articulo caso practico

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/rjpa19


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


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


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


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



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


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


8/8

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


articulo caso practico

Documents