The Community of Life

In recent history – perhaps the last fifty to seventy years, certainly in Western civilisation, the social manifestation of the concept of ‘community’ has significantly diminished, driven largely, it appears, by the development of a culture which, from a number of angles, place a much higher emphasis on purely individualistic focus as the ‘correct’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘appropriate’ way of operating within society.

It can be observed in, for example, the way in which individuals are encouraged/manipulated by both overt and subliminal techniques, which appropriate messaging fired at them from sources, to ‘look down’ as well as look no further than the end of the their own nose.

What does this mean in practice? It is vital to take fully onboard that the human animal is a social animal, and that each individual’s character and foundations for that character, whilst dependent of self-discovery and exploration for building a strong personal base, also relies to a large degree on connections to other individuals within the community or social group to provide as ongoing strengthening of character by the development of communal and personal bonds, and thereby an exchange of ‘value’. This enhances the individual’s capability to operate at the highest level they are able to. It is in effect, the same concept which underpins the planned development of teamwork within a smaller group of people who work together to achieve a common goal – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, which also as a deliberate side-effect, produces a much more effective and broader individual.

The fundamental question to address here is what exactly is a community? It is firstly, important to note that the word ‘community’ does not limit the scope of its definition or impact, to simply the dwellings surrounding a community centre, for example, in a village. ‘Community’ is in fact a deliberate cultural implementation which defines how interdependent beings most effectively interact and operate in a shared environment, at the same time the uniqueness, and therefore unique individuality of each of them – in other words, here – not drowning any individual in a sea of homogeneity, but instead, recognising the great benefit of fully harnessing the range of diverse backgrounds, talents, cultural identity, characteristics and ethnicity, to create a ‘way of living’ which brings the most to the individuals and to the society of which they are a part.

In practice a ‘community’ is defined, scoped and scaled in any way which those who collectively ‘decide’ to bring the concept back to their way of living, wish it to be implemented. In particular the scale, perhaps surprisingly, can be as broad as is desired, as long as there is both sufficient commitment and drive to make it a reality. Even a city (or a region) can make the decision collectively, with strong leadership and ongoing dialogue to create a ‘community’ culture, which becomes an embedded and significant driver for how its participants (which is vital) coexist.

In an even more pervasive definition of a ‘community’, again with the recognition that looking at the world from a broad perspective, there is nothing to limit the scope of the ‘community’ to only human animals. It does without saying that to include all life forms which cohabit within a particular environment – natural, built or somewhere in-between – is significantly more challenging to its organisers, leaders and human participants, and requires an attitude which reflects the notion that humans are not specially chosen in any way, even by self, over and above other life forms, leading to a recognition of both the equality of value of all holders of the ‘life module’, and with time, perhaps, a change in the relationship between humans and all other species, based on a common natural right to an equality of evolutionary opportunity, notwithstanding the impacts of the food chain!

You can imagine that with fully committed leadership at a national level, reflected fully at regional and urban level, a country as whole can adopt a ‘community’ culture. This may sound strange, when the widely accepted definition of a community ends at the boundaries of a small village, but ‘community’ is both an attitude, a set of behaviours driven by that attitude and a culture of coexistence based on sharing, in a broad sense, and a personal investment in the idea that many of the things that are important to one citizen, are also important to all the rest, which generates a mutual vigilance against any threats, possibly undermining the foundations of the community culture.

I have surmised that in the current culture in many countries, individuals are encouraged, perhaps not openly, to ‘look down’ and no further than the ends of their own noses. This is the antithesis of community culture! It is vital that participants who commit together to develop and live within a community culture, ‘look up’ – taking in at all times – what goes on around them, and not just locally, and use this new view and new perceptions to understand their relationship in a broad number of way, with what they observe. In the same way, but perhaps more importantly, looking beyond the end of one’s own nose allows the individual to gain a much better and deeper recognition of both just how they interact with the wider world, but also what impact their behaviour, attitude and activities have on the health and integrity of the natural environment – which definitely includes the results of human activity. The further beyond their own nose an individual is capable of looking (or willing to look) the better understanding they will have, leading to, on reflection, a change in their relationship with what they observe. This is a stimulus to general empathy and a compassionate outlook, which in turn, greatly contributes to strengthening ‘community’ culture.

‘Community’ culture and a commitment to community, results in a personal sense of belonging, which does not necessarily require the broad roots of a family in a particular locale. This sense of belonging brings on the one hand, a security underpinned by the knowledge that participants are living in a manner which promotes the broad concept of sharing – looking out for each other on a mutual basis, but also is a boost to self-confidence, self-belief and self-esteem. The individual can find a ‘home’ in ‘community’, and as the scope and scale of this community is to at least some degree unlimited, this ‘home’ can be found in one, many or all of family, friends, work, village, town, city, nation or beyond, and can, and should, include non-human life. This can be generically summarised as ‘finding a home in the community of life’.

In fact, when taken into consideration along with the factors involved in the internalisation (as described in a previous essay) of personal character foundations and also with the externalisation (also described in a previous essay) of there building blocks, resulting in the basis of empowered citizenship, ‘community culture’ is the natural result of such personal changes, in particular in the case where a larger number of individuals commit themselves to ‘climb out of the flow’ and instigate a common change of direction.

These three catalysts for change require initially a strong personal commitment to desist from living in a manner which is almost exclusively defined by the prevailing conditions, and instead implementing a personal way of life, in all respects, which defines and forces new conditions based on a vision of better things, AN individual can enact community culture alone, if this strong commitment is made, but it takes a combined effort with others of a similar mind, to create the conditions for a permanent change of flow within the overall culture.

The benefits to all, especially children born into the newer culture, who grow up and develop surrounded by the conditions and stimuli of the new cultural environment, automatically embed what they learn within their personal foundations, and so strengthen the basis of the community culture, embodying the new culture naturally, without the challenges of forced ‘cultural confrontational-ism’.

Previously, in another essay, the concept of ‘stakeholder’ was raised and this is an idea which covers all the foundations of internalisation, externalisation and ‘living’ a community culture. As a stakeholder, each individual is enabled to contribute in as many ways as they are capable (notwithstanding personal exploration of new areas into which to develop) and willing, leading to the possibilities and benefits of ‘community enterprise’. This concept reflects once again, a shared ownership in as many ways as is feasible (or desirable) of all aspects of progress towards quality of life in its broadest sense, remembering once again that both ‘community’ and ‘quality of life’ do not extend only to the boundaries of human existence.

Community enterprise depends upon a recognition that the greatest benefit in any enterprise, can be obtained by together pulling out all possible contributive value from every participant involved in the enterprise, and melding them in any environment where, through a common understanding of broad objectives built on the notion of ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’ – ie a largely common set of values and a recognised sense of involvement, belonging and contribution enhances personal value and leads potentially to both a personal and collective/communal virtuous circle. Community enterprise at its best cements the notion of a common direction of travel, where everyone is recognised across the board as an equal stakeholder. This does not at all preclude or inhibit ‘thinking outside of the box’, where anyone may (and should) spend time climbing out of the new flow, and looking at it critically, The culture should in fact encourage this.