[Xmca-l] Polysemy of "Community"

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

"Community" is most definitely a polysemous word! Orthodox Marxism has 
alwzys rejected it as a "bad concept" because "community" obfuscates 
"class," but I don't think such an orthodox position is quite right. 
"Community" is polysemous because it is *relative*.

One common meaning for "community" is all those people sharing a bit of 
ground and the associated built infrastructure. Clearly this is in the 
main an abstract construct, as the actual relations tying those people 
together may be very thin indeed, and the community may be fraught by 
sharp conflicts. But still, those conflicts arise over the use of the 
shared artefacts (i.e., land, roads, buildings, etc.) and these are 
after shared activities.

Sometimes "community" references a nation state. Clearly, the citizens 
of a nation state share a great range of artefacts, all of which are 
used in mediating their actions, and at the same time, nation-states are 
projects within which considerable conflict takes place. Collaboration 
always, essentially, contains such elements of conflict. A newspaper or 
radio station might also be the artefact which defines a "community."

So I can see a problem with making "community" the subject matter, or 
"unit of analysis" for a study; one would have to first select an 
artefact or combination of artefacts, (such as language and land) which 
serves to define the basis of the said "community." The point then is 
that the "community" is *not* defined by shared *meanings*; in fact, 
different components of the "community" may attach diametrically 
opposite meanings to a given artefact (word, symbol, tool, ...) or even 
use it in ways which are quite incommensurable. But! the material form 
of the artefact is *universal* in what ever way it is used, meant or 
interpreted. The *materiality* of artefacts is the foundation was what 
is *universal* in human life. Projects give us what is *particular* in 
human life (ascribing different meanings to one and the same artefact), 
and actions (not persons) give us what is *individual* in human life, 
for the purposes of theoretical analysis.

That's how I see it anyway, from my Hegelian point of view.

Andy



mike cole wrote:
> ...
>
> One thing about Cliff and Roland's article that I found myself 
> wondering about is their
> use of the term, community. Culture is quite explicitly defined. Why 
> not community? My guess is that the polysemy noted for activity and 
> culture will reign here too, but I am a neophyte looking for direction 
> which is why this article is interesting to me. I have downloaded two 
> articles from a special issue of J Community Psychology from a special 
> issue in 1996 that take on the notion of "sense of community" which is 
> traced back to Sarason in Nelson and Prilleltiensky's text on 
> Community Psychology. If people are interested, email me directly.