AN INTERACTIONAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

  If community depends upon interaction, then it stands to reason that if interaction is suppressed, community is limited (Wilkinson, 1991). In practice, of course, community is always limited because there are inevitable barriers to social interaction. Groups are constantly forming, disbanding, and reforming along diverse interest lines. This process can affect patterns of local interaction in several ways.

  The concept of social fields provides a useful way to begin thinking about this issue. Social fields can be defined as loosely bounded arenas of interaction in a local population (Wilkinson, 1991). From the interactional perspective, the community is assumed to be composed of several more or less distinct social fields through which actors pursue or express particular interests - not all of which are place-relevant. For instance, people organize to pursue interests rooted in class, ethnicity, race, occupation, economic objectives, and so forth. These interactional fields can be thought of as "...universes of discourse, regularized mutual response networks, and arenas of social organization" (Maines, 1989:107). Moreover, because they have similar interests, participants in a particular social field frequently come to develop similar perspectives and similar definitions of the same situation. As Maines (1989:110) puts it, "Those who participate in common channels of communication tend to develop common outlooks."

  Not only does participation in different channels of communication tend to foster different perceptions of the world, it also affects the frequency and content of local interaction. For instance, it is not difficult to imagine situations in which social fields are so widely separated by lifestyle, ideology, social class, and race or ethnicity, that contact between participants or representatives of these fields is extremely limited. Of even greater significance is the possibility that dissimilarities in perspectives can lead to very different definitions of the same situation. When this is the case, it may be extremely difficult to generate meaningful dialogue. Although various parties may speak the same language, they may do so in different dialects: "What is meaningful in one class or gender position . . . might be intelligible but unimportant in another" (Brown, 1987:130).

  These are but a few of the potential barriers to local interaction and they point to the need to clearly specify how community depends upon social interaction. If the various social fields within a community have little experience in dealing with one another or if they hold radically different interests or perspectives, it is unlikely that they will be able to act collectively or develop mutually satisfactory solutions to local problems (Bridger, 1994). In such a situation, especially if it is repeated over time, interaction between social fields is suppressed and community is unlikely to emerge or persist among a local population (Luloff and Swanson, 1995).

  The upshot of this discussion is straightforward: Community depends upon the establishment of communicative bonds among the various interactional fields. There must be some mechanism for at least partially transcending the particularistic positions and perspectives of different social fields. From the interactional perspective, these linkages are provided by the community field.

The community field, a special field among other fields of community action, pursues not any single interest, as most other fields may be said to do, but the general community interest instead. The actions in this field serve to coordinate other action fields, organizing them more or less (through an unbounded, dynamic, and emergent process) into a whole. The community field has actors, associations, and activities, as any social field does; but the interest that guides this field is an interest in structure rather than in specific goals such as economic development or service improvement. The structural interest in the community field is expressed through linking, coordinating actions, actions that identify and reinforce the commonality that permeates the differentiated special interest fields in a community (Wilkinson, 1991:90).

  The community field thus provides linkages that highlight or bring into focus common interests in local aspects of social life. The coordinating actions undertaken in the community field do not necessarily harmonize diverse interests. Instead, actions in the communtiy field " . . . reinforce the commonality thatpermeates the differentiated special interest fields in a community" (Wilkinson 1991:90). Through this process community structure becomes more inclusive as the underlying common interests that all actors possess, by virtue of their physical presence in a common territory, are expressed. It represents the capacity (which may be latent) of local residents to work toward ecological, social, and economic well-being (Wilkinson, 1991:88).

  Purposive actions to build the community field involve the development of relationships across interest lines. As these relationships become more dense, they provide social capital (Coleman, 1988) in the form of information sources, reciprocal obligations and expectations, increased trust, and perhaps shared norms. These forms of social capital can be thought of as resources that facilitate actions directed at more specific goals. For instance, information is a crucial factor in making decisions about whether or not to pursue a particular line of action. And as Coleman (1988:S104) points out, " . . . acquisition of information is costly. At a minimum, it requires attention, which is always in scarce supply." However, as linkages across interest lines are established, diverse, low cost sources of information multiply rapidly and enhance the likelihood that communities will develop innovative approaches to development (Flora and Flora, 1993:56).

  The community field, however, is fragile and varies over time. Since community development is inevitably characterized by power struggles and conflict, this too is a potential barrier to sustainability. Those who seek to maximize growth and profits generated through economic development activities are often at odds with those attempting to create reasonably self sufficient communities that are more in balance with the local ecosystem.

  Some might suggest that, in the absence of coordinating actions that assert the general community interest, mediation can occur through formal public hearings, land-use regulations, litigation, and so forth. However, such solutions have historically been temporary and narrow in scope, especially when the issues revolved around economic development-environmental protection conflicts. Zoning changes to protect open space or farmland, for instance, are stop gap measures that typically favor a particular social field and can be easily overturned if there is a change in the local governing body (Bridger, 1992). Moreover, even when a municipal government successfully enacts and enforces land-use restrictions aimed at sustainability, the unintended consequence can be increased environmental degradation in other communities. This is certainly the case with growth control measures; the enacting locality may improve environmental conditions within its municipal boundaries, but it does so at the expense of other areas that must absorb the growth that would have occurred in the absence of regulations. In short, instrumental, or purely technical, approaches to sustainability are not likely to be successful in the long term nor will they necessarily contribute to ecological sustainability at the regional, national or global level.

  In order to avoid these kinds of problems, sustainable community development will probably require what Kemmis (1990) calls the politics of possibility. This type of politics rests on collaboration among citizen and community groups and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue with one's adversaries rather than procedural grounds and the delegation of responsibility to paid and elected officials (Mathews and McAfee, n.d). It is a politics rooted in direct participation by citizens and community groups. This kind of participatory management links the politics of possibility to the development and maintenance of the community field. Without a vibrant community field to provide communicative linkages that generate social capital and highlight common ground between opposing groups, it is doubtful that any community could achieve the level of trust required to grapple meaningfully with the difficult issues surrounding sustainability.

  This is not, however, a politics characterized solely by rationally motivated agreement (Habermas, 1984). In fact, consensus is of secondary importance. The politics of possibility recognizes the contingency and conflict inevitably faced whenever solutions to complex problems are sought. From this perspective, " . . . rationally motivated dissensus is an equally desirable outcome that must be encouraged rather than feared as an affront to communicative ethics" (Shalin, 1992:258). Dissenting viewpoints open spaces for understanding and alert us to the dangers and risks "...inherent in alternative lines of action" (Shalin, 1992:258). It is through the give and take of public discourse - both consensual and conflictual - that a realistic search for local forms of sustainability must occur. The goal of this process is the creation of common ground, not total agreement or compromise. The politics of possibility leads to " . . . diverse actions . . . that the community is willing to support. It is not idealistic; it is practical" (Mathews and McAfee, n.d.:22).

  Kemmis (1990) presents a useful example of what the politics of possibility might look like. In 1984, a pulp mill on the outskirts of Missoula, Montana, discovered that its holding ponds were reaching capacity. In response to this situation, the mill owners applied for permission to discharge some of the mill waste into a nearby river. As word of this action became public, a new environmental group was formed and asked the Montana Water Quality Bureau to perform an environmental impact statement. An impact statement, of course, would entail a lengthy process of public hearings. As Kemmis (1990:114) puts it, "The procedural republic was gearing up, with all its potential for two-by-four debates, deadlock, and alienation." But this is not what happened. Instead, the mill owners and the environmentalists began meeting informally to discuss the waste problem. As these discussions progressed, each side began to trust and understand the motives of the other. Eventually, they were able to devise a joint solution which they presented to the Water Quality Bureau.

  This example also illustrates more clearly how the community field arises among people who share a common territory and how it is related to the politics of possibility. The community field emerges when, in the course of interaction, people realize that despite possessing special interests, a common concern over place of residence is present. In the case of the pulp mill, both sides realized that "no matter how diverse and complex the patterns of livelihood may be that arise within the river system, no matter how diversely they value it, it is, finally, one and the same river for everyone....and if we all want to stay here . . . then we have to learn, somehow, to live together" (Kemmis, 1990:117). The community field arises when interacting parties recognize the existence of a community interest that transcends the particularistic interests of the various social fields that comprise the community. The community field " . . . is both a consequence and a cause of community actions in special interest areas. It arises from other actions and fields, drawing together their commonalities" (Wilkinson, 1991:90). And, once these lines of communication are established, they tend to reinforce the likelihood that the politics of possibility will become a structural characteristic of community life. However, as noted above, the community field is fragile. It is, to use Everett Hughes's (1971) phrase, a "going concern" that requires ongoing efforts to ensure that relationships are developed and lines of communication kept open.