Category: Community

Lately I’ve been picking in a few different ways at the idea of boundaries – how they define us or allow us to express our choices; how they offer possibilities for growth through the potentially powerful limitation of options (see Notes One). It’s just a thought really, this concept of an edge where ‘we’ meet ‘the world’ and decide what we want to happen there.

On one level, it’s a question of identity: what makes one entity different from another. ‘Identity’ possibly coming down to our choices and the rules we live by (whether consciously chosen, inherited, or some blend of the two); this idea of a regulatory presence governing a space and bringing to it a sense of definition.

And when it comes to definition, I suppose we need an idea of our options and what they might ‘mean’ socially; a sort of acclimatisation to the human world of meaning. It’s clearly a vast world. Once we’ve tracked back historically or culturally in various directions we’re talking about a massive amount of options, interpretations and re-interpretations of what it means to be human (Notes Two).

Essentially, it seems we now live in these increasingly open and overlapping communities; often dipping from one to another to find what suits us best, allowing us to express or explore different aspects of our ‘personalities’. It’s quite a beautiful thing really, but almost inevitably risks both division and conflict.

I mean, humans tend to seek what we have in common in order to forge stable bonds through the constancy of identity and relationship. A large part of ‘society’ must be knowing where we stand and what it all means, for us and about us. Nations, historically, arising from what groups of people had in common, their shared outlooks and interests in life.

One of the beautiful challenges of modern times seems to be this free-flowing convergence of different ways of being. Challenging to the extent that it takes a strong yet flexible sense of self to not feel threatened by others making different choices. Communicating confidently yet tolerantly in a world of constant difference doesn’t seem to be coming naturally (Note Three).

It clearly ‘is’ challenging. Across the globe, in big and little ways, we’re struggling to understand one another, cope with life’s demands, and find ways to be more considerate and inclusive through our words and actions. And that’s opening doors to address our changing relationships to people, resources and infrastructure; whether we’re talking of technology or community.

Modern life’s fascinating in that we’re more connected than ever, yet local communities are struggling to ‘compete’. Community seemingly used to be this really living, vibrant reality where people connected culturally, socially, and economically. Arguably quite powerful places where life ‘happened’ as people found their roles within it (Note Four).

How our tangible communities might evolve to find their place within modern life may be confronting at times, but also an amazing opportunity to express our values by making meaningful changes to how we’re living.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Masks we all wear
Note 1: Limits having a purpose
Note 1: Codes of behaviour
Note 2: Meaning in culture
Note 2: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 3: Listening, tolerance & communication
Note 4: Community as an answer

For some different though not unrelated ideas around limits, power and modern life, there’s Pre-tech in film.

The sense of what’s OK and what isn’t makes an interesting conversation. After all, who’s to say what matters and what standards should or can be applied within a collective setting? Obviously there’s law which is reasonably well-defined, but also evolving; then our strongly held but strangely formed beliefs or conventions around how to live. Between all that, where do we stand?

Looking at it traditionally there are those stories we tell or are told that serve to justify, explain or sustain society and foster the attitudes seen as necessary within it: the narratives of history, culture or belief that shape our sense of identity, belonging and commitment to a common path.

Within that, certain characteristics, qualities or values might stand out as prized by any given society: ways of being that are encouraged and socially validated as admirable. A country’s traditions, celebrations and conversations effectively becoming this process of reinforcement as citizens are reminded of their past, the events and people who made it what it is.

While ‘all that’ may have been strongly felt even into recent generations however, it seems to be fading somewhat. National storylines that, by default, seek to make themselves right and others wrong are hard to maintain alongside the internet, where multiple perspectives are far more present and narratives harder to control. We now know that single truths are only part of a story.

In that world, what’s the right way to be? These days law itself is more often seeming a battleground where economic or social interests fight for rights, recognition or vindication on a playing field where money tends to win. But, even without that, is the legal system ever a starting point for social standards or simply the last recourse for proving a point?

Beyond what’s covered by law, there’s clearly a vast territory of social behaviour that also needs some regulation (see Notes One). Without the strongly held reins of tradition, education or religion, what guides us? While in the past there may’ve been greater respect for authority and received wisdom, we’re now seeming more fiercely individualistic as we reject, question and disdain much we might be told.

We might all have our own sense of right and wrong – the outcome of praise, punishment or environment teaching us what society values so we adjust ourselves accordingly – which we may see as beyond question, but much of it surely arises from a subjective experience of social pressures and personal desires (Notes Two). Do we truly know what’s best, beyond that process of social approximation?

It’s interesting to consider, as in many ways the fabric of society seems to have been deconstructed in a fairly small period of time. Shared ideas of how to be and why, once quite clear, now appear almost non-existent. Behind that though, ideas of morality or ethics based upon the worth of human life, the impact we have, and how that forms realities we all have to reckon with are presumably just as important as ever.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Empathy in a world that happily destroys
Note 1: Antisocial behaviour & the young
Note 1: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 2: Human nature and community life
Note 2: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 2: “The Spirit of Community”

In terms of how we practically manage our lives together, all of this weaves into the theme of Community.

Finding solutions to complex, ongoing, fast-moving problems isn’t going to be simple, but I often find myself wondering to what extent community might form a strong part of how people address such things.

I mean, society seems to be struggling on a fair few fronts to work through the challenges thrown up by modern ways of living (see Notes One). At times it seems that everything – the entire wealth of human knowledge, diversity and experience through all time and space – became animated, connected, widely available, and began self-reflexively evolving at an astonishing pace. Little wonder we struggle to keep up, let alone lead.

But my point, in that paragraph as much as the posts it referenced, is that surely all this is “here” to serve us as a human community. The path of civilisations, the development and application of understanding, all led to this point where we were able to think on this level and employ that knowledge in creating systems to assist us further.

Surely modern life is the product of our collective journey, our pooled insight. Systems we have today essentially arising out of our scrutiny of the past: how societies were organised; ways culture influenced communities, demonstrating and shaping beliefs; all the different forms and ideas that have served people in the past. We looked at that and made our choices.

We might get caught up in the turbulence of our times – the constant updates and innovations, the ever-shifting social or moral conventions, the juxtaposition of diverse ideas and cultures – but beneath it all there’s presumably still this bedrock of what human community is, needs and creates for us (Notes Two).

Within that, we can find the importance of social understanding: the regulation of our behaviour out of consideration for others; the care or concern we draw upon to communicate, impart meaning or give structure to our lives (Notes Three). An appreciation of how our personal choices impact others, feeding into shared systems and creating shared consequences (Notes Four).

The central point being that we are all connected. We may retreat into transactional relationships, hide behind the masks of corporate functions, shut down inconvenient ties or drift toward the empowering affirmation of those who see things as we do, but that doesn’t change the reality of our social situations.

There seems to be a truth to community, to the relationships between people, the struggles we all face, the passing of time and how all these things must work themselves out. There’s reality to all that. Problems can’t be hidden but must be faced, and you can often see where they’ve arisen from. Now, with our abstract and remote ways of working, living and relating, those things don’t seem so easy to pinpoint or resolve.

All of which, I suppose, is the reason I wonder if personal reinvestment in community may well be essential. Rather than split ourselves off into groupings that suit us, could we come to understand one another better and appreciate how it all fits together?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Modern media and complex realities
Note 1: Human nature and community life
Note 1: Economy & Humanity
Note 2: The challenge of community
Note 2: Community, needs & local solutions
Note 2: Reviving local community
Note 3: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 3: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 3: Laws and lawlessness
Note 4: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 4: Reality as a sense check

In so many aspects of life, solutions seem to be arising and immediately taking on an economic form; getting packaged, developed and presented to others with this financial language and thinking. But is that really the only option? And what does it mean for society if things are mainly being approached in that way?

When it comes to society there’s many ways of looking at it, of trying to understand how we exist together and what it all might mean (see Notes One). Generally though, there’s this sense of cooperation, of us working towards common aims, and of shared values guiding what those are and how we relate to one another.

To my mind, much of that boils down to the meanings explicitly or implicitly contained in all we do: the attitudes, relationships, customs, practices, standards, priorities, and so on. Human community essentially being this meaningful and wise coordination between people for our individual and collective assistance, hopefully built on ideas that will sustain us all in the long run.

Having said that, however, it’s fairly clear those kind of ideals don’t translate easily into reality (Notes Two). Many of these posts have tried to figure out why that is, generally circling in on difficulties arising when money meets other values (Notes Three); that money has its own agenda and ways of operating, and may well struggle to meet what we’re seeking in a human sense.

And going back to the idea of solutions being packaged, surely approaching things that way naturally leads us to notions of pricing and therefore exclusivity. So when social cooperation becomes a marketplace inevitably some are able to benefit while others cannot. Of course, that is what it is: we tend to look for business opportunities, ways of identifying and fulfilling others’ needs while also providing for ourselves.

But looking at things purely economically undoubtedly affects how we are and the activities finding a place within our local, national or international communities. Powerful companies, strategic chains and the like can evidently thrive in these conditions, but not without certain costs such as character, uniqueness, and many of those things that may differentiate and celebrate our humanity.

So, looking more to local community, what are we creating? These places we live, where needs may best be met, where meanings are arguably most present and involvement both tangible and immediately rewarding (Notes Four). If we need meaning to our lives, can it not be evident in those spaces? Can our lived realities and the administering of practical needs not be laced with humanity rather than merely transactional?

Of course, there are many people working in that way to bring a human face to how we live; acting out of their personal values or habits to show others they matter and our existence together is meaningful, valued and enjoyed. It’s still there. Although it often does seem to be fading or dying out, the more modern economic approach stepping in there; so maybe it’s still worth thinking about.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Economy & Humanity
Note 1: Human nature and community life
Note 2: Created a system we seek to escape?
Note 2: Is sustainable design an impossibility?
Note 3: How it is / Selling out
Note 3: I am not just a sum
Note 4: Community, needs & local solutions
Note 4: Real estate, rental and human nature
Note 4: Reviving local community

From here, “New Renaissance” builds on ideas of communities as purposeful centres of meaning and how well they might serve us.

It seems human beings have never really been that isolated, generally tending to exist within communities of various sizes and natures; those relationships and the benefits they offered shaping how people have lived, made a living, and given meaning to their lives. How aware we’ve been of these realities and the degree to which we consciously value and uphold them are interesting questions.

Community can describe many different groupings: locations, business interests, wider affinities based around values or concerns, reaching up to international and global alliances; any group with a degree of similarity and a basis for cooperation. Nations, and the societies they contain, being those communities many most strongly identify with.

The extent to which this is natural or imposed is, and maybe always has been, arguable. They could be framed as abstract constructs, theoretical illusions, storylines reinforced because they serve a purpose: to bind and unite us, to encourage consistent collective behaviours, to make life more predictable. Much the same as personality serves an individual, making us relatable.

Then, as ever, there’s the question of what regulates behaviour, how to get us to pull together, ways to eliminate dangers and risks. Communities codifying acceptable ways of being through laws or social relationships (see Notes One), providing a degree of cohesion and common sense around those values serving us all best.

Which is interesting, because society is clearly changing as traditions loosen; moral standards get cast aside as irrational; and we seemingly re-write the rules on how to be, relate, and operate in the modern world (Notes Two). To my mind, these new rules often seem a little careless, self-serving, overly logical, and possibly short-sighted; but it doesn’t seem to be up for discussion.

Moral ideals can of course be seen as a constrictive method of social control: shaming or ostracising those who don’t meet these evolving standards. Ways we try to control others through praise or rejection could also be viewed as manipulative ways of imposing ideas onto others by leaning on our very natural social inclinations. Ways people act to influence others are presumably as timeless as they are effective.

But there may also be social wisdom in the standards and consistency created by such efforts, as humans apparently often do need some guidelines (Note Three). We may be quite rightly shaking off many guiding principles from the past, but that’s not to say society doesn’t still need something to replace that.

The idea of a self-regulating internal logic evolving naturally to step into the role seems a little hopeful however; especially given so many parties seem interested in undermining our intelligence and diverting us into patterns of behaviour suiting their agendas (Note Four).

Clearly, in some ways, community is a construct which holds us together; hopefully imparting ways of behaving, relating and living that make society sustainable. For now though, driving forces seem largely economic – even within our cultural and social lives – and it’s not entirely clear how well that serves us in the long run.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “The Spirit of Community”
Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 2: Community – what it was, what we lost
Note 2: Antisocial behaviour & the young
Note 2: At what cost, for humans & for nature
Note 2: Attitudes to elder members of society
Note 3: The human spirit
Note 4: “Brave New World Revisited”

As human beings, we exist within communities. Be that family, peers, friends, school or workplace, cultural affinities, political leanings, social connections, or whatever other groupings we may feel a part of. These relationships seem to shape us, impart meaning, offer belonging, and give us our understanding of and engagement with life (see Notes One).

It’s a beautiful thing really: these connections that draw out different aspects of us and give them a home; the ways we reach out to others and form these bonds, often creating something unique and new; how all of that changes the face of the world surrounding us, weaving threads of interest and activity around our daily lives.

How conscious we are of that, how deliberately and intentionally we act within our communities is an interesting question for our times; especially when it comes to local community, to our immediate geographical surroundings (Notes Two).

Those posts – and others within the theme of Community – looked at how that’s changed: how business frequently seems to be stripping away trust and natural cooperation; the loss of local relationships and cultural life; ways what was once meaningful and apparent is often now abstract and remote.

Without a doubt, modern life’s dramatically different from what went before. Naturally evolving, organic communities built around necessity or industry seemingly having given way to something quite different. Technology, modern economics, and various other social shifts have changed the ground we walk on and how we share it with one another.

That said we’re still humans with similar material, social, mental and emotional requirements. We still look for meaning, identity, security, involvement, friendship, and self-esteem. We generally want to belong, and we also need to survive and live relatively harmoniously with others and within our environment.

In that light, surely local community should still be this vital, practical, engaging reality? Rather than a dry, formulaic, soulless place peopled with legacies, automatons, fragmented solutions, and potential risks.

Why we’re struggling on this level, why older systems are fading or failing and the solutions stepping in to replace them seem to not quite be gaining traction, is interesting. Maybe it’s because we’re often presented with replacements that take the form of a business, or because technology’s been fundamentally changing how we relate as well as drawing us away from our immediate surroundings (Note Three).

It just seems quite essential in many, many ways that we exist in real relationship to other people and the world around us. Not simply tuning others out or opting for the convenience and economy of large companies and brands, but looking at how we can purposefully sustain local initiatives through the choices we make and the activities we participate in.

Modern life offers this global sense of belonging and identity, but in a way it’s an illusion of sorts. The world around us is very real though, and it seems that local community offers a valuable opportunity to really engage with that and create something meaningful and constructive that works for everyone.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Learning to be human
Note 1: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 2: Reviving local community
Note 2: “New Renaissance”
Note 2: “The Spirit of Community”
Note 2: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 3: Using internet to construct community

Posts within the theme of Economy & Values build on this, with ideas around money and the things we do.

The extent to which local communities are changing, fading, or dying out is a topic that surfaces fairly often: as modern life shifts towards remote and essentially invisible networks, the local structures that once supported everyday life now strain to compete. Where does that lead, and in what ways could community evolve to remain a part of how we live?

Faced with modern business practices and the countless ways technology’s transforming how we communicate, relate, and lead our lives the geographical locations we occupy are inevitably changing (see Notes One).

Infrastructure, after all, reflects the functions assigned to it and the ways we interact with one another and what’s provided. Local services and businesses grow out of government policy and modern economics, as well as the initiative of those seeking to make a living or fulfil needs within their community.

With so much being run through the online world, independent businesses are naturally struggling to stand up against the convenience, organisation, and competitive pricing of powerful commercial operators. And the allure of what’s being offered, along with how it’s packaged within modern culture and advertising, of course appeals to our desire to belong and benefit; but at what cost?

I mean, local communities presumably developed to meet needs; evolving out of local concerns, industries and individuals to offer services around food, education, employment, and other social or cultural functions. Little centres of life, human interaction, and meaningful work. That was life.

Now, so much is streamlined as local life blends into this increasingly global culture of business and branding. As a business model, that’s probably great; but what does it mean for us? What will it mean if local community disappears in that way, becoming an essentially commercial culture instead?

In many ways it might already be redundant to pose such questions, as these things may be almost impossible to resist; but it still seems important to ask.

If community offered meaning, belonging, and a relationship to others and to environment then that must’ve shaped people; telling us our worth in the eyes of others and showing the contributions we all make to our shared existence (Notes Two). It seems there was once a great deal of meaning woven through community. Much, of course, was the legacy of different times; but not all needs discarding.

In “New Renaissance”, Maurice Ash addressed this idea of the meaning inherent in community and how politics “must concern the forms of everyday life … a politics of community, of patterns that hold people together”. “The Spirit of Community” also explores how community can serve to sustain social values.

It’s a subject that can be approached from a personal perspective as much as a commercial or philosophical one, and in every case it seems important: we live within a social, environmental and economic environment and the way we live either brings all that into awareness so we act responsibly, or conceals it. Old practices may be falling away, but surely meaningful structures can replace them.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The challenge of community
Note 1: Community – what it was, what we lost
Note 1: Nature tells a story, about society
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 2: “Ecological Intelligence”

Any kind of endeavour in a way needs a structure: a sense of the duties, rights, responsibilities, and limitations necessary to sustain it happily and healthily (hopefully backed up by sound, inclusive, and flexible reasoning). We might be talking of a country, community, workplace or, in this case, of housing arrangements.

As there’s this shift towards collective ways of living (whether that’s subdivided properties, developments, or more intentional communities with shared facilities), questions arise around the realities that’s creating and how best to manage them (see Notes One). And, anecdotally, this often seems problematic: standards or conventions around use of space and consideration for others vary, as does the sense of how people might get involved in maintaining things, making changes, or resolving issues.

It seems many exist in quiet resentment at having to live in such proximity, irritated at freedoms being limited by their impact on others, and tending to tune these ‘annoyances’ out. Maybe that’s because we’re increasingly independent rather than community-minded; or because life’s stressful and having that impinge on the home environment is the final straw; or maybe we’re losing the sense of regulating our actions out of concern for others (Note Two).

And then market ‘provision’ doesn’t always align with our ideals: many developments seem to create unusual situations where space is lacking or overlooked and even greater consideration than ‘normal’ is needed to coexist happily; regulating how people operate within these places is another challenge; as is how well they ‘sit’ within the surrounding area.

There’s also the issue of what we contractually agree to (aware as we may or may not be of the details) alongside our intention to actually abide by the spirit of our commitment. Which is all quite complex. We may see contracts as merely stepping stones to what we want, rather than something to honour and uphold. We may view any limitations on our freedom out of social consideration for others as antiquated or unenforceable.

All of this may be true, and – as with almost any situation – the factors at play and how best to navigate them seems unlikely to lead to a simple solution, let alone one that can be realised without the willing involvement of everyone concerned.

You might have the wisest contract conceivable managing a well-designed property, but if those within it aren’t interested in bringing it to life you’ll likely end up with conflict or disappointment. Conversely, an engaged and motivated group of people could probably bring blissful harmony wherever they happened to find themselves.

Which in a way comes down to communication and intention: ideally we’d have great systems to understand and operate within, but practically we often live within imperfect systems and need to find ways to rework them as best we can.

But then, does it matter if we live together out of mutual understanding and consideration rather than resentment? It must have considerable social impact, but unless we rediscover the value of such cooperation all this may prove difficult to resolve.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Living together
Note 1: Real estate, rental and human nature
Note 1: Nature tells a story, about society
Note 2: Laws and lawlessness
Note 3: Need to stand alone & think for ourselves
Note 3: People wanting change

Money as a pivot of matter & intention also addressed this idea of systems and how best we engage with them.

Building on the initial thoughts explored in Living together, this post turns to some modern struggles in the realm of accommodation; specifically, how money and ownership translates into intention and responsibility.

The idea of home ownership and what that means in a practical economic and social sense is quite intriguing: how our expectations have changed over time; ways cultural and financial trends have influenced the market; and how it essentially became this personal portfolio of opportunity. The subtle shifts that have shaped that landscape and the ripple effects into other areas of society must be fascinating to understand.

But to look for now at ways all of that affects individual lives, shared communities, and local environments is the entry-point that interests me most. How does a contract of ownership or rental influence how we view our ‘homes’? If we manage a property as an ‘investment’, how does that inform our concerns around the lived realities of these spaces? How do our values intersect with the economics of our living arrangements?

Broadly speaking, owning a property and therefore viewing it as an asset must equate to a person having a vested interest in maintaining standards, cultivating relationships to some degree, and staying more actively engaged in what’s going on in the surrounding area. The tangible financial gains or losses to the ‘value’ of a home must be more keenly felt and lead to certain patterns of behaviour, concern and engagement.

Inversely, quite different motivations must arise for those letting out an investment or renting one. Managing a rental property must bring with it thoughts around long-wearing interiors, cost to benefit calculations on improvements, and a fairly pragmatic approach to relationships and tenants. And renting itself can be seen as a slightly powerless situation that effectively discourages much investment in whatever terms you quantify it (e.g. care, consideration, community, environment) through the lack of compelling financial incentive.

Stories and anecdotes frequently highlight how investment properties are reshaping communities: second home ownership chipping away at social networks and local businesses; tenancies negatively impacting neighbourhoods through either behaviour or neglect. There must be this whole web of personal and social consequences that are defined by the machinations of the housing market and largely dictated by economic forces.

So it seems valid to look beyond purely political or economic frameworks for assessing housing and consider the human realities being created. It’s something there doesn’t seem a clear answer to, but also something fairly important: local communities and relationships are the essence of our daily lives, with the values displayed through our actions making up our human, social and natural environments (see Notes One).

Given how the motivation to invest in our homes and communities tends to stem from with whether or not it’s in our financial interests to do so, there’s evidently some relationship between money and that sense of engagement or responsibility (Notes Two). So maybe it’s a question of creating a scenario where our financial motivations align better with our more human concerns?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Community – what it was, what we lost
Note 1: Nature tells a story, about society
Note 2: The motivation of money
Note 2: Values and the economic

Also Relating to cultural benchmarks, which spoke of home ownership and what that might mean on a more personal note.

This post is a bit of a sidestep from things I’ve talked about so far, but it’s into territory that in many ways does relate to those other ideas. My focus here is modern living situations such as house shares, subdivided properties, or shared developments; and how, for many reasons, it seems we’re moving toward sharing ever-closer spaces which – while steering clear of the social ethics of modern economic practices – must surely have an impact on how we experience our homes, our privacy, and our social relationships.

It’s one of those essential human requirements: a home; somewhere to feel secure and free to do as you please; a place to take care of and also to display your values within your environment. It seems central to a person’s sense of self and their place in society. I mean, how we choose to be in relation to others shows what matters to us and the contribution we make through how we live. Maybe these are slightly old-fashioned or idealistic notions; but, as discussed in The challenge of community, what takes place around us is a reality we create together. Home, community, environment, and social ties are important issues, but ones that seem increasingly strained, individualistic, and commercialised.

As existing properties are subdivided (with varying degrees of concern over adequate storage, soundproofing, and sensible outside spaces) or replaced with shared developments (again, often showing greater regard for profit than for creating wise or beautiful dwellings), it seems economic realities are pushing people towards having to ignore or infringe upon others through little fault of their own (see also, Values and the economic).

Does it matter if we live in a way that encourages us to disregard others? Where your desire to “do as you please” comes at the cost of another’s “quiet enjoyment” of their own space? As explored in Antisocial behaviour & the young, modern society seems to lack a clear conversation around what’s socially acceptable and how to co-exist happily in common areas; and that cannot be helped by ill-conceived accommodation.

What I’m really talking about is intentions. To me, home and community are places where humans get to “be” and to share that with others; where we can show interest, concern, responsibility, and respect for other people and for our shared spaces. And, as I said to start, this connects to many other discussions such as Community – what it was, what we lost on social change; Reality as a sense check when I talked of hidden impacts; or Attitudes to elder members of society which is essentially about human worth.

In all this, my concern is human realities; and while there are clearly economic forces at play, which I may address at some point, the social consequences cannot be dismissed as insignificant. How we live with one another, create a sense of community, and foster genuine social connections seems a real challenge of modern times; and I wonder whether it’s possible to shape that in a more human direction.