Community Building

9 Community Building in the Twenty-First Century Implications for Anthropologists

Contributors to Community Building in the Twenty-First Century have provided unique insights into the history, current status, and future promise of applied social science in community-building endeavors. To conclude, we briefly summarize the main implications for community builders from each chapter. Immediately following each summary are the author’s reflections on how participation in this project has affected his or her understanding of community building in the twenty-first century, as well as his or her mentoring of the next generation of social scientists. Finally, we end with some overarching implications for the future of engaged scholarship and community building. CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY AND REFLECTIONS Van Willigen encourages community builders to think of community assets in terms of the culture and history of a community. Just as important, the differences between community development and community building should be contemplated with respect to the way assets are discussed and mobilized. According to van Willigen, it is essential that anthropologists recognize the advantages of identifying and using 219 9 Community Building in the Twenty-First Century Implications for Anthropologists Stanley E. Hyland 219 internal resources, because these assets can be mobilized more quickly and efficiently and have a positive effect on community capacity. “External resources can overwhelm.” Nonetheless, when introduced properly, external resources do have their place in the process of community building. Van Willigen advocates that anthropologists be more comprehensive in their understanding of the community and more critical and reflective in identifying and using assets and external resources for community development. Because community assets have a substantial impact on community development and community -building activities, anthropologists must continue to research this area, to explore the relationship between “the resource allocation process and the cultural and social appropriateness of the development plans.” John van Willigen: Chapter 2 reflects my core experience in comparing “ways of thinking” about development resources—juxtaposing concepts that were important to me in applied work earlier in my career with contemporary ways of thinking. The comparison reinforced my view that “new” ideas are often expressed without reference to earlier, similar conceptions. That is the case with my reading of Kretzmann and McKnight. Their approach is sound but does not take advantage of the useful ideas developed by earlier writers in anthropology. An intellectually richer and more practical approach can be constructed by combining the valuable aspects of earlier ideas with contemporary expressions. Kretzmann and McKnight’s community assets model ignores precursors and promulgates a kind of intellectual rootlessness. In brief, their model would be improved by the incorporation of culture as an important class of community resources. It seems as though a basic set of truths (that is, some workable propositions) cycles in and out of style, expressed in new ways but not necessarily improved. I think that accumulation of conceptualization contributes to the utility of these truths. The limitation in the accumulation of theory plagues the literature on the practice of development. Also, there is little empirical verification beyond that of intellectually rootless case studies. The production of a more comprehensive and accumulative contemporary statement on community-based development would be a worthwhile endeavor—something that would look across disciplines Stanley E. Hyland 220 more aggressively. Within the context of that work, I think that future research should focus on how the nature of development resources affects the outcomes of the development process. CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY AND REFLECTIONS Oliver-Smith stresses the ever-expanding role of anthropologists in work with uprooted peoples of the world. According to Oliver-Smith, anthropologists are now actively engaging in applied research, policy formation, theory building, evaluation, planning, and resistance in their work with communities. Besides evaluation, Oliver-Smith states, “anthropologists have carried out the applied research necessary for informed planning and the implementation of humane and developmentally oriented resettlement projects.” Anthropologists must be prepared to be agents on behalf of these communities. Advocacy and leadership roles are taking on an increasing importance as uprooted communities relocate and establish or re-establish their cultural resources to find a meaningful place in the world. In performing the role of agent, anthropologists must recognize that local cultural resources and cultural traditions have the power to mobilize uprooted peoples. Oliver-Smith emphasizes that the substance of a culture and its traditions must be investigated. These should be articulated and acted upon by the people themselves during the recovery and reconstruction process. Anthropologists today need...