Community Development Theory

James B. Cook
Department of Community Development

Introduction
People have been making careers of stimulating improvement or development of
communities for generations. There is no clear point at which a type of approach directed
toward this end became identified as "community development." The antecedents are
many, tracking back into history, but it was in the post World War II period that the term
gained popularity. Activity under this banner, much of it in the then colonial world, was
enough that by the 1950s, sections of the United Nations felt compelled to attempt to
define it (United Nations, 1955). From then on, agencies, associations and scholars have
been proposing and promoting definitions for community development with abandon.
(Sanders, 1958; Ad Hoc Group, 1963; Lotz, 1970; Warren, 1978; Christenson and
Robinson, 1980.)

In considerable part, the proliferation of definitions, and consequent variety and

ambiguity of meanings (Dunham, 1972), can be attributed to the fact that practice
preceded theory. Principles, elements of theory, seemed to have their origins in the
experience of community development practitioners (Christenson and Robinson, 1980).
Armed with the desire and intent to induce betterment at the community level and a few
rules of thumb as guides, agents of governments, institutions and voluntary associations
fanned out to do community development. They pounded the pavements and footpaths to
bring community development to the people. It all began, and continued for some time,
without anything approaching a comprehensive theory.

Early community development practitioners operated without benefit of a well-articulated

group of propositions as a paradigm to guide practice. They depended on a few favorite
general principles. They used their own sense of the situation to determine what, when,
where, with whom, about what and by which techniques they used as community
developers.

For many who prefer action to theory, such a state of affairs was a golden era. Not bound
by traditions or narrowly defined strategies based on unproven, and probably unprovable,
theories of human behavior or social organization, operatives could engage with concrete,
real communities on their own terms. Something could be done and done now by acting
with vigor guided by common sense, prior practical experience and genuine respect and
concern for communities and their members. So it is that many making a living at
community work have had, and still carry, an impatience with, or even an antagonism
toward, community development theory.

These see theory not only as constraining, but as largely irrelevant. They attribute
attention to theory as emanating from academicians and high-status professionals who
need to publish articles, books and grand policy papers in order to build reputations. They
view community development theoreticians as people making careers on the backs of the
practical vanguard of community improvement workers and organizers. They see such
careers as being without substantive contact with their ostensible subject — communities.
People worried about theory, the story goes, do not muck in nuts-and-bolts efforts
advocating and pulling together improvement. Rather, by definition, they deal with
abstractions and produce little more than esoteric analyses and commentaries for self-
consumption.

The detractors of community development theory conclude that theory cannot inform
practice because it is generated only at a distance. For them, progress rests with those
who get their hands dirty, take their lumps in the real world and are willing to pass along
their hard-won command of tactics to others dedicated to practice (Dodge, 1980). The
byword of many streetwise practitioners remains, "Go with what you know." (Cox,
Erlich, Rothman and Tropman, 1977.)

The place of community development theory in the field cannot be understood without
recognition of such deeply distrustful views among a considerable segment of
practitioners. While these represent the extreme, they highlight normal tensions among
those affiliated with community development as they face questions about the functions
of theory in professional practice. Practice that is recognized as the Sine qua non of
community development, makes even those disposed to consideration of theory a little
uneasy. They fear being branded as not practice oriented.

However, even as such animosity and ambivalence toward theory exists in the field,
theoretical assertions have always been at the heart of practice-oriented community
development. Perhaps some of the common principles emerged as a rationale to justify
the mode of practice. Yet, for the most part, even the most vehement detractors of theory
were moved into practice by a slice of normative theory. From the very beginning,
community development practice has been predicated on theoretical propositions. For
example, there is the standard community development prescription, "people have the
right to participate in decisions that which have an effect upon their well-being" (Littrell,
1976).

The normative theory involved is not always so clearly stated; and the interconnections
among the several prescriptive propositions (principles) relied on in community
development practice tend not to be made very explicit. Still, over the years, an elaborate
network of theoretical elements undergirding community development practice has
emerged.

This network ranges well beyond a few normative propositions. It involves a wide variety
of descriptive theories drawn from the social sciences and social philosophy. Therefore,
the situation is not that community development lacks a theoretical base, but that this
base is the product of an eclectic approach to theory building. Community development
has borrowed, and will continue to borrow, models and theories from sources that seem
helpful. With the variety in communities, with the variations in circumstances from place
to place and time to time, and with the rapid changes going on in the total environment,
community development theory has to be dynamic by necessity. The objectives of and
the conditions faced by community development practitioners simply require constant
situational theory building.

The tactic of using an eclectic approach in the selection of theories to inform practice and
of allowing the consequences of practice to inform theory, are practical responses to the
demands of community development operations. Community development theory must
always be moving. Thus, it has taken on the appearance of a jumble of definitions and
theoretical bits and pieces constantly being arranged, modified and re-arranged.
However, this maze of mental activity and images is not haphazard. It revolves around,
and is anchored in, a core of coherent definitions and propositions. This core is
provisional with points in controversy, and is recognized as subject to change. After all, it
is theory and not truth. As long as that is understood, it is possible to present a reasonably
concise outline of the present fundamental elements of community development theory.
What follows represents a somewhat simplified version of this core. Published January
1985.

Core concepts and content

Characteristics of community development

Some observers are apt to label any and all attempts to intervene in community affairs as
community development. However, most commentators are more discriminating. For
those directly associated with the field, there is a generally recognized set of
characteristics that differentiates community development from other forms of
community-related activities. Its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Focus on a unit called "community."

• Conscious attempts to induce non-reversible structural change. (The idea of the
change being non-reversible is not always made explicit. However, it is generally
understood that once structural change takes place in a community system, that
system cannot return to the original configuration. Further, it is recognized that
some form of structural change may be made to ward off other changes deemed
undesirable or to stabilize an existing preferred situation.)
• Use of paid professionals/workers.
• Initiation by groups, agencies or institutions external to the community unit.
• Emphasize public participation.
• Participate for the purpose of self-help.
• Increase dependence on participatory democracy as the mode for community
(public) decision-making.
• Use a holistic approach.

Some confusion arises because those in related professions frequently shorten the list of
distinguishing elements of community development. Often an incomplete criterion is
applied, usually involving only the first five items. The position of community
development is clear in that it involves more than the concept of public participation. It is
the function and mode of citizen participation in the process that separates community
development approaches from other types of planned interventions. In addition,
community development is distinguished by application of a holistic, rather than a sector,
point of view.

Because of the misconception that any kind of public participation is sufficient to mark
an effort as community development, it is common for programs and projects to be
erroneously labeled. In fact, there is a considerable body of literature ostensibly providing
critiques, explanations or evaluations of community development that uses subject
operations that are uncharacteristic of the field. The authors simply made a mistake by
selecting projects which, in terms of community development theory and practice, are
closer to anathemas than examples. Not being very well acquainted with community
development, they chose projects that actually violate its fundamental principles.

For example, Marjorie Mayo includes under community development those programs of
colonial regimes aimed at engendering popular support for government activities. She
notes that the objectives were to sufficiently indoctrinate colonized people so that they
would participate voluntarily in government schemes for economic expansion (Mayo,
1975). While such programs exhibited the first five characteristics, they did not constitute
community development.

Such activities of colonial regimes, and the many similar economic development tactics
inaugurated by Third World governments after independence, are diametrically opposed
to the community development approach. By definition, the critical characteristics of
community development are associated with notions of self-help and participatory
democracy. While the job of building theory around the basic values supporting these
ideals is complex and incomplete, they are the foundation for community development.
Unless the element of self-help and the incremental opening of the decision-making
systems to participation are features of an approach to community improvement, it should
not be designated community development.

Functions of theory
Theory involves propositions or hypotheses that are problematic and not verified (though
they may be verifiable). A theory is constructed by formulating a coherent group of
propositions designed to help understanding and/or making judgments. The most familiar
type of theory is that classified by content and generally associated with the several
disciplines. Each discipline specializes in attempting to explain a particular class of
phenomena. The content of these disciplinary theories is more or less restricted to
particular types of circumstances and events. As a matter of course, theories tend to be
differentiated in this way. Therefore, the usual pattern is to speak of political theories,
economic theories, natural theories (physics, chemistry and astronomy), sociological
theories and on and on down the catalogue of disciplines.
Because of the wide-ranging circumstances and workings of communities, content from
almost all of the disciplinary theories at times may be relevant in community
development. Therefore, community development theory has used and will continue to
borrow from the theories of the standard disciplines. In a very real sense, most theoretical
developments of the disciplines form a reservoir for community development theory.

Perhaps the disciplinarians would be shocked or even dismayed at the application of their
theories. They would be surprised at how their theories may be synthesized with
conceptual frameworks which they would consider foreign. While the disciplinarians
may be puzzled or annoyed by community development's use of their theories, the field
works on the assumption that when disciplinarians publish their work, it becomes public
property and available. As those practicing community development have neither the
time nor the talent to attempt to re-invent the wheel, they regularly take theories from the
disciplines and often amalgamate them into community development theory on the scene.
For example, if economic stimulation is a salient issue in a rural area, community
development will look at and use any or all appropriate theories of economists (Edwards,
1976).

The demands of practice are such that thinking about theory in terms of its content within
the separate disciplines is not a practical approach. The object of community
development practice is improvement in operating communities. Fundamentally, it is an
activity that is normative in nature. That is, it deals with what ought to be, or what is
better. The practitioner needs theory that will provide a guide for behavior in very
specific circumstances. Thus the primary functions of community development theory are
to provide norms or prescriptions for the practitioner's actions and a model of practical
help to communities. Action takes place relative to existing conditions that vary
according to community, time and setting. Therefore, a number of questions have to be
addressed before establishing specific prescriptions for professional behavior and actions
in a particular situation.

As a result, community development theory tends to stress classification of theory, not by

discipline, but by function. Theories are organized in terms of the questions they attempt
to answer. There are five basic questions and five basic types of theories involved with
guiding community development practice. These are:

Type of question Type of theory

What is? Descriptive
Why is it? Explanative
What would happen if ...? Predictive
What would stimulate learning? Heuristic
What should be done? Prescriptive
Community development theory provides a guide to what should be done in a given
situation. In order to do so sensibly, tentative positions must be derived through the
application of descriptive, explanative, predictive and heuristic theories.

Systems framework
The process of working toward practical prescriptions for behavior supporting
community improvement is no easy task. Even in the best of circumstances the process
will be complex, imperfect, incomplete and on-going. Community development theory
heavily depends on general systems and on social systems' conceptual frameworks to
organize and relate the ideas, intelligence and information uncovered and created in the
processes of engagement. Systems frameworks have a number of advantages.
Descriptions, explanations, predictions and prescriptions can be expressed readily in
system terms. Placing questions and events in the context of a system also has proven
very stimulating or searching out relationships and patterns of interactions. In addition,
system frameworks have the advantage of being used generously in many disciplines
ranging from biology to sociology. Finally, the systems framework has the advantage of
being compatible with a holistic approach (Bertalanffy, 1968).

Community development theory ordinarily treats communities as systems. They are

conceived as entities that reasonably can be differentiated from what is around them
(environment). They have some kind of boundaries, and interactions take place across
the boundaries with the environment. Transactions from the environment to the
community systems are inputs. However, the community systems are selective in what is
accepted as input, and have a criteria by which to sort acceptable inputs from other
potential stimuli, coding. (At this stage of elucidating the model, discussion is limited to
a stimulus/response framework. Eventually, open systems theory is added to take into
account the possibilities for spontaneous internal action and other forms associated with
living behavior.)

Community systems do work and perform transformations with inputs. The products of
the work are discharged into the environment, outputs. Information about the reaction in
the environment may be transmitted back to the system as a form of input, feedback. In
the most general terms, the community system is conceived in relation to the
environment.

Application of this simple framework requires considerable elaboration. However, this

general pattern is similar to some of the schemata popular in the social sciences (Easton,
1965).

To conceptualize the internal structure of community systems, community development

turns to social systems theory. While social systems operate by the action of people, the
basic unit is not taken to be a person. The basic unit is a role. While roles in this context
are performed by persons, a person is considered much more than, and is definitely not
defined by, a role (Biddle, 1979). The same person may perform multiple roles in the
same social system, may perform roles in a number of social systems and may maintain
life spaces not involving social systems. The differentiation of a person from the civic
roles they may perform is very important in community development practice.

The pattern of social systems

A social role is a set of expected behaviors in a given situation. It functions to provide
incumbents in other roles with reasonably reliable expectations of performance.
Therefore, a role operates in relation to other roles (Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Roles
relating together in a perceivable pattern constitute structures. In larger, more complex
social systems, structures relating together to handle specialized parts of the operations
form subsystems. In turn, subsystems relating together form systems.

In the simplest form, the constitution of a social system may be represented as:

Role 1 Structure 1
Role 2 Subsystem 1
Role 3 Structure 2
Role 4 System 1
Role 5 Structure 3
Role 6 Subsystem 2
Role 7 Structure 4
Role 8

This is a fairly standard way of conceptualizing the pattern of social systems. It highlights
the idea that, even when reduced to a high level of abstraction, community systems are
conceived as compound, complex entities. Further, community systems are not static but
dynamic. The elements of motion and change have to be attached to the mode.

Speaking of motion and change requires taking into account the dimension of time. One
step in this direction is to attempt a classification of the types of work or tasks that
ordinarily can be expected to be performed in a community system. There are any
number of functional classifications, such as Gabriel Almond's interest aggregation and
interest articulation, which can be useful (Almond, 1970).

A highly recommended and extremely helpful classification that has been adapted for
community development theory is taken from the work of Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn
(Katz and Kahn, 1966). It involves the notion that there are genotypic functions that
should be carried out by any mature social organization, system. In the course of
development, specialized subsystems can be expected to emerge around these functions.
Genotypic functions
Adjusted for the purposes of community development, the genotypic functions are as
follows:

• Production
The tasks directly related to the basic work of the system. Fabrication of the
goods and services produced by the community system.
• Support and maintenance
The tasks of bringing support inputs, e.g., raw materials, to the production
functions and servicing the work processes.
• Managerial/political
The tasks of decision-making regarding the interaction of the production and
support/maintenance functions and regulating the input/output transactions with
the environment.
• Planning and adaptation
The tasks of considering actions that may affect future operations and making
provisions for adjustments or changes in the system's configuration and activities
called for by events in the environment.

It is expected that the type of structuring and patterns of interactions will or should vary
with the function.

One explanation for the limitation in capacities of existing community systems is that
structures and patterns are not sufficiently varied with the variation of functions. This
relates to the historic tendency of communities to attempt to use a single principle of
organization, e.g., hierarchy, for all functions. The effectiveness of the system is held
back because the structure is not adapted to the demands of the functions.

This model of genotypic functions can be used as predictive theory regarding the stages
of structural development. It suggests that the sequence of the emergence of specialized
subsystems would follow this order:

• The support and maintenance subsystem would differentiate from the production
subsystem,
• the managerial/political subsystem would follow, with
• the planning/adaptive subsystem developing last.

It is logical that specialized systemic capacities to plan and adapt would come late in
development. This matches the empirical world. Existing community systems are often
deficient in planning/adaptive structures and processes. They tend to have no or only
rudimentary specialized structures for planning and developing systemic adjustment to
the changing environment.

Communities commonly attempt to handle the planning/adaptive function through the

managerial (political) subsystem, but the imperatives of short-run considerations, and
resistance to structural change in this subsystem, usually leave planning and adaptation
neglected. Thus, community development theory works from the assumption that critical
systemic deficiencies are most likely to deter effective performance in planning and
adaptation. Parts of the system attempting to carry on these functions probably are the
least mature elements in the operating system.

A definition of community
The systems framework can apply to many types of social systems. Community
development intends to focus on a specific type, though it is obvious that communities
interact with many other types of systems.

It is necessary to differentiate communities from other classifications of social systems.

There are many ways to define community (Christenson and Robinson, 1980). Each of
the standard definitions may be sufficient in most situations, but they vary in terms of the
elements included.

For a general operational definition, the following is suggested.

A community is a particular type of social system distinguished by the following

characteristics:

• People involved in the system have a sense and recognition of the relationships
and areas of common concerns with other members.
• The system has longevity, continuity and is expected to persist.
• Its operations depend considerably on voluntary cooperation, with a minimal use
(or threat) of sanctions or coercion.
• It is multi-functional. The system is expected to produce many things and to be
attuned to many dimensions of interactions.
• The system is complex, dynamic and sufficiently large that instrumental
relationships predominate.
• Usually, there is a geographic element associated with its definition and basic
boundaries.

The distinguishing characteristics involve matters of degree. For example, the

predominance of instrumental relationships does not imply the absence of affective
relationships. It is practical to work from the assumption that people take part in
community systems as a means rather than as an end. Communities are expected to
produce goods, services or situations.

Careful attention must be paid to geographic characteristics. Everything and every person
within the geographic area is not associated with the community system. In the
geographic area used as a reference in defining a community, alien people, structures or
even communities may be present. Communities of different scales may overlap in a
geographic area. Further, all the people available to perform roles, and all the roles and
structures operating as part of the system may not be located in the referenced geographic
area.

Conventional nature of communities

There are many theories that treat communities as natural organisms that are properly
subject to natural law (Plato, 1945). Community development theory chooses to treat
communities as conventional systems. Community development theory accepts that it is
natural for people to have regular arrangements for social interactions.

Yet, at the level of organization required for community systems, the forms and practices
are devised. The configuration of the community system is thought of as a human
invention. Therefore, most significant behavior in the community context is approached
as learned behavior.

This leads to the proposition that communities are subject to change and that new patterns
of behavior can be learned. The operational premise is that the system is not determined
by nature. People, with some hope of some success, may act to change or to adjust the
structure of a community when it is deemed to be operating ineffectively or is considered
otherwise deficient.

Development
Conceiving of communities as conventional systems is compatible with the idea of
consciously induced systemic change. In some situations development is used as a
synonym for growth. When used without reference to quality or consequences,
development may be good or bad.

However, in the context of community development, development is a concept associated

with improvement. It is a certain type of change in a positive direction. While the
consequences of efforts to bring about development may not be positive, the objective is
always positive. Development efforts that fail to produce positive results may constitute
work intended to bring improvement, but would be unsuccessful in bringing
development.

There are no objective measures of what constitutes improvement. Objective indications

of change certainly are possible, but that which is better than a past condition must be a
subjective judgment. That which constitutes development is a judgment that can only be
made by people according to their own values, aspirations and expectations.

In the case of community systems, this must be a collective judgment. The system must
provide itself with a process by which to make judgments as experience accumulates and
is processed. Since people are different in many ways, the chances of finding unanimity
about what constitutes improvement are slight. The community system must develop
capacities to reach provisional judgments that permit actions and must accept that action
is required before the emergence of consensus.

In a mature system, the fact that development policies and activities take place in the
presence of dissent is used to advantage. The lack of consensus assures that a few roles or
structures in the system will be pressuring for reconsideration. This provides a
monitoring of events and stimulates the system to watch consequences as they begin to
appear.

On the other hand, consensus has the property of assurance that leads the system to act as
though monitoring processes and their consequences are unnecessary. Unintended results,
sufficient to overtake the expected positive ones, are apt to go unnoticed until past the
point where practical corrections are possible.

In community development, the term development is taken as a reference to a particular

type of conscious effort to stimulate improvement. In this sense, all positive changes are
not the result of development. There is a set of ideas used to differentiate development
from other forms of positive change. These are:

• A system subject to change exists.

• Change will take place incrementally, within a process, over a rather extended
time.
• Once this process has begun, it is very unlikely that the system will be able to
return to the original state.
• The process is stimulated and given direction by conscious effort.
• During the conscious effort to provide direction, a theory/model of development
provides reference points and expectations.
• At each stage, the system is in a configuration it has not experienced before.
• It operates as a learning process.
• Accomplishments in the process can be evaluated only in terms of the judgments
of people in the system.
• The results are judged to be more positive than negative and worth the costs.

Holistic approach
Many theories are used in community development. The earliest ones tended to adapt
economic or agricultural development models (Mezirow, 1963). From that time, the
range of theories called upon has increased, spanning from symbolic interactionism
(Foote and Cottrell, 1955) to cybernetics (Parsegian, 1973). Each provides some
understanding or guides action regarding a particular capacity of people or structures
expected to have strategic value in improving capacities of community systems. None are
thought to be sufficient to cover more than a limited part or aspect. None are considered
operationally complete theories with which to effectively guide the entire development
process.
Each of the theories that may be used is watched in the context of the whole. The first
step is to build a concept of the whole, even if incomplete and inaccurate in some
respects. This is based on the position that a reasonable notion of a whole is possible
before its constituent parts are understood.

Just as it is possible to understand and even to operate an automobile without knowledge

of the place and function of the carburetor, a community and its movements relative to
the environment can be understood broadly before knowledge of the place and functions
of a part, e.g. culture, in the system. The concept of the whole serves as a backdrop. As
various theories are applied to parts, e.g., culture, the whole is kept in mind and a search
is maintained for indications of relationships with other parts. For example, culture can
be thought of as a part, but it does not operate discrete from the rest. The expectation is
that cultural parts will relate to politics, economics and physical surroundings in an
interacting mode. It affects and is affected by other elements conventionally abstracted as
entirely separate spheres or events.

The holistic approach is nothing more than a conscious effort to place emphasis on the
functional relationships among the parts and the whole. It does not require dealing with
everything all the time. Dealing with any aspect related to community systems is done in
a way that keeps in mind the whole and other parts. Even before particulars are known,
the expectation is that each part or aspect will operate with reciprocal relationships. The
holistic approach involves relational thought. Instead of thinking about each element by
itself, each is envisioned in the context of a totality (Ogilvy, 1979).

Community development's advocacy of a holistic approach is largely a reaction to the

failures of sector approaches. Often other strategies for development try to isolate the
seminal sector. Usually, these have been thought to be economics or agriculture. Efforts
then concentrate on and in this single sector. This theory works as if the selected sector is
the primary source for community or societal improvement. If change is in a positive
direction, as in an increase of per-capita income or of agricultural production, it is
expected that the whole system will be better automatically.

This theory suggests that there is one piece of the system on which everything else
depends. Strategically then, it is not necessary to directly consider things beyond the
chosen segment. The idea is that a trickle down process is normal. It involves the notion
that if the most important part is improved, it is the nature of things that benefits will seep
down through the rest.

This theory, and operations in line with it, are frequently recommended as an efficient
approach. The justification goes along the line that there are not enough resources,
knowledge or energy to deal with everything, so it makes sense to concentrate whatever
is available in the most important sector.

Community development theory responds with the proposition that in fact there is not a
most important sector. Conceptually, and for analytic purposes, it is possible to think as if
economics, politics, culture, psychology and physical environment are separate.
However, functionally they are interactive and interdependent. The idea that each of these
aspects is discreet is an invention of the human mind devised as a practical way to
structure thinking. It is, and is known to be, a distortion of reality. It is a helpful distortion
as long as it is accompanied with the realization that it is an artificial view. It is helpful to
think about a single dimension, as long as it is remembered that people, communities and
societies are multi-dimensional. In fact, each dimension, traditionally treated as separate
concerns organized by disciplines, touches and is touched by the others.

Therefore, it is necessary that concentration on a single dimension must always be

moderated. To be practical, intelligence about a single sector must be interpreted in the
context of the whole, the totality or the system. The advisability of such a perspective is
indicated by experience. Many examples exist.

There are cases when thought was given only to technology designed to increase
production with the result that on its introduction, the cultural system was destroyed and
anomie emerged (Eckstein, 1966). There are also cases that show it working in the other
direction. Modern technologies have been introduced only to have the cultural system
prevent them from reaching the anticipated level of increased production (Nair, 1979).
The emphasis on the holistic point of view guards against improvements in one sector
bringing unintended consequences in other sectors the negative impact of which
outweighs the intended benefits.

Integrated design
The holistic approach provides a way of looking at situations that stresses relationships
and interdependencies. It functions as an aid to the design of integrated development
activities. If, as community development theory maintains, communities are systems in
which everything is interconnected, activities intended to stimulate different parts and
processes need to be interconnected.

In practice, activities start in different sectors at different times and each sector is likely
to be in a different stage of structural development. They do not begin integrated with
each other. The process involves incrementally connecting one thing with another. An
integrated design is in a constant state of building. The holistic point of view, which is in
constant application, provides clues as to what operations can be brought into a conscious
relationship with each other.

The patterns involved in integrated development activities are varied with the scale and
functions being performed. The degree of operational coordination among specific
activities fluctuates. Further a substantial number of action areas perform with a high
degree of independence. The intelligence, information, resources, technologies, designs,
skills and energies generated by such independent operations may be integrated only after
they reach the stage of outputs of the constituent structures. The trick is for the system to
develop the capacity of becoming aware of their existence.
The best illustrations are those situations in which experimentation is necessary to
increase knowledge and experience, when there are uncertainties about possibilities.
Many uncoordinated trials going on at the same time makes sense. In such events, the
productive pattern is to proliferate the places and premises where experiments take place.
This increases the probability of breakthroughs.

As Phillip Handler suggested in reference to Medical research, skillful opportunism and a

type of "semi-planning" are useful approaches in the system when creativity and
exploration are required. It then is up to the system to eventually integrate the several
relatively disjointed increments thus produced (Handler, 1965).

From the system perspective, search, discovery and invention are supported when the
system encourages or at least tolerates considerable variety in the modes and locales of
inquiry. Creative enclaves paying little attention to external directions tend to be the
source for new ideas and methods. These enclaves may be self conscious research groups
or emotional cores of incipient social movements. Integration does not happen by
interfering in these enclaves and instructing them to behave in prescribed ways.
Integration follows their activity as the system monitors and processes the messages
emanating from them (Gerlach and Hine, 1973).

The stress on allowing diversity to flourish in some functions of the system is not to deny
a place for highly regulated and uniform processes as well. However, community
development theory has to counter the popular image of integrated activities as being
always marked by centralized control, and as working from a preconceived model of the
proper configuration.

This popular model can be applied effectively in the production function. When
dependable production of goods and services that are considered satisfactory is the
objective, and all the tasks necessary for their production are known, centralized design
and control may be efficient. A stable design integrating a wide variety of activities in a
controlled sequence can work very well.

The point is that this is not the only way to work toward practical integration. The
mechanistic approach to integration is applicable in some situations. However even in
production functions when there are uncertainties a more organic style of organization
works better. When new or insecure situations are involved, "a hierarchical, top-directed,
and strongly regulated organization is ... less feasible" (Abrahamsson, 1977 p. 133).

Therefore, an integrated approach turns on the capacities of the system to differentiate the
kinds of integration that fit the variety of circumstances. An integrated approach is likely
to involve both centralized and decentralized control patterns. Its effectiveness depends
on the system's ability to articulate various modes of structuring. The capacities of the
whole community system profit from the variety of ways the constituent parts can work.

Democracy
The central mode of structuring for community development is the democratic mode.
Theory postulates that capacities of community systems will expand with the introduction
and increasing use of democratic structuring. Increasing dependence on democratic
structuring, regardless of its extent at the initial stage, helps to stimulate development and
to support improvement in the quality of planning, adaptation and decision-making
within the system. Community development theory suggests that as the levels of
complexity and uncertainty increase, democratic structuring becomes more suitable.

These seem surprising propositions. The common expectation is that democracy becomes
less suitable with complexity and uncertainty. The normal view is that democracy fits
best with small, stable and homogeneous communities. The popularity of the assumption
that democratic structuring is impractical for large, dynamic communities is related to the
constant exposure to elitist theories of democracy.

There is a substantial body of literature expounding what has been labeled

"contemporary" democratic theory. It involves redefinitions of democracy either for the
purpose of modernizing it, or to argue that it is inappropriate (Pateman, 1970). These
redefinitions form the basis for a wide variety of theories of democratic elitism and anti-
democratic elitism.

All these "contemporary" theories share the element that "classic" notions of democracy
are unfit for the modern environment. Like the ancient historian Tacitus, many
contemporary theorists proclaim that old style democracy, involving substantive citizen
participation in governance, could fit only:

"a simple form of culture, a small state, a face-to-face society where everyone knew his
neighbours, and where all men were more or less equal." (Cranston, 1968).

Those elitists who profess to maintain an allegiance to democracy in some form, do so

with the proviso that it must be a form that discounts the functions of citizens in the
process of governance (Bachrach, 1967).

A legacy of longing for small and simple communities from the early advocates still
touches practitioners of community development (Morgan, 1942, 1957). Community
development theory, however, is clear in the proposition that democratic structuring can
be appropriate regardless of community size. It is probably more necessary in larger
systems. It takes this position while retaining the idea that democracy must involve
significant citizen participation.

Carl Cohen expressed the basic notion consistent with community development theory in
the statement:

"In fact, all genuine democracy is participatory; that adjective serves only to remind one
of the true character of democratic government." (Cohen, 1973).
Community development theory may one day be proven incorrect, but it is not naive or
implausible. Theorists of democratic elitism see participatory democracy as an unrealistic
ideal in modern communities because of their lack of understanding of classic democratic
theory. They have no model of popular participation except as mass behavior, and no
model of citizens except as the stereotyped masses. (Dye and Zeigler, 1972).

Community development builds from the proposition that every person is different. Each
is distinguishable from all others, indicating that each has something unique in his/her
person. It also takes the position that each person probably has some bit of information or
insight not available through anyone else.

While it is impractical to collect, aggregate and process all the bits of intelligence
embodied in the population, it is possible to extend the civil systems' net to trap and
evaluate more of the diverse intelligence that does exist. It is a matter of shifting the
patterns of structuring from those that preselect sources of intelligence to those that
attempt to take advantage of diversity.

The theory starts with a proposition that everybody knows or sees something and that, as
a system, not enough is known to anticipate the total consequences of actions in and
around the system. As long as the operations and development of community systems are
complex and dynamic, a considerable degree of ignorance about them is inevitable
(Marburger, 1981). The degree of ignorance can be reduced by broadening the range of
information, experience, ideas and assessments available to the system. It becomes a
question of elaborating the civil system so as to extend the probability that it can come in
contact with and use what anybody might know (Churchman, 1968).

Thus in community development theory, democracy is valued as a means, not as an end.

It serves the instrumental purpose of broadening the inputs available to the system. In the
first stage of the process, the existing intelligence carried by those who are active is
allowed to penetrate the system. At the second stage, after activities of citizens
attempting to influence events has been recognized as legitimate and has been
encouraged by the proliferation of points of involvement with and in the system, the
original state of intelligence is enhanced.

Individual participation in society

This idea goes back to a very significant but frequently overlooked element in classic
democratic theory. This proposition is that participation stimulates the learning and
development of individuals (Lively, 1977). At times when this consequence of
participation, i.e., increased learning and individual growth is considered at all, it is
considered in terms of a benefit to the individual. However, experience does not indicate
that benefits of learning and development through civic participation fall so clearly to the
individual.

To a specific person, the considerable costs in time, energy and frustration may outweigh
direct or tangible benefits. At least the direct returns of learning and development through
participation in public life seem problematic, given the definition of "rational behavior"
common in rational choice for those following the dictates of selfish utility maximization
(Laver, 1981).

From the point of view of community development theory, the benefits from broad and
open participation accrue to the system. Individuals may profit or suffer from the learning
and development gained through their own civic participation. However, the system has a
net increase in its potential as persons become active and as incidents of participation
diversify.

In the abstract, it may seem that any increase of knowledge, sophistication and
resourcefulness regarding public affairs that results from participation would be evidence
of personal improvement. Yet, in any particular case, the reasons for participation and the
adjustments of expectations, behaviors and views of the world that follow from the
experiences of civic involvement may bring changes for the individual that he/she deems
to be negative. In other words, an individual in his/her own eyes may be worse off, or
farther from the realization of personal preferences after active participation than before.

Even when this is so at the individual level, the system still profits. The aggregate result
of civic participation expands the information, skills and comprehensions of individuals
within the system. The reservoir of ingredients on which the system draws is enriched.
Their participation extends the potential of community systems. It increases the
possibility that needed or useful intelligence, skills and information will be available to
improve the systems' competence and capabilities.

Of course, community development theory postulates that increased capabilities and

effectiveness of community systems brings substantial benefits to the people who are
members. There would be no purpose in working for the elaboration of community
systems to improve abilities and performance unless there was the expectation that this
would bring benefits in excess of cost to the people served.

In fact, theory accepts this proposition as the basis for concentrating on actions at the
community level. Stress on the fact that community development theory is directed
toward improvement of community systems, and not toward individual improvement is
necessary. It helps to avoid any misleading expectations on the part of individuals about
the consequences of civic participation that are suggested by community development
theory.

The theory does not imply that positive results from participation in community affairs
fall directly to the individual participants. It does not suggest that individuals who
increase their civic involvement and/or their participatory skills will necessarily improve
the circumstances of their personal life.

The prescriptive proposition of community development, that people should become

active in citizen roles whenever such opportunities and their own inclinations converge,
is based on the idea that extensive involvement is a mode of systemic capacity building.
It is not based on the assumption that each participant will secure or be moved closer to
their personal aspirations.

Democratic characteristics
In the context of community development the concept of democracy relates to patterns of
community structuring that allows the system to:

• Take advantage of the data, ideas and energies available from any member, and;
• Place information, perspectives and preferences from many sources in interaction
to force learning, synthesis and creativity.

Depending on the history of the community, the system's configuration and a wide
variety of circumstances particular to the system, the patterns of democratic structuring
will vary.

As the application of democratic principles and behaviors expands within the system, the
arrangements for governance will undergo a more or less continuous process of structural
adjustment and change. Democracy is envisioned as a state subject to structural variations
and not as a particular type of fixed state. The participation of citizens has influence on
systems' design and institutional arrangements, as well as on policy decisions. The
community system that exhibits a significant level of responsiveness to activities of
citizens is likely to have dynamic structuring. The particular configuration existing at any
time in a system with substantial dependence on democracy is provisional. Almost every
feature of structuring is susceptible to change. There are no absolutes concerning the
structural characteristics of democracy, except that the system is open to consequential
involvement of its members.

A democratic system can be expected to be liable to an ongoing series of adjustments and

to experience transformation over time through a process akin to evolvement. The elastic
and protean characteristic of democratic systems prevents ossification of the system and
allows progressive adaptations to shifts in demands and/or other internal and
environmental conditions.

Resort to revolution is less attractive and less likely in systems with sufficient reliance on
democracy to activate capacities for structural variability. Structural rigidity of
institutions and community systems in the face of substantial change, not social change as
such, is the precursor of revolution (Johnson, 1966). Democracy's structural flexibility in
response to shifting demand inputs provides adjustments that can be the means to avoid
traumatic up-rooting of community structures.

The relatively common notion that expansive participation is associated with instability is
an error (Crozier, Huntington and Watanuki, 1975). Paradoxically, the pressures for
change likely to generate from broad participation are the best insurance a community
has against obstreperous actions and unpredictable results of revolution. Institution of a
development process increasingly dependent on democratic modes provides an
alternative to revolution when change and changing demands of people fill the
atmosphere of public life.

Citizen roles
Democracy has the characteristic of flexible structuring, and the ready potential to use
multiple patterns of organization. Therefore, it cannot be distinguished by specific rules
of the game, like majority rule, that traditionally have been suggested as mandatory
features of democracy (Prothro and Grigg, 1960).

There is an understandable problem of definition. Prominent differences exist as to what

the basic principles of democracy are, and how these would be reflected in the design of a
democratic system. The idea of democracy, while widely held up as a worthy ideal,
generally comes across as an ambiguous concept (Benn and Peters, 1965).

With democracy a central idea of community development, its theory has to clarify what
distinguishes the democratic principles of social system construction. While it is
expressed in a number of different ways and formulations, community development
theory proposes that the situation of citizen roles in the public system is the basic feature
that differentiates democracy. The recognition and legitimacy of autonomy or self-
direction in citizen roles is the element that is unique to democratic systems (Voth,
Jackson and Cook, 1979).

As generally used "citizen" is not a very refined term. Often it is taken as a person acting
in almost any type of civic role. In the context of community development theory and the
associated theory of participatory democracy, "citizen roles" have a restricted meaning.
They refer to voluntary sets of civic behavior in which the incumbents in the role
determine the behavior. That differentiates "citizen roles" from subject and other kinds of
prescribed civic roles.

Classifying citizen roles

One helpful way to classify the types of roles through which people participate in
community systems is as follows:

• Mandatory prescribed (subject) roles

Sets of behavior demanded of people in certain circumstances to abide by the
decisions of the community, the laws, rules of the game and traditions regardless
of the preference of the incumbent.
• Accepted prescribed roles
Sets of behaviors, taken on by people voluntarily or in exchange for some specific
compensation, designed to perform tasks deemed helpful to the system by the
system. Incumbents have some choice of whether to accept the role or not, but
once in it are expected to conform to the prescriptions provided by the system.
 • Autonomous (citizen) roles
Set of behaviors determined and directed by incumbents based on their judgment
as to how to influence public affairs given their own circumstances and
perceptions of the situations and patterns of the community systems.

A democratic community involves a system that recognizes the legitimacy of such

autonomous roles, supports such independent civic activity by the norms of the
community, and in which the authorities tolerate self-directed civic activities of
community members intended to influence the course of events and/or structuring of the
systems.

Individual community members play all three types of roles. Every member will be called
upon to perform subject roles, e.g., taxpayer. Most community members will find
themselves in other types of prescribed civic roles either as a voluntary service or for
direct compensation. An example of a voluntary prescribed role would be a solicitor in a
local fund raising campaign. Bureaucratic jobs, with their detailed written position
descriptives, are obvious examples of prescribed civic roles taken on in return for
remuneration. In a community system with at least a modicum of democratic tendency,
members have openings for civic involvement of their own design and carried out under
their own recognizance.

In this context, it is clear that "citizen" does not refer to a particular segment of
community members, or to an ascribed status in community. "Citizen" denotes a
particular type of civic role distinguished by its independence of supervision and
directive by authorities. It is a behaviorally defined role the performance of which is
voluntary and transitory. Community members who are incumbents in official or
professional roles in the community system may step out of such roles to act on their own
in a citizen role. A member of parliament, an agency director or a scientist may from time
to time perform as a citizen, unencumbered by the requirements of their other prescribed
civic roles.

Practical considerations of role identification

In practice there are difficulties with this. Since occupational and official roles often
involve a high level of identification between person and role, it is hard to separate them
from it. The incumbents may identify themselves as persons substantially in terms of
their particular prescribed role. When they are actually acting as citizens, independent of
the prescriptions of their formal role, they may attempt to clothe their citizen behavior
with the authority associated with their institutional position.

Other members of the community may have considerable difficulty in separating citizen
behavior from highly visible formal role performance. The usual patterns of socialization
do not very well equip community members to separate roles from incumbents or to
recognize behaviorally identified roles not determined by social position (Biddle, 1979).
This is complicated further by the fact that the knowledge, abilities and styles
accumulated in prescribed role experiences may be brought into play in the design and
execution of citizen roles. (One of the more explicit presentations advocating that
members of a profession use their knowledge and perspectives acquired in its practice in
citizen roles conducted independently from the authorities is Jack Primack and Frank
Von Hipple's work on scientists in the political arena. They suggest that scientists must
avoid being restricted to the roles prescribed for them by government, and extend their
behavior to that of "citizens" (Primack and Von Hipple, 1976).)

Difficulties in perceiving citizenship in these terms relates to having very vague notions
of citizen functions and position in community system. It is not related to the lack of
autonomous civic behavior. Nor is it unusual for people to attempt to take influential
action independent of the preferences and directions of authorities. In community systems
disposed toward democratic structuring, self-created participation is considered normal,
legitimate and, at least to a degree, something to be encouraged. The limits of acceptable
independent civic activity in the democratic setting are wide.

Autonomous civic behavior also appears in non-democratic systems. There it is defined

as abnormal, disloyal, irresponsible or recalcitrant behavior. In such systems the model
for citizens is the same as the model for subjects. In democratic systems, both mandatory
subject roles and voluntary citizen roles are intrinsic elements in the constitution of the
community system.

In considering autonomous or self-directed behavior, it is necessary to note that such

civic activity does not imply isolated action. On their own volition, regulated by their
own judgment, people may design civic roles to interconnect with other citizen roles.
Structures in the community system very well may be formed entirely of self determined
roles.

Most likely such structures would be transitory and/or intermittent, but for a time they
may perform significant functions in the system. In addition, people may design roles to
interconnect with existing prescribed roles or formally constituted civic structures. For a
time, these may operate as part of established structures, as adjuncts to them, or as
linkage mechanisms with other structures. At the same time the incumbents in these
citizen roles can continue to control their definition and performance.

Consequences of choice
Citizen roles in democratic structuring are matters of choice. The incumbents are neither
able to choose what the system will decide or do, nor even how it will respond to their
citizen activities. However, they can choose how to use themselves in efforts to influence
events and the workings of the system. Choices to participate or not to participate,
legitimate choices in a democratic system, and choices regarding patterns of participation
are extremely significant to the system. Theory does not assume that all people will make
good decisions for themselves or their communities; only that these choices in the
aggregate will have a great deal to do with the capacities and directions of public affairs
(Cook, 1975).
The range involved in choices of citizen roles is considerable. They include the following
which incumbents determine for themselves:

• Whether to perform;
• When to perform;
• Where to perform;
• How to perform, and;
• What direction the citizen role is to take.

Since each individual is different from every other individual, the probabilities are high
that each will make different choices. While it often happens that a number of people in a
community share a similar position relative to the system or to salient issues in it, this
does not mean they will behave in the same way. The variables leading to different
choices are wide ranging. There are variations in self-perceptions, definition of the
situation, motives of workings and ways of the system, prior experience, skills and
information and judgments. These represent just a few of the dimensions involved. The
list could go on and on.

The consequence of choice about participation coupled with the variation of individual
circumstances and estimations is differential participation. This proposition markedly
changes expectations of how citizen participation looks when taking place. The tendency
has been to think of citizen activity as mass behavior. In fact, when choices about
participation patterns are available to community members, people taking up citizen roles
do not act alike. Citizens do not become active all at the same time, same place, in the
same way, or about the same things.

The results of choices in the design and activation of citizen roles, which community
development theory suggests is the critical feature of democracy, are that such
involvement takes many forms in different places around various issues. The involvement
of different community members will vary in style, duration and intensity. Therefore,
most of the time, democracy yields selective, differential and intermittent patterns of
participation among the citizenry. It will not be the scene of uniform, unremitting and
universal involvement (Cook, 1979).

Judging from empirical evidence, constant and concentrated civic activity is most likely
in totalitarian systems which are the antithesis of democracy (Grodzius, 1963). In these
system participation is forced or directed. This is likely to produce much higher and more
regular levels of overt popular involvement than under democratic conditions where
people are free to either participate or not in citizen roles.

Building on diversity
Building from the proposition that community members are diverse individuals produces
this dramatically different prediction about citizen activity under democracy. When
community development prescribes incrementally opening the system to involve citizen
roles, it does not imply that this will result in everybody becoming active as citizens all
the time. Unfortunately, it is common for people to assume that advocacy of citizen
participation centers on an ideal of having everybody in on the act of deciding each
public policy or on the choice of modes to handle each decision (Cleveland, 1974).

Perhaps this notion goes back to some of the more traditional ways of describing
democracy. For example, a typical description might be "... full participation of all
members of a society in regulating their communal life," (Bottomore, 1979). It is terms
like "all" and "full participation" that trigger a vision of everybody involved in every
significant aspect of communal governance. This, along with the habit of thinking of the
body of citizens as a homogeneous class of community members, creates the image of an
ideal democratic community as a place in which the mass is completely and constantly
involved.

Democracy as defined in community development theory does not present total

participation as the ideal. Rather, selective participation, which results from the freedom
of people to decide for themselves when and how to take part as citizens, is valued.
Instead of creating a model of one ideal type of citizen role as the guide for every
community member, the desirable situation is to have many models of acceptable citizen
roles. This allows the system to call upon a wide range of behaviors, experiences,
information sources and energies. It permits people to use their own uniqueness in civic
affairs. Making their contributions in ways they judge appropriate for themselves makes
more contributions available to the system than the traditional tendency to attempt to
school all members to conform to a single civic role model.

Diversity, distribution and variations in citizen involvement should be expected from a

body of human beings. Rather than trying to collect everybody into the same structure to
behave in the same manner, democracy attempts to take advantage of the diversity of the
population. It allows people to work, to think and to act in different places in the system,
dealing at different times with different things. It accepts the possibility of productive use
of the heterogeneity of civic behavior, rather than gearing toward inculcating
homogeneity in the exercise of citizenship. Structuring to allow the diversity of people to
be taken into account and responded to in and by the community system stimulates the
building of capacities in community systems.

The tolerance of independent and diverse citizen activities has the result of moving the
system closer to the characteristics of an open system. All inputs cannot be predetermined
or restricted to those requested by the authorities. Since a democratic system is not
totalitarian, that is it limits the coverage of the community system to allow people to have
living space beyond the community's control, energies and ideas can enter from outside
the community system.

Citizen roles often play this function. Importing matter and energy from outside allows
the system to counter normal tendencies toward disorganization or entropy. In addition,
spontaneous activity within the system is expected and legitimate. This is another source
of experience and intelligence. Democracy, the open system model for communities, is
not only amenable to dynamic adjustments but may evolve toward a more complex order
(Buckley, 1968).

Stability and change

Community development does focus on change and on the increase in the ability of
community systems to create desirable change, to adapt to unavoidable change and to
ward off undesirable change. It works from the proposition that community systems
historically have not been well equipped to direct, to respond to, or to moderate change
and its consequences. As the rates and range of change accelerate and expand,
community capacity to deal with change has become even more critical.

Yet stability also is important in serving the public needs of community members.
Communities are considered instrumental systems. People associate with them in order to
secure returns through the production of certain goods, services, environments and the
preservation of valued conditions. Dependable performance and production is required.

For a community system to work in terms of return to its members, it must incorporate
the capacity to continue operations that are satisfactory and to change those that are not
effective. It also needs the ability to add or subtract operations with shifts in the
environment, demands and aspirations of the population.

Community development theory recognizes that maintaining roles, structures and

processes which are performing well is vital. However, the established modes of
organization in communities usually are strong on maintaining that which is being done.
Structural weaknesses revolve around the lack of ways to end anachronistic conduct, to
modify or correct operations having difficulties, and to introduce innovations when
appropriate. In turning attention to elaborating the system, in order to improve handling
the control and direction of change, the value of preserving that which is working well
cannot be lost.

The working community system has a dual structure. One side is designed for stability,
for regular performance, and for predictability. The core of this side of the system is
made up of the subject and other prescribed roles. The other side of the system is
designed for evaluation and change. The core of this side of the system is made up of
autonomous citizen roles. When these two sides interact, tension is usually experienced
between them.

When a community system is experiencing difficulties coping with internal or external

pressures for change, community development intervention concentrates on elaborating
and strengthening the side geared for change. The side designed to support adaptation and
change is generally weak, underdeveloped and afforded low status in the system. The
introduction of democratic principles, modes of organization and regime norms is
intended to add roles and behaviors to the system. Citizen roles do not displace but
augment official roles. Citizen roles are not more important than official roles. Both are
necessary. They differ in the functions performed in the system. Citizen roles provide the
inclination to evaluate performance and to make changes. Prescribed roles provide the
inclination to keep things as they are. Deficiencies in systems tend to be in the lack of
legitimate influence of citizen roles. Increasing the use of and dependence on democracy
is the single known way to balance the system in order to handle the stability/change
dilemma.

Conservative/radical balance
Community development theory accepts the proposition of classical conservatism that the
cumulative opinions and rules of communal life are to be respected. Summary
substitution of rationalized schemes of community system structuring for traditional
patterns is dangerous. It involves assertions of knowledge and of certainties that are
unwarranted, and are likely to put the community on a course to which short term
experiences provide the only guide to action (Burke, 1967). Yet the worship of tradition
and the sanctification of existing modes of organization and decision making as
unchangeable legacies of a pristine era, are equally dangerous. They reduce community
systems to powerless victims of their own history, unable to consciously respond to
changing conditions.

In the dynamic environment in which most community systems operate, both

technological and social invention will happen. Social inventions, that is new ways and
procedures of relating, are apt to alter people's situations more radically than
technological ones (Leinwand, 1976). It is these social inventions that tradition-bound
systems have trouble recognizing as anything other than illegitimate aberrations. The new
ways may become well established in actual practice while the community system refuses
to grant status to any objective input about them or their results. This is a means to
preserve the image of adherence to tradition even as the reality has changed.

Community development theory suggests a balanced respect for the potency of both
tradition and social invention. The systems should invite critical thinking about
traditional patterns and innovation. Community systems should work on the dual
premises that blindly following tradition can limit capacities, and that uncritical
implementation of innovation can bring unintended negative, sometimes despoiling,
consequences. Abilities to be developed involve the creation of the competence to
differentiate parts of traditions that ought to be maintained from those to be modified or
displaced by innovations.

In assessing the state of community systems, community development theory proposes

that it is far more likely for the system to overweight the conservative side. Existing
community organization favors maintenance of the status quo, and is geared to regularity,
dependability and predictability in system performance. Generally there are a very few,
highly constrained legitimate patterns in the system to handle planning, adaptation and
decision making related to new situations, aspirations or agendas affecting the
population. Roles and structures dominated by prescribed behavior based on prior
experience tend toward exclusive control of the resources and attention of community
systems. This overprotects the existing patterns and policies from legitimate challenge
based on new evaluation of the situation and performance of the system.

The community development tactic is to incrementally elaborate the system with roles
and structures designed to increase autonomy. Since the predominant characteristics of
community systems work in the direction of restricting involvement and pre-determining
style, timing, locale and purpose of involvement, the community development process
promotes radical departures from common community practices. At the same time, it
does not displace the prescribed roles and structures with citizen roles. It aims at
enlarging the system's potential by increasing its open characteristics and its range of
interaction among elements protecting existing patterns and pressuring for change.

Preservation and change are both necessary, yet there is a good chance that the first is not
possible without the second in the contemporary circumstance. When, where and how to
save and shift is not self-evident. These things have to be re-learned in specific times and
places. Interactions among those charged with maintaining existing operations and those
advocating changes are a means for a community system to learn. This will work,
however, only if the system provides a reasonable level of equal standing for those who
would do things differently. Laws and customs provide a solid standing for the prescribed
roles. Community development theory advocates that in addition, community systems
should allow an equality of standing for citizen roles.

Absolute equality is neither possible nor logically a worthy ideal. Yet, there must be
consideration of the practicality of some type of equality for citizen roles regardless of
the social standing of the incumbents. It may be that the modern world cannot avoid
being subject to the cultures of inequality (Lewis, 1979). Still, some substantial equality
for citizens in community affairs is possible and practical.

In the ancient Athenian community there was a principle "they called isegoria, an equal
right to be heard in the sovereign assembly of the state before public decisions were
taken," (Dunn, 1979). Today there are not many such sovereign assemblies around.
Decision making is seldom centralized in this manner. Rather it is dispersed among many
structures and processes. Yet, community systems can recognize that a right of
citizenship is to be heard before public decisions are made. If this can be accepted as a
working principle or an aspiration, the points of access and modes of being heard can be
worked out in the context of each community system.

Summary
Community development does not provide detailed prescriptions appropriate to every
community system. It does not distribute a particular improvement program. Rather,
community development theory expresses a unique perspective on development. It
supplies, to those who would consciously intervene in community systems, a conceptual
framework. It presents a logical basis for and general guides to the use of open system or
democratic structuring, and the application of a holistic approach in efforts to stimulate
the building of capacities, and to improve the performance of and in community systems.
General community development theory establishes an orientation toward community
systems and human behaviors to be considered relevant in and for this level and type of
social organization. It does not purport to give answers to the basic questions of what,
why, or how for every community system. It does provide a conceptual platform or
grounding for the building of community, setting and time specific theory by which to
guide and assess intervention in each particular system.

Time for the incremental establishment of an on-going, expanding process of learning

through interaction, experimentation, monitoring and experience is required. It cannot be
used when the circumstances and culture demand rapid action determined by summary
procedures.

It is a theory of development that assumes the existence of a community system which, at

the time of initial contact, has some semblance of order and is capable of performing at
least a minimal level of production to serve its members. Great deficiencies and
dissatisfactions may exist — substantial deficiencies and dissatisfactions, in fact, are
necessary conditions if conscious development activities are to be considered — but the
situation of the system and its members cannot be catastrophic if community
development theory is to be used.

In addition to time, and to some level of functionality in the existing system, a

community development approach requires a degree of identification with the system and
with other members of the community. This must be sufficient to support considerable
voluntary activity that is self-constrained enough to tolerate involvement of others who
do not agree. Something at least approximating a sense of community is then a condition
for use of community development theory.

When the state of affairs is such that these prior conditions exist, community
development theory involves certain assumptions about people and community system.
These include the following:

• People are diverse. Community systems can organize to take advantage of that
diversity.
• Community systems are not totalitarian. People have life spaces outside of the
community structure.
• Breadth of experience, intelligence, information and energies represented in a
population far exceed that which the community system takes into account.
• People learn from participation in community systems and community systems
learn from the participation of people.
• People are capable of exercising a considerable degree of autonomy, while
exercising self-restraint required for social order.
• People have the capacity for a significant level of empathy with others that
permits tolerance and voluntary relationships within the community systems.
• While people prefer justice and fairness in community systems, they often
perceive it differently.
 • Imperfections will mark every community system. A degree of inequity will exist
in every community system.
• Resorting to absolutes is likely to stand in the way of finding practical
accommodations within the community system.
• Working from the principle that everyone affected by a decision has a right to
participate helps the community system locate areas of difficulty and expands the
range of potential intelligence available to the system with which to address the
situation.

People are likely to display different patterns of participation that are subject to change
over time and to changes in situations. Community systems can accommodate many
different and variable patterns of participation. Therefore, it should be expected that the
active structures of community systems will vary with changes in participants, time and
circumstances.

There are many possible configurations even in the same community. System capabilities
lie with the ability to use and to experiment with different configurations. The ability to
vary structures, and relationships among structures, according to the requirements of the
function to be carried out is critical in effective community performance.

A developing community system is in a continuous process of elaborating itself and of

incorporating a wider range of participation patterns. It expands attention given to
conscious structural adjustment and to the pulses of participation.

This mode of control depends on thought and action related so as to inform each other.
Participants are encouraged to think and to act in sequence. The community system
governance works on a thought/information/action cycle similar to a cybernetic control
model, i.e., thought/information, action, feedback, adjustment; thought/information,
action, feedback, adjustment; ...

However, control is not an automatic process but a function of human judgment

responding in the thought/action cycle. Further, as the community system takes on more
open system characteristics, it also is affected by spontaneous activities of people and
energies imported from outside the system.

As the situations faced by community systems become more complex, dynamic and
subject to change, there is need for more and greater variety of intelligence to govern the
system. Members of the community have been, and are, an underused source of
intelligence and information. Open democratic processes give the system access to this
reservoir.

In addition the action in and of citizen roles stimulates learning. It creates tension
between and among citizen, official and other prescribed roles in a systematic way that
encourages creativity in the processes of tension reduction. Participants learn and the
system learns. Learning is the requirement for, and the product of, the community
development process. (Botkins, et al, 1979.)
Bibliography
Basic community development theory

• Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Community Development. Community Development

and National Development. New York: United Nations, 1963.
• Almond, G. "A functional approach to Comparative Politics." The Politics of the
Developing Areas. In Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman (eds.). Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.
• Abrahamsson, B. Bureaucracy or Participation: The Logic of Organization.
Volume 51. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Library of Social Research, Sage
Publication, 1977.
• Bachrach, P. The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1967.
• Bailey, Roy, and Brake, Mike, editors. Radical Social Work. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1975.
• Benn, S.I. and Peters, R.S. The Principles of Political Thought. New York: The
Free Press, 1965.
• Bertalanffy, L. von. General System Theory. New York: George Braziller, 1968.
• Biddle, B.J. Role Theory. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
• Botkins, James W., Elmandjra, Mahdi and Malitza, Mircea. No Limits to
Learning. New York: Pergamon Press, 1979.
• Bottomore, Tom. Political Sociology. Colophon edition. New York: Harper and
Row, 1979.
• Buckley, Walter, editor, Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968.
• Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Number 460. New
York: Everyman's Library, Dutton, 1967.
• Christenson, James A., and Robinson, Jerry W., Jr., editors. Community
Development in America. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1980.
• Churchman, C. West. The Systems Approach. Delta Edition. New York: Dell
Publishing, 1968.
• Cleveland, Harlan. "How Do You Get Everybody in on the Act and Still Get
Some Action?" Educational Record 55, pp. 177-182, 1974.
• Cohen, C. Democracy. New York: The Free Press, 1973.
• Cook, James B. "Democracy and Rural Development" Training Materials. MU
Department of Community Development, June 1979.
• Cook, James B. "Advocacy of Grassroots Citizenship." Journal of Community
Development Society, (Fall 1975): 22-29.
• Cox, Fred M.; Erlich, John L.; Rothman, Jack; and Tropman, John E. Tactics and
Techniques of Community Practice. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock, 1977.
• Crozier, Michel J.; Huntington, Samuel P.; and Watanuki, Joji. The Crisis of
Democracy. New York: New York University Press, 1975.
• Dodge, Willard K. "Ten Commandments of Community Development or one
Middle Aged Graduate's Advice to New Graduates." Journal of the Community
Development Society. (Spring 1980): pp. 49-57.
• Dunham, Arthur. "Community Development in North America." Community
Development Journal. 7:1. (1972): pp. 10-40.
• Dunn, John. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1979.
• Dye, T.R., and Zeigler, L.H. The Irony of Democracy. Second edition. Belmont,
California: Duxbury Press, 1972.
• Easton, D. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall, 1965.
• Eckstein, Harry. Division and Cohesion in Democracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1966.
• Edwards, Clark. "The Political Economy of Rural Development: Theoretical
Perspectives," American Journal of Agriculture Economics. 58, 5:914-921.
(1976): pp. 914-921.
• Foote, N., and Cottrell, L. Identity and Interpersonal Competence. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1955.
• Gerlach, L.P., and Hine, V. Liveway Leap: The Dynamic of Change in America.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973.
• Grodzins, Morton. "Centralization and Decentralization." In A National of States.
Robert A. Goldwin, editor, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.
• Handler, P. "National Planning of Medical Research." Science. June 1965, pp.
1688-92.
• Johnson, Chalmer. Revolutionary Change. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1966.
• Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organization. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
• Laver, Michael. The Politics of Private Desires. New York: Penguin Books, 1981.
• Leinwand, Gerald, editor, The Future. New York: Pocket Books, 1976.
• Lewis, Michael. The Culture of Inequality. Meridian edition. New York: New
American Library, 1979.
• Lively, Jack. Democracy. Capricorn Edition. New York: G.P. Putnam Sons, 1977.
• Lotz, Jim. "Training in Community Development." Community Development
Journal. 1970. pp. 67-75.
• Marburger, John H., III. "How to Cope with Inevitable Ignorance," The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Sept. 9, 1981.
• Mayo, Marjorie. "Community Development A Radical Alternative," In Radical
Social Work. Edited by Roy Bailey and Mike Brake. New York: Pantheon Books,
1975.
• Mezirow, J.D. Dynamics of Community Development. New York: Scarecrow
Press, 1963.
• Morgan, Arthur E. The Small Community: Foundation of Democratic Life. New
York: Harper and Bros., 1942.
• Morgan, Arthur E. The Community of the Future and the Future of Community.
Yellow Springs, Ohio: Community Service, 1957.
• Nair, Kusum. In Defense of the Irrational Peasant. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979.
• Ogilvy, J. Many Dimensional Man. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1979.
• Parsegian, V.L. This Cybernetic World. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books,
1973.
• Pateman, C. Participation and Democratic Theory. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1970.
• Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated with introduction and notes by Francis
MacDonald Cornford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1945.
• Primack, Joel, and Von Hippel, Frank. Advice and Dissent. Meridian edition. New
York: New American Library, 1976.
• Prothro, James W., and Grigg, Charles M. "Fundamental Principles of
Democracy: Base of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics. (May
1960): pp. 276-293.
• Rousseau, Jeau-Jacques. The Social Contract. Introduction by M. Cranston (ed.).
New York: Penguin Books, 1968.
• Sanders, Irwin. "Theories of Community Development." Rural Sociology. (Spring
1958).
• Sarbin, T.R., and Allen, V.L. "Role Theory." The Handbook of Social
Psychology. Second edition, Volume One. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1968.
• United Nations. Report of the Ashbridge Conference on Social Development.
United Nations Miscellaneous Publication 523. (February 1955).
• Voth, Donald E.; Jackson, Virginia; and Cook, James B. "Citizen Participation in
Rural Development." In Citizen Participation Perspectives. Stuart Langton,
editor, Medford, Mass.: Lincoln Tilene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs,
1979.
• Warren, Roland. The Community in America. Third edition. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1978.