Soe below, pp. 82-97 & See below, pp. 1or-art 5 Stein, op. eltn Pe 9 Published in’19$5, Chicago (and London), Chicago U.P. ‘ Published in 1935, New York, Houghton Milli. Sce Chapter 4, below pp. 111-116. ‘8 Published in 1949, Princeton, Princeton U.P. 1 See Chapter 4, below pp. 121-130.‘COMMUNITY STUDIES Bell and Newby on Stein on Warner! - some comments will be made con the weaknesses of this approach, "there a conncton hetveen the three proceses andthe tte of Stein’s book. Stein wrote: ‘American communities can be seen con- tinuing the vital processes uncovered in Muncie by the Lynds. Substantive values and traditional patterns are continually being dis- carded... . Community ties become increasingly dependent upon Centralized authorities and agencies in all areas of life. On the other fhand, personal loyalties decrease their range with the successive weakening of national ties, regional ties, community ties, family ties, Ind finally ties to a coherent image of one’s self. .. . Suburbia is so fascinating just because it reveals the “eclipse” of community atone of ies darkest inomients-©> For the moment we shall ignore the empirical falsity of this Tast statement; the argument, however, is clear: the three processes of urbanization, industiliaton and bureaucratiztion fre breaking up the above-mentioned complexes of primary group felacionships and resulting in the community's ‘eclipse’. Martindale hus pointed out ina splendidly vitriolic article, however, that Stein uses the term ‘community’ as though it refers to everything that has been described a5 such, including cities, “Ar the same time, urbanization is inconsistently treated as one of the processes which bring the com- munity into “eclipse”. Ifthe city is a community and if urbanization represents the extension of patterns typical ofa city, urbanization ought snore logically to represent a peculiar kind of community formation rather than community destaction.¥? Thus Stein can be seen 10 be willy not only of blurring the distinction between communities an Bee aon of ther, but of the familar interference of val judge ments in the definition of community. This is a pity, for attemprs to synthesize the detiled knowledge contained in community studies of particular, circumscribed and seemingly parochial social forces are Tare, but are nevertheless capable of contributing to a formulation of more general theory of societal processes. Community Study as Method We have noted that Stein’s interest in community studies was not simply a seminal one, but an interest in what they could tell him about Stein, op. city p. 329. 1 See Below, pp. 121-130. © on Martindale, “The Formation and Destruction of Communities’, in G. Folushan and W. Hliseh, Explorations i Social Chang, Rostledgs, Lindon, 1964, P66 20 gn udicr 3 explicitly deals with dhe methodological problems of community studies, more detailed claboration is found thee. Sere THEORIES OF COMMUNITY a wider societal processes, In other words, Stein was less interested in the community as an object of study as in community studies being ‘method of elucidating data illustrative of some wider generalizaticn, Such a view i echoed by Havinghurst and Jansen in thei trend report" on Community Research, published as an edition of Current Socolegy in 1967: ‘A community study is not a branch of sociology, such as ecology, demography and social psychology. Rather it is @ form of ecological research that is useful for a variety of research purposes.” This approach to community studies leads the sociologist to ask a different series of questions in and ofthe community from those which are asked when the community is treated as an objec As Arensberg and Kimball remark “The traditional community study has as its goal the enumeration of the arribites that distinguish it." They, on the oxhes hhand, are the principal proponents of the alternative approach of viewing the community study as a way, in their graphic phrase, of ‘getting t0 grips with social and psychological facts in the raw’! The community study is therefore seen as an example of the empirical, iz ductive tradition, the models created being ‘won from raw dita themselves, as Knowledge of their interconnectedness and processes unfold from the facts gained in observational research. .. ‘The te- searcher must often learn within the field situation itself the questions hhe must ask." There will always be, therefore, a particularly elose, hhazardous, but potentially rewarding relationship between theory and rcthod in communicy studies but, needless to say, such an approach is not without its dificulties. One is a methodological difficulty about proof (this will be dealt with in the next chapter), Another arises from the fact that, as Arensberg.and Kimball argue, ‘the thing-in-itsel, the community as object, is imperfectly separated, in concept and in prac- tice, from the use of it, as field or sample, where the community is that within which work is done, observations made, relationships traced as ‘As @ method, the community study is just one of a number of ob- servational techniques, central to which is the ‘massive immersion" (gain to use Arensberg and Kimball's words) of the researcher. This will have certain rather problematical consequences for the researchers? data, not the least of which is how reliable and valid they are, An observational, rather than a statistical or experimental method, means { R. J. Havighorst and A. J. Jansen, ‘Community Research’, Curren Sociloy, xv. oa 7 (our emphasis). “i “Arenberg and Kimball op eis 7 Tbid., pe Re . ae + Bid pe 8. Ibid pe: — ‘ion and reliability are Froup experiments, These problems are again dealt with more fully in ‘lke th cet ys, the community socio- Communities as Types ~ the Rural-Urban Contin fimnon, 1968. “The Rutl-Ustun Continaum Sele THEORIES OF COMMUNITY a {0 urban, on which communities can be placed. His characterization of folk society is, however, much more complete than that of urban society- the latter being scen as the antithesis of the former. He summarized the traits of ‘the folk society’ in a paper with that ttle written in 1947: ‘Such a society is smal, isolated, non-literate and homogencous, with 4 strong sense of group solidarity. The ways of living ure conventional- ized into the coherent system which we call “a culture”. Behaviour is ‘traditional, spontaneous, uncritical and personal: there is no legislation cor habit of experiment and reflection for intellectual ends, Kinship, its relations and institutions, are the type categories of experience and the familial group is the unit of action. The sacred prevails over the secular; the economy is one of status rather than the market.’® As a typology of community this lacks both specificity and focus, something which could be seen both as a strength and as a weakness. Its strength is that with such a multiplicity of traits a variety of causal relationships are suggested. Its great weskness is that it is not clear which are causes and which are effects, which should have the status of dependent variables and which should have the status of independent variables, However, as 4 supporter of this typology Minar has remarked: “If we had the ‘answer to all these questions, there would be no need for the ideal types.'7" In his paper, Redfield is quite explicit chat ‘the type (i.e, the Folk Society) is an imagined entity, created only because through it we may hope to understand reality’.?# If the folk society is placed at one end of 4 continuum and its characteristics are very similar to those usually associated more generally with the concept of ‘community’ itis difficult to escape the conclusion that as ‘villages/settlements? (here an attempt hhas been made to deliberately avoid a ‘loaded’ term) are placed on this continuum further away from the folk society end, they are less and less ‘communities’. The characterization of folk society can be con- sidered again with this point in mind. “The folk society is a small society’:" so in the folk-urban continuum, the larger the community, the more urban its. “The folk society is an isolated society’:*” therefore, the less isolated the more urban. ‘This isolation is one half of a whole ‘of which the other half is intimate communication among the members of a society’:$ so the less intimate the communication the more urban % Robert Reciield, “The Folk Society’, American Journal of Sociology, $2, 1947, p. 203, 77H. Minar, ‘Community-Society Continua’, International Eneyclopaedia of ‘the Sacial Seiencet, Vol. 3. Ps 177 3 Reidel, op. cit. p. 295. * Ibid, p. 298. 80 Bid, p. 296, bid, p. 396,aa conmuusury sTuDins soma, rum en a eT cy homogenous with a strong sense of group solidaritys#* and if we Bid, 9. 296, Bid, p 297 thd” 9.397 th bo a9n 1 Tab With, Urbanism a «Way of Life! Amercian Jounal of Soceoy, Irban’ Sociology, London, Allen & Unwin, 1968. University of Ilinois Press, 1951, P. 434 THFORIES OF COMMUNITY 45 ith us for thousands of years. It may also be argued that, in the tradi- > of the classical writers on community, Redfild’s “Yolk society” is riddled with value judgements. As Lewis states ‘It contains the old Rousseauan notion of primitive peoples as noble savages ond the corollary that with civilization comes the fall of man.'*! Joseph Gusfield documents the ‘misplaced polarities’ of the rural- urban continuum with data mainly from India.!” He argues that itis fallacious to assume that a so-called folk society or traditional society has always existed in its present form or that its recent past represents an unchanged situation. It is simiarly fallacious to believe that folk society has an homogeneous social structure. The old is not necessarily replaced by the new, there seems to bea great capacity for folk and urban cultures ~ so-called ~ to co-exist even with mutual adaptations. Urban culture, indeed, does not necessurily weaken folk culture ~ it may strengthen it, Manuel Avila’s study of four ‘traditional’ rural Mexican communities, also provides a corrective t0 some of Redlild’s: mis- conceptions.®! Avila found, for example, that these communities had considerable capacity for economic growth, the peasants being neither unresponsive to market forces nor uninterested in improving theit condition, Two of the four communities examined were also. those studied by Redlield in the 1930s. And far from agrecing with the folk conceptions of Redfield he concludes: "Contrary to the popular notions, neither stagnation, nor lack of interest hive characterized [the four villages). For the truth is that the villages have not been mere by. standers passively contemplating outside events. Instead they have been active promoters and development seckers, very much interested in working towards a better life." This is a far ery from the “folk society’ While it can thus be shown that the rural ‘end’ of the continuum is not a single type of unchanging entity, the urban end too, despite the writings of Wirth, is extraordinarily difficult to conceptualize a8 2 single way of tite, Particularly troublesome ate the so-called “urban villages’. Lewis’ work in Mexico City*® has shown that peasants adapted to city life much more easily than folk-urban theory would suggest: ‘Mayer has coined the term encapsulazion to describe the situation of ‘migrants in East London who live in the city but are noc of the city. Did 435 90 Joseph Gusfiel, “Tradition and Modernity: misplaced polarities in the study of teil change’, American Journal of Sociology, 72: ok, 2s Manvel Avil, Fredo and Groth, Cheng, Universi of Chicago Press Oe bid. 16s, 1 Osear Lewis, ‘Urbanization without Beeakdow 1965, Chilaven of Sanchee. Penguin Books, 1964 iemific Monty, 78,46 COMMUNITY STUDIES “Thus, while some are born “urban” and others achieve urbanization, none can be std to have urbanization thrust upon them. Gans’ paper, “Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life™” is an important addition to this debate. Init he argues that, apart from urban villages, the central teas of cities are anyway by no means homogeneous, and he concludes that ecological and typological approaches are in no way sensitive enough, He maintain instead that class and family eyele have more Value - the former is the best indicator of individuals’ ability to choose and the latter determines the area of choice which is most likely. Gans concludes, “If ways of life do not coincide with settlement eype and if these ways are functions of class and lie cycle rather than of the ecological attributes of the settlement, a sociological definition of the city cannot be formulated." This implies that no sociological definition of any settlement type can be formulated, and if this is true it would destroy notions of a rural-urban or any other continuum. Despite these criticisms of Redlield’s typology, it has continued to exert its influence, It clearly has the heuristic appeal of being a relatively simple way of conceptualizing social change and of classifying communities, Indeed there have been recent variations of this typology, ‘which nevertheless tke the flk-urban continuum as the starting point. Nancie L. Gonzalea for example, has used the term ‘neoteric society” for the communities of Caribs she studied in the West Indies, She cisims that this type cuts across the rural-urban or folk-urhan con- tinwum, The barrios, or shanty towns, surrounding the large cities of the West Indies and Latin Americt contain neither primitive nor peasant inhabitants and their traditions are either absent or very shallow {nd contemporary. The characteristics of the neoteric communities ate their varied ethic or national origins, relative poverty, openness, Secularity, face-to-face interpersonal relations and lack of apathy on. the part of the people concerning the world and their future. They also tend to be matrifocal in their kinship organization. As she sums up, “Te-may be a mistake to look for rural social organizational parallels in the city barrias, What we see may be new types of social organizations ‘which only appear on the surface ro be like that of the country, but ‘which are structurally and functionally quite different precisely in terms of their relationships to higher levels of integration," ic. the OF, Mayer, "Migeancy and the Stady of Afeicans in Towns’, American Anthropologist, 64. 1962, D. 591 wT J. Gans, ‘Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life’ in A. M. Rose (ed. Hlaonan Behaviour and Social Processes, London, Routledge, 1952. Di 633. 1 Nancie’ L, Gonzalez, Society and Pistry, 12, 1970. Ibid, B13. e Neoteric Society’, Comparative Studies in THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 47 cities themselves. Gonvale nevertheless clay find it welt create 4 ideal type forthe communities she han stadie in contest, Anthony Richmond bas expanded the roa-urbn continuum to include ‘post-industrial’ society," developing it to include a number of traits, as shown in the table: aa Traditional —Indusricl Patra Form of cpormptons Genincha Goselschalt —_Verindngouresae paimeacton Communes Aocaons Soca Networks esti Aarsual Mecha) Automated tein, Cun fetal Cla Merraracy ssammneston, On Written Etectronie cransport Horse sail Rural: Urban_—Toverurban Neen sSeiton? Pirate ene mabSinion” (ed.), Migration, London, Cambridge " x : ‘ociety, Glencoe, Free Press, 1987 (London, Collier-Macmillan, 1957).8 COMMUNITY STUDIES fimensional continuum between rural and urban communities. Indeed He pea de of day sone of which wl be deus i ner chapters, 0 suggest, in the words of Leo Schnore, that roral-urban Gifferences ‘while clearly diminishing are still crucial’ They have Gemonstrated this with the use of demographic data on the size of ‘community and its rate of change, its density, the age of the settlement fnd its independence (js it dependent on other communitics2), its sex and age composition and the rates of migration. Yet when they wrn {o the ‘structural aspects of community’, which are not so readily amenable to ecological mapping, they do not really demonstrate that there are rural-urban differences. Schnore says that‘. it is no wonder that the sociological understanding of community is at a fairly primitive level’ because the ‘manifold threads of imterrelationships make the community very complex system’. He writes that ‘the analysis, of community structure remains an important task of sociological effort"¥? — a plea reminiscent of that of Hawley’s on p. 35. In fact, neither need have been so pessimistic, for out of the idea of the rural- turban continuum has come some of the more promising dvances in the analysis of community. These will be dealt with in the final section Community, Localiy and Network ‘The final section of this chapter atemprs to show dhe directions in Which sociological thought onthe concep of community is moving. A omsensus on the theory of community appears as remote a ver, though tha snot to say thi the area of dicoure has not shifted somewhat, "The Brad ne of debate are now Between these who regard the com ‘munity asa legitimate objet of sociological ingiry, while at che same time, pathape; wishing to alter the nomenclature, and those who do *h rd th ity legitimate object of "Those who regard che community a a egtimate object of soci- logical enquiry ccarly have to resolve the problems of definition and taluc judgements, There must be x departure from the Gomeinichaft onceptatiztinns of communities where, 8 John Jackson has written, there fa harking back to some pre-existing rral Wop’ in which the fttral condition of man i sedentary !¥and movement away fom which is a deviant activity ‘associated with disorganization and a threat {o the coubished hirmony of Genenchaft relationships which are 2 Schnore, vp ely 130 408 Schnore, “Community in N. 1967, P. 114. 38 Jackson, op. cits Pe 3 smeler (¢.). Sociology, New York, Wi THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 49 implied by a life lived within a fixed social framework’.!° Value judgements are one problem, ambiguity is another: Kénig has shown that ‘there is a good deal of very obvious ambiguity’, even in the German derivation of the word (Gemeinschaft, Gemeinde, Gemeinderschaft) and particularly between the ‘community as an administrative unit and the community as a social reality’,t00 One solution to the problems of the definition of community, indeed ‘an avoidance of the term “community’ altogether, has been proposed bby Margaret Stacey.107 If institutions are locality based and interrelated there may well be, she argues, a /acal social system that is worthy of sociological attention. She does not want to call this local social system a‘community’ for the later, she feels, is non-concept, In other words, Stacey claims that the definitional debate about community is something ‘more; it represents a much more serious conceptual disagreement about whether the commusity is a geographical area, or a sense of belonging, or non-work relations and so on, Instead. sociologists should Concentrate on institutions and their interrelations in specific localities. Stacey is not concerned whether a locality is isolated or not. She writes, for cxample, that ‘the consequences for the social relations within a locality of changes introduced from outside have afier all produced some interesting studies’! Stacey's approach brings 2 welcome rigour to the field and she writes that it is possible to wilk with some certainty about ‘(i the establishment and maintenance of a local social system} Gi) local conditions where no such system can be expected (ii) some circumstances under which an existing system might be modified or destroyed; (iv) certain interrelations between systems and their parts; (¥) the interaction of local and national systems’. Stacey's concept of a ‘local social system’ will obviously be empirically varied, for the nature and configuration of the interrelations of social institutions are very diverse. Rarely will there be a completely inter- related social system, with all institutions present: in any given locality itis likely, as she says, that ‘there will either be no local social system, ‘or some kind of partial local social system’.!® Stacey does not intend that the ‘complete local social system’ should be open to the same sort of objections as the concept of ‘community’ or, for that matter, ‘folk society’. She is arguing that itis theoretically possible to list systemati= cally the social institutions which might be present in a locality with all 105 Tid. p, 3. 4 Rene Konig, The Community, London, Routledges 1968.» p. 1 'o? Margaret Stacey. “The Myth of Cominunity Swale Britch Journal of ‘Soeiolos. 30. 1969, 0 bid 139. 1 bids 1394 0 Bid, p. 14850 COMMUNITY STUDIES their interconnections. This can be regarded as a model and against it the empirically observed presence and absence of institutions and con- nections can be plotted, Another significant aspect of Stacey's argument is her insstence on the inclusion of time as a dimension ~".. «the state of a system at a given moment in time will be considered and the tem- poral conditions which have led to that state and what may follow will be indicared’!#t ‘She concludes her paper with thirty-one interrelated propositions about local social systems. Tt is not possible here fully to reproduce hher argument in all its complexity, but two examples of the kind of propositions about local social systems that she makes ean be given: ong Se i men a TR OE ye aferonce hee gto her own Tradition and change, 1961, TO Diy pe a3 Teak SER The Commnisy in America, Cheapo, Rand’ McNally, 1963. THEORIES OF COMMUNITY st its various social units and sub-systems to extra-community systems? 118 while the ‘horizontal’ pattern is ‘the structural and functional relation of its various social units and sub-systems to each other’. ‘The ‘great change’ involves the increasing vertical orientation of local com= ‘munities and Warren examines it in terms of seven aspects: the division of labour, differentiation of interests and associations, increasing syste~ matic relationships to a larger society, bureaucratization and imper- sonalization, transfer of functions to profit enterprise and government, urbanization and suburbanization, and finally, changing values. Within the locality will be individuals, those, for example, Merton has called “cosmopolitans’7 and Stacey ‘non-traditionalists’, who are in Warren's terms more strongly oriented vertically in the community participation, and others, those Merton calls ‘locals’ and Stacey ‘traditionalists’, who are more strongly oriented horizontally.!!8 Warren's schema presents a framework within which the study of social processes impinging on the locality from outside can be ac- ‘commodated, and this provides a complementary addition to Stacey's approach. It should be recognized, however, that Stacey remains in the mainstream of community sociologists, despite her denunciation of the term, for considering the local social system, or what others have termed the community, as an object of study. Other recent approaches that have emerged from the declining influence of the rural-urban continuum, however, deny even this, Both Gans and Pabl,!!9 for example, doubt the sociological relevance of the physical differences between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ in highly complex industrial societies. We are being asked to consider, in other words, whether the community is a sociological variable at all or merely a ‘geographical expression an approach has resulted from recent detailed work on communities which has shown that, far from there being an exclusive continuum from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, rclationships of both types are found in the same comminity. The Parsonian_pattern-variables, breaking down as they do the solidary concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Ihave opened the way for analysis along these lines. As Gans has observed, ‘Ways of life do not coincide with settlement patterns. The emphasis for the sociologist then, should not be on geographical demographic or economic indicators but on changing social relations. Pahl in his important critical article on the rural-urban continuum!#t 18 Bid, p. 151. 18 tid p. 162. HT ROR, Metton, Social Theory & Social Structure, Glencoe, Free Press PLE stacey (1960), op, et 19 Pahl (1966). op. ee 120 Gans (1962), op ela Ps 643 421 Pal (1966), op. eit.se COMMUNITY STUDIES ‘even concludes that he can find little universal evidence for such a eae etl let cnn den He oe ‘out that there are a number of non-overlapping continua in the complex cee a Sal me oltre nun see hake ae ele pe singe Po atinsa Scour anno SESE i tin prc cae is the action of a fundamental distinction between the local and the se en eer la lapel a eta ata cowl mip ra cared Rect oe fal apa Ce cue olan ih Wc eer Waren at community altogether and is concerned only with nationally and penal el ame The concept for analysing, indeed for conceptualizing, these social te eta ie iage ne rope emetins Harel el ta sed Hc Te Sie aya Sl Near She age te wa ya sui pallor wx ore 12 Tp 286 (Our ems). : 22 John Warnes “Che and Commies fn a Norvesin Island Parish, Henan Relations 7.1954. to es Ea, Roly and Soci! Network, London, Tavistock, 1957. 1) There does not seem to us tO be anything against changing the word urban’ to all. "30 Bott, op. cit. Ps 99. d ‘THEORIES OF COMMUNITY 3 Two aspects ofthe concept are particularly relevant in the light of the foregoing discussion, Firstly, the ‘mesh’ or the ‘connectedness’ of the network clearly varies fom locality to locality. Secondly, the ‘range’ or ‘spread’ of the network will vary from individual to individual. We would dispute the utility of Pahl’s notion of networks as ‘non-place communities’ and Bott’s conceptualiza:ion of social change as ‘from community to network’.!? The latter we fail to understand as meaning anything but ¢ move from one sort of network to another ~ perhaps from a ‘close-knit? - meaning both a high proportion of connectedness and multiplexiy ~ to a loose-knit network. Networks for some people Will be locality bound, for others less so, Traditional notions of community may be subsumed under the label of a ‘locality bound, close-knit network’. Indeed one of the changes that is occurring for ‘many, but not all social groups is that social networks are becoming less locality bound and less close-knit. What the precise change has been will only be discoverable from detailed and painstaking empirical work, ‘but it will certainly be more complex than the ‘vulgar Ténniesism’ of ‘from community to network’. A battery of concepts has recently been elaborated by Clyde Mitchell and his colleagues" to analyse networks that carefully cistinguishes between their morphological or structural characteristics, and their content. ‘What little empirical data there is directly relating to social networks leads us to believe that it is indeed « powerful analytical tool and that the two most powerful independent variables working on the structure and content of the social network are class and family cycle. When a satisfactory way of recording social networks has been worked out, then ‘we will be well on the way to having comparable and theoretically relevant data on communities. How far we are from this position will be scen in the aext chapter. 2 Ray Pu ‘Patterns of Urban Life’, London, Longmans, 1970, p. 106 13: Elizabeth Bott, “Family, Kinship & Marriage’ in Mary Douglas ef al. (eds), Man in Soret), London, Macdonald, 1962) p. 102. "93, Clyde Michell (6d), Social Nerworks in ant Urban Situation, Manchester, Manchester UP, 1969.