8/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
1/8
This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Del Norte]On: 31 July 2012, At: 13:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of the American Institute of PlannersPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa19
Community Development and Community PlanningDavid Popenoe
Version of record first published: 27 Nov 2007
To cite this article:David Popenoe (1967): Community Development and Community Planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
33:4, 259-265
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366708977927
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be completeor accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified withprimary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366708977927http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa198/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
2/8
ment. T o stipulate the objectives of these programs an d
to measure their effects and performance, all three levels
of governm ent mu st act jointly.
Experimental projects are now being developed that
show promise of im proving state an d local ability to
understand the complex economic and social factors
involved, and enabling them to develop more effective
plans for growth and development. These experimental
projects are designed to link planning with budgeting at
the local level and to provide a framework for systematic
analysis of problems and alternative ways of meeting
them. This, i n turn , should lead to a more effective allo-
cation
of
our limited local resources.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the primary aim of PPBS is to provide a
formal and systematic means for evaluating and measur-
ing effectiveness against costs of government programs.
T o do this, we need to specify
our
objectives and to
measure performance against these objectives. In
so
doing, we hope to move away from decisionmaking on a
subjective (hunch or experience) basis and toward deci-
sionmaking based on benefit-cost and marginal utility
analysis. W e feel certain that the new appro ach will be
a significant improvement over the intuitive processes of
the past. T he problems of giving life to the system will,
no doubt, be difficult and tim e consuming. But the re-
ward s will be a better a llocatio n of resources, great er bene-
fits to public programs, a nd m ore sensitive plannin g and
budgeting at all levels of gov ernment.
R E F E R E N C E S
The followin g sources are suggested for the reader wh o wishes
to study Planning-Prog ramming -Budgeting in more detail. These
sources are not exhaustive; they are selected sources describing
background, current application, and potential usefulness of PPBS.
Committee for Economic Development.
Budgeting for National
Objectives.
Ne w York: Th e Committee,
1966.
Foster, Edward. Operations Research in the Federal Governm ent.
Lecture before the University of California Extension D ivision,
October
1966
unpublished paper).
Hirsch, Werner
Z. Integrating V iew o f Federal Program B rrdget-
ing.
Santa M onica, California: RAN D Corporation,
1965.
Research
Memorandum
RM-4799-RC).
Hirsch, Werner
Z.
Toward Federal Program Budgeting,
Santa
Monica, California: RAND Corporation 1966. Paper P-3306).
Hitch, Charles
J
Decision-Making for Defense. Berkeley: U niver-
sity of California Press,
1965.
Novick, David.
Program Budgeting
.
Program Analysis and
the Federal Budget. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Rowen, Henry
S .
PPBS: What and Why,
Civil Service lorrrnal.
Washington: U S Civil Service Commission, Vol 6, N o .
3,
1966.
Schick, Allen.
Th e Road to PPR-The Stages of Budget Refo rm
Washington, U .
S .
Bureau of the Budget,
1966
unpublished paper).
Smithies,
Arthur The Bzrdgeiary Process
in
the United States.
Ne w York: McGraw-Hill,
1955.
U .
S
Bureau of the Budget.
Planning-Programming-Budgeting,
Washington,
1966 (2
parts-Bulletin
66-3
and Supplement).
AIP JOURNAL
JULY 1967
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
C O M M U N IT Y D E VE L O P M E N T N D
C O M M U N IT Y P L N N IN G
avid
Popenoe
Th e rapidity of social change in m odern urban-
industrial society and the social and personal disorgani-
zation which has resulted from it have given rise to a
rather large and increasing number of methods and tech-
niques, programs, professions, and social movements, the
primary aim of which is to intervene in what might be
David Popenoe, Assoc. AIP, is a sociologist and city planner
who holds a Ph.D. fro m the University of Pennsylvania. H e is
currently Research Director at the Urban Studies Center of
Rutgers-The State Univers ity of Ne w lerJey, where he is also
on th graduate faculty in the Department of Sociology. H e has
taught previously at New
York,
University and the University
o Pennsylvania, and held professional planning positions at
the Newark, New Iersey, Central Planning Board and the
Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.
259
regarded as the normal course of change in such a way as
purposefully to guide it in new directions. Major se g
ments of the older professions, law, m edicine, religion,
and education have become reoriented to this aim, and
these have been joined by th e newer professions and fields
of social work, city planning, a nd public adm inistration,
and m any others. T he older professionals, particularly
ministers and educators, have long concentrated on chang-
ing society through changing the individual. They are
joined in this by traditional social caseworkers, by psychi-
atrists and psychologists, and by many of the newer help-
ing occupations. The new professions
or
quasi-profes-
sions of city planning and public administration, however,
have been concerned almost exclusively with changing
Downloadedby[UniversidadDelNo
rte]at13:3931July2012
8/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
3/8
individuals through changing society, and indeed this
represents a major trend, at the moment, of almost all
activities which are concerned with social change; a
trend which has been greatly enhanced by the rise of the
social sciences. Thus psychiatrists have moved into
preventive psychiatry and community mental health,
ministers into nonparish based urban service, social
workers into community organization, and so on.
These various trends have tended to reinforce an
extremely important insight-that
i
we are successfully
to cope with the contemporary human condition, we must
change both the societyand the individual simultaneously.
It is this insight, it seems to me, that the term community
development
essentially signifies-both in theory and in
practice. It is a particularly appropriate term because
community means at least two quite different but re-
lated things: one, the objective physical and sccial en-
vironment within which life takes place-the city of
bricks and mortar and the observable social institutions,
such as government, and two, the intangible environ-
ment of individual feelings which exists in a group
or
place and which gives life there a special meaning and
emotional significance. Thus when the word community
is used without definition, as in the term community de-
velopment, the implication is that the primary concern
of such development is with
both
the objective environ-
ment and the subjective emotional environment within
which individuals may find meaning and value.
Many fields have been struggling toward a similar
synthesis. Individual therapists, for example, have become
increasingly oriented toward such things as group and
family therapy, where the individual is treated primarily
as a member of a group . Planners and administrators
have turned their attention toward such things as
neighborhood self-determination, where the social group
is treated primarily as a set of distinct individuals.
Because community development has a foot in both the
individual and the social camps, however, and in-
corporates a wide ar ray of indiv idual and social change
processes and goals, it is a term which has suffered from
widespread ambiguity. Many people like to use it, partly
because of its connection with the insight mentioned
above, and it has come to be used in a bewildering variety
of different ways. It is used as a process with strategies
ranging from imposition
or
manipulation to self-deter-
mination. It is used as a program ranging from economic
development to social welfare, and under auspices rang-
ing from governmental to voluntary organizations and
groups. And it is conceived by some as a social movement
and possibly an emerg ing profession. Similarly, though
with somewhat less ambiguity, city planning is sometimes
discussed as a progra m the activities of a city planning
agency) , as a process of formulating policy alternatives
and making rational decisions), as a profession the AIP),
and as a social movement.
There are numerous ways in which the city planning
syndrome and the community development syndrome
could be comparatively discussed. One could look, for
example, at the relationship between land use and welfare
or economic development programs, between the profes-
sionalization of
city
planning and of community develop-
ment, or between the history and present day goals of
the planning movement and the community development
movement.
My
intention in this paper is to concentrate
on the relationship between two processes, one of which
is normally called the community planning process and
260
.
the other of which is sometimes called the community
integra tion process. Th e latter is almost always considered
as at least one aspect and sometimes the major aspect)
of the community development process, but i t is seldom
considered as an aspect of the planning process. I con-
sider the community planning-community integra tion
distinction to be the central one around which the am-
biguity in the term community development can be clari-
fied, and the relationship between community develop-
ment and city planning fruitfully analyzed.
I shall
t r y
to use the terms city planning and commu-
nity development, and particularly the process for which,
in part, they stand, in the same way in which they are
used by persons who call themselves city planners and
community developers, who write books on the subjects,
and who identify with national organizations which use
the terms. Planner s can be defined as those who are mem-
bers of the American Institute of Planners, while persons
associated with community development units of uni-
versities and other groups, who identify with several
national organizations affiliated with the adult education
and university extension associations, or who read
Com-
munity Development journal
can be considered commu-
nity developers. These seem to represent the mainstreams
of each tradition.
Com munity Planning and Comm unity
Development: Some Defini t ions
The planning process has been defined by F. Stuart
Chapin, in his influential book
Urban Land
Use Plan-
ning as consisting of the fol lowing six steps:
1.
Develop a first estimate of existing conditions and
significant trends in the urban area.
2. Determine the principal and most pressing problems
and needs, briefly evaluate them, and develop an interim
program.
3. Formulate a detailed program indicating priorities
for undertaking component studies of comprehensive
plan.
4. Carry out detailed plan studies according to program
and priority.
5.
Integrate various plan studies into comprehensive
plan.
6. Revise plans as conditions alter their applicability.
Elsewhere, he has summarized the process as having to
do with a sequence
of
action which begins with estab-
lishing certain goals, involves certain decisions as to
alternative ways of achieving these goals and eventually
takes the form of steps for carrying out decisions, followed
by evaluation and perhaps a new sequence of action.
More succinctly, another planner has said that the essence
of plann ing is to make advance decisions in a considered
fashion about what to do.
William Biddle, in a recent book entitled T h e Commzi-
nity Developmen t Process 4 defines community develop-
ment as a social process by which human beings can
become more competent to live with and gain some con-
trol over local aspects of a f rustra ting and changing
world. It is a group method for expediting personality
growth
which can occur when geographic neighbors
work together to serve their growi ng concept of the good
of all. . Personality growth through group responsibil-
ity
for the local common good is the focus. Biddle says
that its concern is for improvement in people, but that
personal betterment is brought about in the midst of
social action that serves a growi ng awareness of com-
Downl
oadedby[UniversidadDelNorte]at13:3931July2012
8/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
4/8
Interpretation Popenoe
as unwilling to separate the two processes, as we are
trying to do analytically for the purposes of this discus-
sion. A standard definition of community development,
for example, is that of the International Cooperation
Administration: a process of social action in which the
people of a community organize themselves for planning
and action; define their common and individual needs
and problems, make group and individual plans
to
meet
their needs and solve their problems; execute these plans
with a maximum of reliance upon community resources;
and supplement these resources and material from govern-
mental and non-governmental agencies outside the com-
munity. l2
Because of the tendency of many community developers
to speak of their process as consisting of both planning
and integrative aspects, it would be preferable, to avoid
confusion, to speak of community integration when we
are referring to the brand of community development
expounded by Biddle and Sanders, and I shall do so in
the remainder of this article. It must be noted that most
community developers, however, even those in the
combination school, seem to have a distinct preference
for community integration over community planning.
Ross says, for example, that even though he regards plan-
ning and integration as two integral aspects of the same
process, by far the more important objective is com-
munity integration.I3 It must be noted, in addition,
that it is rather uncommon to find any mention a t all of
community integration in the writings of city planners.
AIP JOURNAL
JULY 1967
munity need. H e defines the process as
a
progression
of events that is planned by the participants to serve
goals they progressively choose. The events point to
changes in a group and in individuals that can be termed
growth in social sensitivity and competence (emphases
mine ). Th is is a rather extreme use of the term commu-
nity development because of the primary importance that
it attaches to individual personality development (but,
as we shall see, it is therefore very useful for purposes
of this discussion).
A closely related but less extreme view, in that it seems
to be focused more on the community than on the indi-
vidual, is that of Irwin T. Sanders.
He
indicates that th e
community development process can be described as:
change from a condition where one or two people or a
small elite within or without the local community make
a decision for the rest of the people to a condition where
people themselves make these decisions about matters of
common concern; from a state of minimum to one of
maximum cooperation; from
a
condition where few
participate to one where many participate; from
a
condi-
tion where all resources and specialists come from outside
to one where local people make the most use of their own
resources and so forth.
Community Development
as Community Integration
Murray
G.
Ross, in his book C o m m u n it y O r g a n i ~ a t i o n , ~
one of the le adin g texts in that field of social work, states
that there are essentially two aspects to the community
organization process: one having to do with planning,
and the second with community integration. Ross
de-
fines planning as the process of locating and defining
a problem
(or
set of problems), exploring the nature and
scope of the problem, considering various solutions to it,
selecting what appears to be the feasible solution, and
taking action with respect to the solution chosen.
H e uses the concept community integration to mean a
process in w hich the exercise of cooperative and collabora-
tive attitudes and practices leads to greater 1 identifica-
tion with the community, 2) interest and participation in
the affairs of the community, and
3)
sharing
of
common
values and m eans for expressing these values. Th is im-
plies a process at work in the community which facilitates
the growth of awareness of, and loyalty to, the larger
community of which the individual is
a
part; development
of a sense of responsibility for the condition and status
of the community; emergence
of
attitudes which permit
cooperation with people who are different; and g row th
of common values, symbols, and rituals in the com-
munity as a whole. o Ross indicates that
a
synonym for
community integration would be community morale,
or
community capacity,
or
the spiritual community.
Rosss definition of planning, then, is almost identical
to that of the city planne rs, but used in the context of
social work, And his definition of community integration
is very similar to that of the com munity developers men-
tioned above. H e is thus, in essence, posing
a
distinction
between community planning and community develop-
ment.
Ross maintains, however, that planning and integration
are inseparab le parts of the one process-in fact, one can
state that only when these two aspects are interlocked and
merged into one process
is
community organization, as
we used the term here, present. l1 Many, and perhaps
most, community developers would probably be equally
261
Distinguishing Between the T wo Processes
What are the essential distinctions between these two
obviously diffe rent processes, one of w hich m ay be called
community planning and the other community develop-
ment or integration? First, an essential distinction is
not
that one is focused on land use and the other on wel-
fare, for we are dealing with process independent of
specific program. An obvious and impo rtant distinction
is that integration seems to rely heavily on local initiative
and self-determinism, and usually involves voluntary
groups, whereas planning smacks of imposition and
manipulation, and more often involves governmental and
other formal, outside groups. Yet, the plan ning process
can be conceived in such a way that it involves a great
am ou nt of self-determinism-and this is the way in which
most social workers and many city planners tend to con-
ceive of it. T he principal difference, therefore, does not
seem to be a matter of democratic versus undemo-
cratic, but rather that the two processes focus on quite
different goals and phenomena. More specifically, each
process is focused on a different aspect of t he com munity ,
and on a different basic function which communities
perform. T he plannin g process is concerned primarily
with the Objective community of organizations, institu-
tions, and their interrelationships, and the integration
process is concerned primarily with the subjective com-
munity of feeling,
or
sense of com munity . Similarly, the
planning process relates to what we shall call the
ta sk
ac
complishment function of communities, and the commu-
nity integration process relates to the
social-emotional
maintenance and development function, concepts which
shall be elaborated below.
Most people seem to be able to understand the planning
process orientati on-that is, the process of solving prob-
Downl
oadedby[UniversidadDelNo
rte]at13:3931July2012
8/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
5/8
lems in the objective community, whether these are
problems
of
welfare, race relations, land use,
or
economics.
The process usually leads to solutions which better match
resources with needs, or which involve better coordina-
tion
of
community organizations,
or
organizational
changes,
or
the development of new organizations, or
which are concerned with the analysis and projection of
trends, the attempt to plan ahead, and so on.
The community integration process, however, as
Biddle, Ross, and many others have defined it, is a much
more difficult concept to come to grips with. Some might
even suggest that it is not really an aspect of
community
development at all, but rather some kind of group therapy,
or even something which involves spiritual and mystical
phenomena. One can go
a
long way toward understand-
ing this process if he first understands that aspect of
C O M
m unity which the process is trying to affect.
The com-
muni ty, as Biddle defines it, is whatever sense of the local
common good citizens can be helped to achieve. l Simi-
larly,
Ross
defines community as having to do with the
common life which one identifies with and shares in.5
The Impor tance
of
Community Integrat ion
Now it can hardly be questioned that such a sense of
community actually exists and is important, at least in
the minds of some people, unless we are to assume that
it is some kind of hallucination. Th e major question is,
however, just
h o w
important is it?
For
example, is it
more important to develop peoples sense of community,
or to solve problems in the objective community of
things and places? There are two basic frames of refer-
ence for judging its importance. First, its importance for
the whole community: is it importa nt in the solution of
community problems, for example, that there be a strong
sense of community? Second, its importance for the in-
dividual : is it importa nt for personality growth and
development that an individual have a strong sense of
community
Many community developers maintain that a strong
sense of community is extremely important, and there-
fore ought to be developed further, on both counts. Ross
states, for example, that the subjective-feeling aspect of
community not only is an experience which provides the
individual with certain psychological security, and his
life with certain meaning it might not otherwise have,
but that it builds a community capable of dealing wi th
common problems, which, if they were not solved, would
lead to deterioration of the physical or social community,
or both. lG
Importance
f o r
t he Gr o up
It would be very nice indeed if we had a body of
empirical evidence which conclusively supported the im-
portance of sense of community in each of these two
respects, but we do not, nor will we have in the near
future. In this regard, let us look first at the relation
between sense of community and other p o u p rather
than individual) processes, such as the ability of the com-
munity to solve problems. If one could measure sense of
community as well as the communitys success in solving
problems, presumably one could begin to devise research
to test the relationship between the two. Common obser-
vation tells us, for example, that small ru ra l communities,
which seem to have
a
high degree of sense of communi ty,
may be relatively more successful at solving their prob-
lems than large urban communities, which seem to have
6
a much lower sense
of
community. Yet, the difference
might be attributed either to size, or to the fact that the
urban community has many more problems to solve, or
to a number of other factors. In short, the problems of
empirical analysis are great.
But I would like to report briefly on a body of evidence
from the social sciences that does lend some support to
the notion that sense of community is important for
other aspects of community life, particularly the problem
solving or task-accomplishment aspects. One of the
earliest findings
of
the small group analysts at Harvard
under Robert F. Bales l and others was that groups
seem always to have two basic and necessary functions
which affect the allocation
of
time and personnel
to
roles, and which are represented by distinct group struc-
tures or patterns of behavior. On the one hand, Bales
found what he called the instrumental function.
One or
more members of the group emerged as leaders in help-
ing the group to accomplish a variety of tasks which it
had before it; such persons were very adept at rational
problem solving, at organizing the group to get the job
done, at making the best use of outside resources, and so
on.
On the other hand, the group could not spend all
of
its
time at problem solving-it would get edgy, troubled, and
frustrated, its morale would drop, it needed time to relax,
to kid around , to be irrational , and to reachieve the kind
of unity and emotional commitment tha t was needed if
the group was not to breakup.
It
needed time for the
individuals to get to know one another personally, to
think through and achieve consensus on the groups goals
and commitments. If the group was not allowed to do
this, it proved to be very poor at accomplishing its tasks.
Dif fere nt persons from the leaders mentioned above rose
to facilitate this social-emotional maintenance and de-
velopment function, which Bales called the expressive fun-
tion. Such persons, when compared with the task leaders,
tended to be warmer and more concerned with the
individual personalities in the group, and with their
growth and development as individuals and as group
members. They brought to the group what one might
call the human touch.
For groups to be in equilibrium, it was found that both
of these functions or processes had to be well-developed
and working smoothly. A group whose sole concern was
task accomplishment tended to be brittle, to crack under
the strain, because it did not afford its members certain
basic essentials of human relationships.
A group whose
sole concern was social-emotional maintenance and de-
velopment tended to flounder and lose cohesion because
it
felt that it was not accomplishing anything important.
This dichotomy of roles and functions seeins to be
central to most groups in our society. The male-female
roles in the family, for example, are a case in point. Th e
female tends to have responsibility for social and emo-
tional maintenance and development of the family, and
the male for accomplishing tasks and solving problems
necessary to the familys well-being, such as economic
support. To suggest that one role is more important
than another is, of course, fallacious-both are essential
to the well-being of the family. As a matter of fact,
the whole business of the role polarity of the sexes in most
human societies is closely related to this basic dichotomy.
Indeed. the dichotomy is found in almost all
large
organizations as well. One of the niajor findings of the
analyses of bureaucracy is that large bureaucratic or-
Downl
oadedby[UniversidadDelNorte]at13:3931July2012
8/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
6/8
AIP
JOURNAL
JULY
1967
ganizat ions tend to develop a whole series of informal
social patterns-such as the development of small primary
groups among workers-which, while they are not di-
rected toward the immediate tasks of the organizat ion,
are essential in the long run if the organization is to
accomplish those tasks. There is even a segment of
management whose primary concern is the maintenance
of group morale among the workers.
Th e community is a special kind of social group, and it
is often misleading to use more formal groups as ana-
logues to it,19 but this kind of evidence does seem to lend
some very interesting support to the community integra-
tion notion.
Importance
f o r
the Individual
In regard to the impor tance of sense of community for
the individuals rather than the groups) well-being,
again if i t were possible to find two areas or groups, one
with a high and the other with a low sense of community,
one could compare them in terms of the degree to which
individuals in each of the communit ies have achieved
some level of personal growth and maturity. In addition
to the problem of other things being equal, however, it
would be very difficult to get agreement on, much less to
measure, the levels of individual achievement and matura-
tion. But just as there is some sociological evidence sup-
port ing the importance of the relationship of sense of
community to problem solving by the group, there is also
some evidence coming from social psychology and psy-
chology, particularly the new third force or humanistic
school, which supports the importance of the relationship
in this second case.2n
T h e Ideo log ica l B ackdrop
But we cannot wait for the hard data to come in before
making judgments and reaching decisions about processes
of guide d social change. While furthe r empirical investi-
gation of these matters is obviously of prime importance,
persons interested in resolving questions of social change
will have to rely, in large part, on their own intuitive
sense about such matters, and on one or another system
of values or social philosophy. Th at is to say, most people
who regard one of the two aspects of community develop-
ment as more important than the other will continue to
do so because of a particular ideology that they hold.
Community planners and community integrators at the
two extremes tend to have, I think, somewhat different
views about the directions in which society ought to
develop, about the order of importa nce of the major
problems which plague it today, and so on. It is not jus t
a matte r of one side favoring one technique or focus, and
the other side another; a kind of functional division of
labor. When
Ross
states, for example, that
by
far the
more impor tant objective is community integration, he
means that community integration is more important be-
cause i t is a necessary prior step to community problem
solving, but also because of its importa nce to the indi-
vidual. Biddle would doubtless agree with him. Many
planners, on the other hand, would probably tend to dis-
agree with him on both scores. They would be likely to
assert that the most important task is to get on as quickly
as
possible with the business of solving the communities
manifest social, physical, economic, and political prob-
lems; that this does not always require community inte-
grat ion; and that the rapid and efficient solution of these
problems would do more toward achieving the maximum
263
Interpretation: Popenoe
growth and development of individuals than would any-
thing else.
The social ideologies that bulwark these two divergent
positions represent different perspectives on the current
social trends of our time. Before discussing these ideolo-
gies, therefore, I shall outline briefly what these trends
are-and
it
is probable that all social change agents, of
whatever persuasion, will agree generally with this
presentation of the facts.
The major forces shaping our communities and
our
society today are:
industrialization
and technological
development, including automation; bureaucrutization
and the rise of large scale organizations; and
urbanization
-the aggregation of people in large, dense settlements.
In a nutshell, we have become a nation of highly tech-
nologized specialists who work for large organizations
and live in large cities or metropolitan complexes. In
general, the bonds which give cohesion to our com-
munities and our society are increasingly the bonds of the
market and the political process, and not the bonds of
community integration which are characterized by the
term sense of community. As a nation of specialists wit h
a highly developed communications network, each person
is more dependent on the next person in most aspects of
his life; one persons problem is more quickly felt by the
next person and it is therefore more in need of solution.
These social changes have come about rather quickly
and society has not yet been able to adjust adequately to
the new level of interdependence which has been thrust
upon it. Thu s, we have traffic problems, housing prob-
lems, poverty problems, governmental jurisdiction prob-
lems and
so
on, most. o which are the result of the fact
that society is not functioning smoothly and efficiently-
and this usually leads to solutions which have the effect
of accentuating the amount of specialization, the degree
of centralized decisionmaking, and the scale and com-
plexity of life. Thi s has clearly been the result of the
pursuit of efficiency by large corporations. Sweden is a
good example of where this trend will take us-it is a
more efficient society than ours, with relatively few of
the urban problems which we see about us today. As our
society moves on in this direction, it doubtless will con-
tinue to need a certain amount of informal primary
group relationships just as the large corporation does.
But how much and of what types is not clear-perhaps
the family is enough.
Most planners, it seems to me, are essentially striving
for greater societal and community efficiency-and the
trend which has just been outlined is in general quite
acceptable to them. On the other hand, most community
developer-integrators would tend to view this trend with
dismay. They would speak of the increasing amount of
dehumanizat ion, of the overspecialization and complexity
of life, the loss
or
weakening of traditional primary group
ties,
the lack of face-to-face contact and warm human
experiences.
Planners would regard the new society as
essentially liberating man, giving him abundant oppor-
tunity, freedom, and affluence.
Community integrators
would regard the society as increasingly crippling man,
taking away from his relationships the opportunity for
full human contact and decreasing his ability to be free
in union
o r
communion with others.
It is this difference in perspective which lies at the
heart of the dispute among the protagonists of the two
Downloadedby[UniversidadDelNorte]at13:3931July2012
8/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
7/8
aspects of comm unity development. Com mun ity inte-
grators mig ht give in on the question of the possibility of
solving a good ma ny social problems of the co mm unity
without first having a high level of community integra-
tion, but
they
would never give in on the importance of a
strong sense of community and common life for the de-
velopment of man as they envision him at his best. And
merely to solve problems efficiently, without
at
the same
time considering the question
of
man at his best, they
would argue, is to send society further along the road
toward
a
thoroughly dehumanized environment-from
which it may be increasingly difficult to escape. C om mu -
nity integrators probably do not want to turn back the
clock, but
they
certainly have
a
desire to modify somewhat
the curre nt direction in which society is headed. Planners,
i anything, would like to speed up the clock-we are
headed in basically the right direction, they would say,
h u t we are not moving there fast enough.
Commu nity Change in Urban Communities
The clash between these two orientations has been
pointed up recently in terms of differing approaches to
the development of urban communities. U p to this point
the term community has been used in the abstract, with-
out any mention of the fact that there are many different
kinds
of
comm unities. At a very high level of generali-
zational, there is a difference between rural and urban
comm unities-and the distinction relates closely to the
discussion
of
trends above. The urban community, when
compared with the rural community, is more socially
differentiated, complex, and dependent upon the society
and comm unities around it. Th e persons living within
it
are more m obile and the psycho-emotional bonds of com-
munity cohesion are diminished. This naturally leads
community integrators to regard urban communities as
both more difficult to cope with, and at the same time,
more in need of the community integration process.
However, the level of generalization required for
rural-urban comparisons probably covers up more diver-
sity than it uncovers. T he fact is that the suburb, the
slum, the gold coast, the ghetto, the bohemia, the stable
working-class area, and exurbia are all urban communi-
ties, and they are quite different from one another.
For
the most part, as Herbert Gans and others have pointed
out, the differences can be attributed largely to the social
class
the
ethnicity,
and the stage
of
the
life-cycle
of the
dom inant residents in each community.21
Community developers have never considered such dif-
ferences very fully, primarily because they have tradi-
tionally worked in rural communities where such dif-
ferences did not exist. On e can very properly raise the
question, therefore, does the community development
process, particularly its integration aspect, apply in the
same way to a community of working-class, Chinese older
people as it does to middle class, Jewish young people
Do the working-class, Chinese older people have the
same need as other groups for community integration
and
for
growth in social sensitivity and competence,
or
is their most important need something entirely different?
This line of questioning has become very real, lately,
with the onsct of the War on Poverty, in which both plan-
ners and community developers have been asked to apply
their techniques to the development of lower and working-
class urban subcommunities, particularly Negro comniu-
nities. T o what degree is it possible and desirable to get
working- and lower class Negroes to help themselves, to
264
achieve individual development through the group pro-
cess, to secure a stronger community integration and sense
of community? This is an exceedingly difficult question
to answer. Many planners would perhaps mak e the fol-
lowing points in answer to it:
1 Sensitivity and competence are important, but they
are not as imp ortant to the low-income Negro a t this mo-
ment as better housing, education, and job opportunities.
2)
The urban Negro community is almost completely
dependent on other communities for the basic resources
which it needs, and even if it were to organize and de-
velop a strong will to change things within its own com-
munity, it still would not have the leverage to secure the
new resources it requires from the communities outside
itself.
3)
More geographic community integration for the
Negro may not be wise, because this might just tend to
perpetuate the ghetto.
4 The Negro living in poverty needs the very fastest
and most efficient solutions
to
the basic problems
of
the
objective environment which surrounds him, and any
delay is extrem ely costly-in some cases as measured in
human lives.
Community integrators would probably argue, on the
other hand, that the dignity
of
the Negro should be
the paramount value, that short-run material gains are of
little value if they ten d to counteract long-run com-
munity integration gains, and that individual personality
development is a t least as important as environmental
change. A related but nonetheless distinct theme is that
most planners, who are middle class, are unable really to
know
wh at t he needs of the poverty class are; therefore,
community self-determination is essential, even if it
is less efficient. W e shall leave it to the reader as to
who has the better of the argumen t.
An important variation on the community integration
theme and one which has some support in both the plan-
ning and community integration camps partly because it
is supported by a different ideology than the ones out-
lined in this paper, is the conflict approach as exemplified
by Saul Alinsky. Traditiona lly, commun ity development
has striven
or
consensus within the whole community.
Alinsky, however, supports the integration
of
certain
groups within a larger community for the purpose of
overtly pressuring the other groups within that commu-
nity to bring about major institutional change. Th e con-
flict-consensus con tinu um cannot be developed within the
confines of this p aper, bu t it clearly involves issues which
are becoming qu ite central in public discussion.
Conclusion
T he distinction between community integration and com-
munity planning is quite obviously more than an aca-
dem ic one-it touche s on some of the major issues of
our time. Th e planni ng approach is clearly in the ascend-
ency in todays society. Bulwarked by orthodox liberal
ideology, legitimized within the bureaucratic apparatus,
and powered by the dazzling new tools of systems engi-
neering, operations research, program budgeting, decision
theory, and opinion polling, the planners are making
grea t headway tow ard the drivers seat. T h e message of
the community integrators is that the planners are treat-
ing only half the community system, and perhaps not
the most im por tant half at that. If this were a message
only from tender-minded souls whose hearts were in the
right place but whose heads were not, i t would not give
Downloadedby[UniversidadDelNorte]at13:3931July2012
8/10/2019 Articulo Caso Practico
8/8
us mu ch pause for consideration. T he indications are,
however, that it is much more than that. W e have
suggested that there are
a
number of social scientific
findings which come to its aid. Just as impo rtan t (but
beyond th e scope of this paper) is th e ideologica l and
scientific support w hich is coming from one of the most
rapidly gro win g currents of mod ern thought-the con-
vergences of what may be called the existential-pheno-
menological-humanistic wing of theology, philosophy,
psychology, and psychiatry. Last but by no means least
are the political ideologies of the new left.
The fact is that there is increasing evidence that the
liberal political orthodoxies (to say nothing of such scien-
tific and philosophic orthodoxies as logical positivism,
empiricism, behaviorism, operationalism, and
so
on, which
have long since had their day) may be crumbling under
the growing realization that large-scale social efficiency
(though we are still
a
long way from achieving
it)
will
not automatically lead to the good life; that if most of the
manifest and objective problems of the social environ-
ment could be efficiently planned away overnight, we
would still have a very long way to go in the achievement
of individu al fulfillment. Th e meaningful-subjective ex-
pressive side of life cannot be treated as a residu um
which can be left for consideration after we achieve the
welfare state, or after we all get to suburbia. It is the
essence
of
life, the sine qua
no ,
the source of intrinsic
value. The rediscovery of this side of life, as well as the
subjective-integrative-spiritual side of community, is be-
ing made not only by the tender-minded but also the
tough-minded; not only those guided by heart but those
guided by head.
Community integrators would probably argue, on the
other hand, that:
1)
An impo rtant factor in explaining the slow advance-
men t of the Negro o ut of the ghetto (in addition to high
visibility and consequent discrimination) is the lack of
strong and ego enhancing feelings of community identifi-
cation and solidarity, which historically have been very
significant in the advancement of other deprived groups.
2) Short-run material gains are of little value if they,
at the same time, tend to diminish feelings of dignity and
self-worth and
to
disrupt whatever sense of grou p belong-
ing and identification with place exists in low income
comm unities. Many studies have shown, for example,
that identification with place is uniquely important for
the sense of well-being
of
low income persons.
3) Lack of involvement with environmental planning
may lead to a continuing dependency status and to in-
Interpretation: Popenoe
creasing apathy to and alienation from that environment,
no matter how well it is planned.
4 As a related but somewhat distinct theme-most
planners, who are middle class, are unable really to
know
what the needs of the poverty class are; therefore, com-
munity self determination is essential, even if it is less
efficient.
W e shall leave
it to the reader as to who has the better
of the argumen t.
Authors note:
An early draft of this paper wa s read to the Fourth National
Community Deuelopment Seminar of the National University
Extension Association, Rutger+The State University, Ne w
Brutaswick, New lersey, Id y 26, 1965.
NOTES
F. Stuart Chapin,
Jr.,
Urban Land Use Planning New York:
Harper and Row 957), pp. 271-2.
2 Chapin, Foundations of Urban Planning, in Werner
2
Hirsch ed.),
Urban Life and Form
New York: Ho lt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1963), p. 224.
3 Henry Fagin, Metropolitan Planning, Unpublish ed manu -
script, 1960).
4 William W iddle and Laureide J. Biddle, h e Communi ty
Development Process
New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1965).
Ibid., pp. 78-79.
6Quoted in Roland L. Warren,
The Community in America
Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), p. 324.
7 Murray G. Ross, Commu nity Organization: T heory and Prin-
ciples
Ne w York: Harper and Brothers, 19 55) .
Ibid.,
p.
50
9
Ibid., p. 50
10 Ibid., p.
51.
Ibid., p 50
2 Quoted in Warren, op. ci t . , p. 310.
1s Op. cit. p. 52.
4 o p .
C i t . ,
p. 77 .
5 Op. ci t . ,
p. 51
6
op. cit.
p 51.
7
See, for example, Robert F. Bales, The Equilibrium Problem
in Small Groups in Talcott Parsons, Robert F. Bales and Edward
A . Shills eds.), Working Papers in the Theory of Action Glencoe,
Ill.: The Free Press, 1963).
lBSee, for example, Peter M. Blau, Bureaumucy in Modern
Society
Ne w York: Random House, 1956).
19See for example Warren, o p . at. Chapter
5,
and David
Popenoe, The Sociocultural Contexts of Individuals and Organiza-
tions in F. Berrien and B. Indik eds.), People, Groups and
Organizations tentative title, publication forthcom ing).
2oFor a representative sample
of
the work of this school see
the new lournal of Humanistic Psychology.
21Herbert
J.
Gans, Urbanism and Suburbanism
as
Ways
of
Life:
A
Re-evaluation of Definitions in Arnold M. Rose
( ed . )
Human Behavior and Social Processes Boston:
Houghton Mifflin
Co.
1962).
AIP JOURNAL
JULY 1967
Downl
oadedby[UniversidadDelNorte]at13:3931July2012
Recommended