The Communities We Are Regaining but Need to Lose
A critical commentary on community building in beyond-place societies
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2172011 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nigel Sprigings, Chris Allen (0000-0002-1296-8989) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 389-411 |
| Publication date | 2005-11-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Community Work & Family (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1366-8803 • E-ISSN: 1469-3615 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13668800500263032 |
| OpenAlex | W1565998559 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 15 |
Michael Young and Gerard Lemos' (1997 Young, M. and Lemos, G. 1997. The communities we have lost and can regain, London: Lemos and Crane. [Google Scholar]) text The communities we have lost and can regain has had a substantial influence on New Labour's communitarian thinking. This paper critically examines a specific aspect of New Labour's communitarian agenda, namely, its use of public housing policy to rebuild communities in order to combat social exclusion on so-called 'sink estates'. The paper is presented in four main parts. The first part of the paper discusses how, why and to what extent 'community' has been lost, with particular reference to public housing estates. The second part examines why community rebuilding is now seen as the solution to the problems caused by the loss of community on public housing estates and, to this end, pays particular attention to the communitarian values that underpin New Labour's third way. The third part of the paper examines some empirical studies of community in order to highlight the key characteristics of 'community' and thereby develop a critical understanding of what New Labour are currently seeking to achieve. The fourth part of the paper juxtaposes this discussion of 'community' with a discussion of emerging socio-economic trends that have been identified in the literature on late modernity and globalization. By highlighting emerging socio-economic trends such as residential mobility into the community debate, the paper concludes by criticizing the policy of community building as 'good for you'. Our key point is that community building restricts the residential mobility of poorer households and exacerbates (rather than combats) their social exclusion because a key indicator of social inclusion is their ability to take advantage of the social, cultural and economic opportunities that so often exist 'elsewhere
Business · Economic growth · Economics · Globalization · Modernity · Order (exchange · Political science · Public policy · Sociology · Homelessness and Social Issues · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Social Policy and Reform Studies · Law
Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning
Neoliberal Urban Policy, Aspirational Citizenship and the Uses of Cultural Distinction
At Least I Can Do Something’
On the Epistemological Limitations of the “Area Effects” Debate
Explaining Tenancy Sustainment Rates in British Social Rented Housing
The Localism Act 2011
Small Houses, Big Community
Ordinary, the Same as Anywhere Else
Risk Society
The Inclusive Society?
Distinction
Modernity and self-identity
Economies of Signs and Space
Family and Kinship in East London
Sociology and Aesthetics
The Problems of Communitarian Politics
The Symbolic Construction of Community
Housing policy, housing management and tenant power in the ‘risk society’
The Nation-state Meets the World
Professional Work and Professional Careers in Manchester's Business and Financial Sector
Residential Mobility and Residualisation in Social Housing in England
| Citations per year | 0.38 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2005 - 2020 (16) |
| Highly cited | No |