Welcome to my Blog

John McKnight

READ MY BLOG

Community Security and the Institutional Assumption

Throughout America, communities are establishing task forces to respond to police abuse and the murder of Black citizens. These task forces have variously recommended cuts in police budgets and reform of systems for the selection of police officers, their training and discipline. Many task forces have broadened their recommendations to include relocating police functions to social service agencies that have purview over homelessness, mental health and social service work. This relocation is designed to assure that the police are able to concentrate time and resources on functions that are “properly” in their domain –community security and safety.

In this relocation of functions the key actors are two institutions –the police and human service agencies. There are some task forces that also give a nod to local neighborhoods by recommending intensified efforts at improving police-community relations.

For years there have been studies of the factors that are critical in creating and maintaining neighborhood safety and security. They consistently demonstrate that the principle determinant of local security is citizen relationships and the activities of their associations*. Therefore, any serious effort to deal with neighborhood security and safety will require a primary focus on local associational life rather than a reformed police department or locally engaged human service agencies.

If reform-oriented task forces want to be effective, they will necessarily have to consider the functions of local citizens’ associational life as a domain where safety and security functions can be relocated or newly performed **.

For those task forces willing to focus their basic work on neighborhoods and the associational life manifested there, a map of the functions of associations is useful. These functions include:

  • In times of emergency or crisis, associations are frequently able to respond more rapidly than institutions.
  • Associational responses tend to be individualized and personal rather than programmatic and institutional.
  • Associations elicit and use popular knowledge in their work while institutions tend to use technical information.
  • Associations are the site for citizen-based problem solving.
  • Associations create local power by aggregating individual concerns into the capacity for collective action.
  • Associations are citizen vehicles for collective advocacy.
  • Associations provide settings where leadership opportunities proliferate and, as a result many more leaders are identified and developed.
  • Associations provide the context for the interactive formation of community values and opinion.
  • Associations provide context for behavioral change best exemplified by Alcoholics Anonymous and other Twelve Step Programs.
  • Associational formation provides proliferating opportunities for new forms of civic engagement. The ease of formation creates many new relationships and initiatives that are evoked by demands of the times e.g. community security, local food production, health activities etc.
  • Associations provide mediating functions between institutions and individual citizens.
  • Associations have conceived and initiated the creation of many new institutions e.g. hospitals, universities, social services.
  • Associations are the principle site for care. They hold citizens together because each cares about the other, or they care about the same thing. Operating outside the market, a community’s associations are the primary indicator of what citizens care about enough to act collectively.

Once the functions of associations become the central focus of reform oriented task forces, they can ask four basic questions:

  1. How can our institutions support the associational functions?
  2. What institutional policies and practices have deterred or opposed the growth or power of local associational functions?
  3. What functions that police attempt to perform could be better performed by relocating them to newly empowered local associations?
  4. How can we re-orient our working map so that neighborhood associations are at the center and institutions act as a support unit for their activity?
******

The Institutional Assumption

The current police task force efforts are a useful example of the importance of how a question is framed. If the issue is framed by an institutional assumption that the police and agencies are the key actors in producing security, they will exclude the most important actor –the associational world.

Most questions of community well-being are framed as though any goal can best be achieved as the result of more effective institutional intervention and intensified institutional coalitions. It is this framing assumption that is the cause of many failed reforms.

In the pursuit of community security, health, education and child raising, ignoring the present or potential functions of associational life ensures that these issues will continue to be unresolved. ***

* See especially Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect by Robert J. Sampson

** For a more specific description of the associational world see The Four–Legged Stool: The Unique Functions of Associations in Community Life by John McKnight (2013).This can be found on the ABCD Institute website.

*** For a description of seven basic functions for which associations are critical to problem solving, see Neighborhood Necessities: Seven Functions That Only Effectively Organized Neighborhoods Can Provide by John McKnight (2013).This can be found on the ABCD Institute website.

Still on Top: A Manager’s Story

He was a corporate leader in a big city, well known for his progressive views on corporate responsibility. Indeed, he had led the corporate community in efforts to achieve equity and engage neighborhoods.

In his latter days, he reflected on his efforts and their consequence. “You know, I’ve learned a lot about local communities over all these years. At first, we just ignored them although we did support the United Way and it had neighborhood concerns. Then, we began to get some pressure – advocacy groups and their demands. We responded by creating a foundation to give them money. And we developed some programs we thought would help them. Sometimes we combined our programs with those of other corporations and agencies in order to increase our impact. Then came this new idea that we could join with local groups and jointly produce good things.”

“All this looked good and felt good. But truth be known, there doesn’t seem to be much real neighborhood change. It just seems to me that local folks aren’t really taking a significant responsibility for local change. We’re still sitting on top, trying to figure out what to do so they can come to the top too.

While most institutional leaders would not describe their basic goal as enhancing neighborhood responsibility, this manage did. He said, “It’s a question of power. I can take responsibility because I have power. I think lots of those neighborhood folks don’t think they have power. And, while whatever we’ve done may have helped a little, it didn’t really give them more power. I’m still on top but my power hasn’t changed much in the neighborhood except for the jobs we provide.”

Dear reader, you live in a neighborhood. What would you tell this powerful person about enabling powerful neighborhoods? What makes them powerful?

There are some neighborhood people, wise in the ways of their neighbors, who say that there are two necessities that combine to create power.

First is the skill, capacities and abilities to create something. It means we have the capacity to get things done.

Second is the authority to do our work. We have the right to decide and control how to do it. And when we have the first two resources, a third capacity will emerge: responsibility. People take responsibility when they have capacity and authority because they are now invested with power.

So, if we understand this local wisdom, we are prepared to respond to the powerful man on top. The responsibility he seeks depends on our local capacity and authority. The two questions we can ask him are:

  1. What are you and your institutional allies doing that limits or degrades local capacity and authority? Stop doing that.
  2. What do you and your allies do or could do to support local capacity and authority? Do that.*

*For some possible institutional actions to enable powerful neighborhoods see Learnings 7, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21, 24 and 25 on John McKnight’s website at johnmcknight.org

Download pdf

Co-production: Always in Second Place

It was the first meeting of a neighborhood organization’s Health Committee on Chicago’s westside. The six members met in the living room of Gloria Blunt’s home. After considerable discussion as to how to begin, Valerie Robinson said, “Why don’t we begin by telling what makes us healthy?” The notes of the meeting record six causes of health:

  • Having a garden
  • Playing games and sports outside
  • Going to church
  • Having safe drivers through the neighborhood
  • Having enough money for a good house and food
  • Dancing

Someone then said, “Well, what makes us unhealthy?” The notes indicate these answers:

  • Guns
  • Smoking
  • Being alone with big responsibilities
  • Falling
  • Overeating
  • Being stressed and angry

At the next meeting a young doctor asked to sit in as an observer. Shortly after the meeting began, a Health Committee member asked him a question about her diabetes. This was followed by member-initiated discussions about:

  • Children’s illnesses
  • Helpful drugs and supplements
  • Vaccinations
  • Sleeplessness
  • Flu

The third meeting focused on actions to increase access for medical care for children and vaccinations. In subsequent meetings, the members never returned to planning health actions that were in their own control – as they had during the first meeting.

*****

There is a common litany of the five “determinants of health” measured by rates of mobility and mortality. They are:

  1. Individual behavior
  2. Group relationships
  3. Physical environment
  4. Income
  5. Access to medical systems

Most epidemiologists agree that the least important of these determinants is access to medical systems. The first four determinants of being healthy are outside the capacity of medical systems to deal with. However, the first four determinants are within the control of local neighborhoods and communities. Indeed, if they do not act on them, health will decline.

The health issue is often diverted from community action by issues of community relations with medical systems and their resources. This diversion happened with the neighborhood Health Committee. It proceeded to engage in partnership activities with the medical system. These activities were called “co-production.” Embedded in this partnership activity were some hidden assumptions:

We are not primarily in control of our health.

We need medical partners and their resources to be healthy

We will act as partners with the system

This is not to pose as an either/or. It is to suggest an intentional order for analyzing any community concern including health. That order is a three-step process:

  1. What can we do with our neighborhood resources to deal with this issue? *
  2. What can we achieve with our resources and the support of an institution or system – co-production?
  3. What can only be achieved by an outside institution with its resources?

It is very clear that “co-production” is sometimes very useful. However, the problem with “co-production” is that it so often diverts or replaces the more important neighborhood capacity to increase health. This is why healthy communities ensure that “co-production” is second in line when community issues are dealt with. And this is also true for community functions such as security, education, raising the young, economy, environment and food. **

Finally, the three step process cannot be achieved if there is no neighborhood vehicle to take on the functions described above. The most significant vehicle is a powerful local neighborhood organization. The precursor of that power is community organizing. So, for those concerned with neighborhood well-being, support of strong community organizing and organizations is the necessary portal to the renewal of a neighborhood’s capacities to be the principle producers of its own future.

* For a guide to ensuring that neighborhood knowledge, capacities and resources are fully engaged before co-production is undertaken see Discovering Community Power

** See Neighborhood Necessities  for a review of neighborhood functions that cannot be replaced by institutions.

Download pdf

Being Seen: Turning America Downside Up

Many Americans of diverse persuasions feel that they are not “heard”. They express their grievances in various forms from demonstrating in the streets to posting on social media. The focus of their grievances is our large institutions – government, business, not for profit agencies.

There are two major characteristics of these institutions that makes them structurally unable to hear. The first is their scale, both the scale of the institution and the scale of the complaining population.

The major institutions are huge multi-layered systems and bureaucracies. They try to respond to the thousands of voices of constituents and customers with faceless internet boilerplate messages or by connecting them with a real but powerless person in the Philippian Islands. They are inherently unable to hear people because of their own scale and the millions seeking to be heard.

In addition, government is uniquely unable to hear the millions of Americans who vote but their candidate loses. They feel they are not heard.

In the case of government and nongovernmental institutions, the scale is such that for most people the idea of being heard is unrealistic. And those who are fated to “reform” the institutions so that they can respond meaningfully have a sad history of failure.

The second cause of institutional unresponsiveness is that by their nature they are remote and impersonal. There is no powerful real person within the institution who a citizen/consumer can engage. There is, instead, a non-person hidden behind the letters CEO, COO and CFO or the words Executive Director, Chairman or President. Those seeking to be heard are John and Jane, persons with personal concerns. However, they are fated to interact with a structure designed to be impersonal.

When we “institutionalize” something, we mean that there is now a structure within which a person is transformed to an entity called “employee.” They fill a slot. They are a replaceable part. The institution will move on without them.

These employees are confronted by John or Jane who have a personal grievance and are often in pain. Within the institution they can’t engage a real person with the power to really hear them. Instead persons called John or Jane are transformed into clients or consumers – the most powerless status in society.

In the large-scale world populated with inherently impersonal institutions, even democratic societies are structured so that millions of citizens feel, accurately, that they are not being heard. These unheard people are structurally out of touch. The exception is those select people who are privileged. Privilege is a name for those with enough power to actually be heard. They “end run” the structural barriers. Traditionally, they are white, male and have a lobby.

****
It is useful to consider how people would come to know they were being heard:

Is it through their vote where the minority are unheard?

Is it the result of receiving a form letter from a legislator speaking evasively when “no” is the answer?

Is it the official hearing where they are “heard” but the vote goes against them?

Is it the corporate Customer Service Representative who is institutionally present while sending your message into a vaporous cloud of data?

Perhaps there is another way that people feel heard. We tend to think of “being heard” as the result of seeking authorizations, benefits, rights, services, etc. In this kind of “being heard,” we are consumers seeking institutional benefits. They have it. We want it. If we get it, we’re heard.

However, If we are citizens we are producers as well as consumers. The vehicle for most of our productions is our associations, clubs , organizations and churches. Here we live personally and collectively using our power to solve problems and create better ways of doing things. This happens because in this associational world, people of all persuasions hear each other. It is this local hearing that results in the creation of the infrastructure of local communities.

So, there is a power making domain in which people get heard by each other. Their shared voices result in something they can see. There is an immediate connection between their voices and the outcomes they collectively produce. Through this process there are millions of visible community benefits created and experienced by local citizens.*

While these benefits are pervasive in functioning neighborhoods and towns, they are largely unseen at the institutional level. If seen, viewed as “ nice but insignificant.”

It may be for many Americans an essential cause of their voicelessness is not that they are unheard but that they are unseen, unrecognized, unsupported or celebrated as they do the basic work of building our communities.

So, suppose we understood that the most basic working parts of our country are local – family, friends and neighbors joining together in groups that make up the base of society. If this base were the domain institutions could see as the most important space in America, they could put themselves in a new perspective. They would see themselves as servants of the local associational structure. They would act like servants – public servants, social servants and service sellers rather than acting like Lords who dominate their citizen servants through high scale remote impenetrable systems.

This transformation to a citizen-centered associational society would shift the functions and power of the institutions. The institutional questions would become:
1. How can we get out of the way of citizens being producers?
2. How can we step back so their power can grow?
3. How can we support their work so that it is more powerful?
4. How can we publicly report their powerful work every day in our media?
5. How can we celebrate their work now that we see them as the central producers of our well- being and our future?

To be heard I am acting as a supplicant and a consumer. However, to be seen I am a powerful creator in the associational world. When I am institutionally seen as part of the citizen center where I work with my neighbors, left and right, then I can sense my real power. I will feel much less aggrieved because the institutions around me will honor my capacities and support my being evermore productive. My complaints with the mega-systems will diminish because I am at the center of power. I have no one to complain to but myself.

When we are “seen” we will realize much more clearly the significance of our collective capacities, our community building work and our power. We will take on more functions and authority as institutions step back and become our servants rather than our Lords.** And we won’t need to live lives of grievance, hopelessly dependent on powerful institutions with the basic inability to hear or see us.

* The actual examples of local public benefits can be seen at:
A Study of the Community Benefits Provided by Local Associations by John McKnight (2013),
Directory of Spring Green Associations
Spring Green Study Questionnaire

** For a definition of powerful local function see Neighborhood Necessities: Seven Functions That Only Effectively Organized Neighborhoods Can Provide by John McKnight (2013).

Download pdf

Becoming Trustworthy (Learning Twenty-eight)

We hear that Americans are polarized. Nationally, there is not of enough trust to bridge the national chasm. Yet in our small towns and neighborhoods, it is often difficult to find strong community wide divisive polarity. Instead there is usually a nearly invisible trustfulness that allows the residents to collectively do the necessary work of producing community well-being.
A critical source of this trustfulness is the result of the experience of doing community work together. This work is most often manifested through local clubs, groups organizations, faith groups and associations. This collective work depends upon the experience of being productive – to be able to say, “We did that” or “We made that.” This ability to make a collective vision manifest is the essence of what it means to be a citizen: One who has an idea and with other citizens makes it come true. This experience requires investment of the substance of oneself. This involves commitments, skills, time and money. When this experience of mutual investment takes place, the trustful infrastructure of community emerges, born of community work.
There are two citizen methods that usually precede productive community work. First, is deciding what is to be done. Second is deciding who should do it. These are the precursors of the doing that creates experience in community work. However, they are activities whose tools are words. On the other hand, the collective productivity is a deeply felt experience engaging highly valued capacities and talents. This experience has the quality of being handmade and homemade. It is within our capacity and control.
These qualities remind us of Gandhi’s small hand driven spinning wheel. After he led the political revolution the industrial revolution emerged. Gandhi then advocated that every Indian should spend at least half an hour each day with a small hand spinning wheel. This daily work would collectively keep the community productive and free of the dependence on British-made industrial fabric that would lead to a new kind of functionless servitude.
In a Gandhian parallel, without local citizen productivity, large systems will replace community functions. In this way we lose the context for trust-making as we become pitiable ex-citizens transformed into dependent consumers and clients.

Gandhi’s spinning wheel symbolized the relationship between small simplicity and liberty. His wisdom also applies to trust-making. Local trust is nurtured by knowing that small is beautiful, simple is elegant and together they are powerful.
The productive work of the citizen experience most often depends on keeping the number of people small enough that each can know the name of the other. When the scale grows too large the need for manager and money emerges and the productive citizen experience is slowly replace by the executive, manager or professional.
Gandhi’s spinning wheel also spoke to the importance of “local doability.” Grand plans can be beyond our capacities and therefore we don’t try or fail or turn the work over to a professional.
So, one explanation for trustful communities is that their work is small scale and their activity appears to be simple.
This small scale and uncomplex process is usually seen by professionals, managers and academics as inconsequential at most and “nice” at most. The powerful meaning of collective citizen experience is largely unnoticed because it seems to have no high-scale visibility or policy consequences or impact.
Gandhi might say that these institutionalized people can’t see, understand or value this citizen productivity because they don’t have a spinning wheel. They don’t experience each day the power of making the thread that creates the fabric of community. The community fabric is most evident in the small and simple work of associations, clubs and organizations. While they may seem inconsequential they produce:
• The basic functions that create local well-being.
• A sense of efficacy and power among local citizens.
• The social capital that leads each of the particular citizen activities to have multiple outcomes.
• The advocacy ability to change institutional policies and practices. One example is the work of small groups of La Leche League mothers who were able to force the American Academy of Pediatrics to end their support of commercial infant formula and endorse breast feeding instead.
• Movements of aggregated associations that resulted in greater change than any high-scale systems could imagine or achieve. These associational aggregations powered the civil rights, woman’s, environmental and LGBTQ movements.
• The small simple context where trust is generated by the mutual experience of engaging in the community work that makes a community work.

Rather than being inconsequential, this associational world is the vital center of citizen production that is the foundation of our democracy – powered by trust.
In our Capitol of mistrust, perhaps we can give each of our elected officials a hand powered spinning wheel. That would provide them with the experience of spinning their unique thread and then weaving it into the fabric of democracy. Then, the experience of productive, small and simple work can create the trust that underlays all productive common democratic work.
Does anyone out there have a spare hand-driven spinning wheel? If you could give it to your senator perhaps you can get a charitable deduction and save the nation as well.

Download PDF

The Base of Powerful Movements- Understanding the Role of Local Associations (Learning Twenty-seven)

John McKnight

Co-Founder, Asset-Based Community Development Institute

Senior Associate, Kettering Foundation

At this time when the American crisis has become nationally visible, a movement has emerged. Its manifestation is visible on streets across the country. Suddenly, the discussion is about the future. What are the right demands? How should they be implemented? 

Some of the experience that can guide us today is embedded in the civil rights movement of the sixties.  That movement is remembered today by its leaders whose voices endure. Voices like those of Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Ella Baker,  Medgar Evers and John Lewis. One attribute of each of these people is that they were heard because they came from associations in their community and spoke for their members and allies. They grew out of churches, local chapters of civil rights groups, neighborhood organizations, choirs, some unions, supportive extended families, etc. When these leaders spoke it was not for themselves. But they were the voice of committed groups and local citizens. This constituency had three powerful effects.

First, it kept leaders anchored, relative and responsive. They were not free agents. 

Second, it gave leaders they “people power” so their voice was not merely listened to. It was a voice respected because of the associational power behind their voice. 

Third, their leaders’ voice did not quickly fade away after the marches stopped. They had staying power because of the continuity of the concern of the associations for which they spoke. 

Their continuing associational focus resulted in major civil rights legislation and significant institutional policy change. The change these associated people achieved changed lives and opportunities. Their struggle was not in vain. 

Today’s marchers stand on the shoulders of thousands of small groups whose members have now grown old and many have passed on. Today’s marches reignite the voices that have now grown hoarse of silent. And America’s possibility is that this time the movement will finally achieve those changes that will allow us to breathe free. 

This is written by a voice from the past. My hope is high even though there are powerful diversions and delusions created by the world of the media and internet. Nonetheless, my hopes are high because if the movement is anchored in the small world of community and its local associations it will have the power to finally overcome.

And finally, to all the white sisters and brothers, it is vital to add your voices. But the real ask is to identify all the associations, groups, clubs and organizations to which you belong and to bring them into the movement. There, they will feel the joy and security that comes from living in a just society.

Download PDF

Exploring the Ecology of Neighborhoods (Learning Twenty-six)

John McKnight
Co-founder, Asset-Based Community Development Institute

A common definition of ecology is that it is the relationships of groups of living things and their environment. While the word was first used in the science of biology, it has more recently come to be used for the interrelatedness of almost everything, including communities.

Applied to local human communities, we hear of the “ecology” of a family and its network. We also recognize the ecology of the three basic institutions – the relationships of government, not for profit corporations and business organizations. However, there is a local ecological domain manifested in the relationships of local associations – the groups, clubs, and organizations that are usually small face-to-face groups of citizens who do their work without pay. We call them “voluntary associations” because their work is outside the marketplace.

To understand the ecology of associations, consider the human structures of locality. At the primary level is the individual, their family kinship network and allied friends. At the secondary level are the voluntary associations, formal and informal. These groups are collective expressions of the interests, identities, causes and affinities of local residents. They are the primary sites where the work of citizenship occurs. The tertiary level of locality is the neighborhood institutions. These organizations of paid people have their own distinctive interests and functions. The institutional networks and relationships are intensively studied by graduate schools of management. The collective efficacy of the associational domain is much less studied and often not even recognized as the secondary social structure in society.

To understand the associational domain and its relationships, a few basic features of the associational terrain helps us find our way in understanding associational ecology.

The Prevalence of Associations
Thought of as the secondary social structure in a neighborhood, neither neighbors nor social scientists usually see the collective space occupied by associations. This is usually because they are thought of as informal, impermanent, unstructured and consequently unimportant. This combination of factors commonly leads to associational “invisibility.” Therefore, their interrelationships are not a serious question to be examined.

One exploratory study of associations in a town of 5,600 people found at least 81 associations with names. This indicated at least one association for every 70 people. Other studies of associational prevalence in varied localities are appended as Exhibit 1.

While these “associational maps” are preliminary probes, they suggest that in local communities, making visible the associational domain can provide the elements of an eco-map and an opening to understanding the primary work of citizens.

The Web of Associational Relationships
Once the associational prevalence becomes visible the nature of their interrelationships can be identified. At least five primary relationships emerge. First, each association creates a context for relationships that empower each member. Second, the associations have relationships with each other when they engage in collective initiatives. Third, some associations have relationships with regional, statewide or national organizations. Fourth, many associations have relationships with local non-­‐governmental institutions including businesses and not-for-profit groups. Finally, the associations have relationships with governments, primarily at the local level.

The Civic Benefits of the Associational Web
The dense, vertical and horizontal associational web is in itself a structure that provides several community benefits. These include:
1. The structure is a network that communicates information among the community actors.
2. The information creates the basis for partnerships, coalitions and joint activities.
3. The network enhances the effectiveness of both the institutions and associations.
4. The connections between associations and institutions facilitate bridging as well as bonding.
5. The entire structure is the community generator of social capital.

The infrastructure of Communal Well-being
As the intricate ecology of associational relationships is manifested it produces the social capital that is the primary necessity for well-being. These include:
• The vehicle for problem solving and community invention.
• The primary connections that create the power to decide and act as advocates.
• A safety net of services and funds
• The continuity of care for the vulnerable
• The individual knowledge that, when shared, enables mutual education among adults as well as local children.
• The support of a community culture that identifies “our way” reflected in stories, ceremonies, rituals and celebrations.

Finally, the key to this ecosystem is human relationships with each other and a place. The activating force within the associational domain is connectiveness. It’s manifestation in practice is the person, group or institution that precipitates connections non-hierarchically. This “connector” is often the spark that energizes the community’s capacity to create a culture for the common good. And another name for the associational ecosystem is the common good. We are common people living in an inescapable ecos where each of us knows and celebrates our interconnected commonality.

Download PDF

[1] Several guides to identifying local associations are included in the list of publications of the Asset-Based Community Development Institute (abcdinstitute.org). They include: Voluntary Associations in Low In See ABCD Institute website (abcdinstitute.org), Publications, A Study of the Community Benefits Provided by Local Associations.come Neighborhoods; New Community Tools for Improving Child Health; Getting Connected.

[2] See ABCD Institute website (abcdinstitute.org), Publications, A Study of the Community Benefits Provided by Local Associations.

The Power of Disability

Al Etmanski talks about what he learned about making change in the world from collecting the stories for his latest book, The Power of Disability.

View a video of the discussion on Abundant Community

View a transcription of this discussion on Abundant Community

For more on Al and his work, view his author page here. 

Related:

About every six weeks for the last five years, John and Peter have hosted online / dial-up conversations with community-building pioneers as their guests. These conversations originally appeared on John and Peter’s Abundant Community site.

The Invisible Is Becoming Visible

At the start of any asset-based initiatives, the identification of local assets is the essential starting point. Nonetheless, in many neighborhoods, most of these local assets are not recognized. Even though they are present they are not visible. This is the reason for the basic work of the ABCD Institute as it assists neighbors in making their local assets visible. We also assist in understanding how these assets can be connected in order to create new power and productivity.

At the center of this discovery process are the neighbors themselves. THEY are the primary local assets because they have the capacity to act together and the ability to connect their capacities, skills and knowledge in order to increase their well-being.

It is true that the current virus is like a modern plague. And yet, it has a side effect that has made visible across North America our greatest community building assets!

This new visibility has happened on my own block. A neighbor three doors away sent an email to all the others on the block. She said that if we wanted to offer help or needed help, we could let her know and she would connect us. Eight neighbors responded immediately that they can help. As far as I can tell, two have asked for assistance.

Now, our local community builders are visible! We know who can connect us and we know who are the neighbors ready to act for our common good.

Our local community builders are visible! We know who can connect us and we know who are the neighbors ready to act for our common good.

This new visibility is a bonanza for any community organizer wanting to stimulate new neighborhood associations at the local level. We need to identify the names of as many people on as many blocks as possible. Indeed, this could be a useful activity for ABCD Faculty and allied practitioners as they work in solitude.

We could create a local archive of those neighbors who want to foster the same kind of community response and organization that they demonstrated while the virus was here.

Toxicity seems to surround us. And yet, a treasure chest of thousands of gifted people have connected and acted in order to help us survive. After COVID-19 they will be waiting for new opportunities to act as powerful citizens once again. So who will identify them? And who will call them together in the future?

Thousands of gifted people have connected and acted in order to help us survive. After COVID-19 they will be waiting for new opportunities to act.

After the plague, they will be waiting for our call.

 

Photo of neighborly greeting by Julie Filapek on a walk through the Erb Park Neighborhood, Appleton, Wisconsin. Used with permission. Home page image: Kevin L O’Mara

Journalism with Community at the Center

Eve Pearlman talks with John, Peter and other social innovators about the how journalism can create empathy and advance a citizen agenda.

View a video of the discussion on Abundant Community

View a transcription of this discussion on Abundant Community

For more on Eve and her work, view her author page here. 

Related:

About every six weeks for the last five years, John and Peter have hosted online / dial-up conversations with community-building pioneers as their guests. These conversations originally appeared on John and Peter’s Abundant Community site.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Connect with us to receive information about
upcoming ABCD Institute trainings and events.

Chicago

DePaul University Steans Center
2233 North Kenmore Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614

JLMABCD@aol.com

(773) 325-8344

John L McKnight

© 2011 – 2019 an initiative of Common Change in collaboration with John L McKnight
contact-section