Uncovering ‘Community’: Challenging an Elusive Concept in Development and Disaster Related Work
| Autor: | Fred Krüger, Terry Cannon, Alexandra Titz |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
media_common.quotation_subject
vulnerability 0211 other engineering and technologies 0507 social and economic geography 02 engineering and technology Work related disasters Terminology social ties participation Sociology lcsh:Social sciences (General) belonging development identity media_common Corporate governance 05 social sciences General Social Sciences 021107 urban & regional planning Citizen journalism Environmental ethics Ambiguity Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät Interpersonal ties Framing (social sciences) climate change governance ddc:300 community lcsh:H1-99 050703 geography |
| Zdroj: | Societies, Vol 8, Iss 3, p 71 (2018) Societies Volume 8 Issue 3 |
| ISSN: | 2075-4698 |
| Popis: | In all areas of academic or practical work related to disaster risk, climate change and development more generally, community and its adjunct community-based have become the default terminology when referring to the local level or working &lsquo with the people&rsquo The terms are applied extensively to highlight what is believed to be a people-centred, participatory, or grassroot-level approach. Today, despite, or because of, its inherent ambiguity, &lsquo community&rsquo tends to be used almost inflationarily. This paper aims to analyse the way the concept of &lsquo has come into fashion, and to critically reflect on the problems that come with it. We are raising significant doubts about the usefulness of &lsquo in development- and disaster-related work. Our approach is to first consider how &lsquo has become popular in research and with humanitarian agencies and other organisations based on what can be considered a &lsquo moral licence&rsquo that supposedly guarantees that the actions being taken are genuinely people-centred and ethically justified. We then explore several theoretical approaches to &lsquo highlight the vast scope of different (and contested) views on what &lsquo entails, and explain how &lsquo is framing practical attempts to mitigate vulnerability and inequity. We demonstrate how these attempts are usually futile, and sometimes harmful, due to the blurriness of &lsquo concepts and their inherent failure to address the root causes of vulnerability. From two antagonistic positions, we finally advocate more meaningful ways to acknowledge vulnerable people&rsquo s views and needs appropriately. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|