Uncovering ‘Community’

Challenging an Elusive Concept in Development and Disaster Related Work

Bibliographic Data

ID13024164
AuthorsAlexandra Titz (0009-0001-4846-212X, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, corresponding author), Terry Cannon (Institute of Development Studies), Fred Krüger (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, corresponding author)
Year2018
Volume8
Issue3
Pages71-71
Publication date2018-08-31
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSocieties (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2075-4698 • E-ISSN: 2075-4698
PublisherMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/soc8030071
OpenAlexW2888904997
LanguageEN
Citations received91
References cited65

In all areas of academic or practical work related to disaster risk, climate change and development more generally, community and its adjunct community-based have become the default terminology when referring to the local level or working ‘with the people’. The terms are applied extensively to highlight what is believed to be a people-centred, participatory, or grassroot-level approach. Today, despite, or because of, its inherent ambiguity, ‘community’ tends to be used almost inflationarily. This paper aims to analyse the way the concept of ‘community’ has come into fashion, and to critically reflect on the problems that come with it. We are raising significant doubts about the usefulness of ‘community’ in development- and disaster-related work. Our approach is to first consider how ‘community’ has become popular in research and with humanitarian agencies and other organisations based on what can be considered a ‘moral licence’ that supposedly guarantees that the actions being taken are genuinely people-centred and ethically justified. We then explore several theoretical approaches to ‘community’, highlight the vast scope of different (and contested) views on what ‘community’ entails, and explain how ‘community’ is framing practical attempts to mitigate vulnerability and inequity. We demonstrate how these attempts are usually futile, and sometimes harmful, due to the blurriness of ‘community’ concepts and their inherent failure to address the root causes of vulnerability. From two antagonistic positions, we finally advocate more meaningful ways to acknowledge vulnerable people’s views and needs appropriately

Ambiguity · Citizen journalism · Computer security · Engineering ethics · Framing (construction · Geography · Political science · Public relations · Scope (computer science · Sociology · Terminology · Vulnerability (computing · Work (physics · Computer Science · Disaster Management and Resilience · Disaster Response and Management · Engineering · Law · Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research