Community Development

BBC 1 TV "Inside Out"

Portrait of Handsworth riots 1985 by Pogus Caesar


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

My problem with this is that, as usual, equal opportunities practitioners are subtly shifting goalposts and consequently the potential resources that might become available. The Connecting Communities bid specifically identifies a need for increased economic participation from disadvantaged people and neighbourhoods in the city. This is a polite and longwinded way of placing economic exclusion – or poverty as it's usually called – at the core of the city's problems.

Having reached this conclusion you then reject it by claiming that it is disability that is preventing participation. Is this actually the case? Are disabled people excluded because they're disabled or because they're poor? The other way to look at this is to ask yourself whether wealthy disabled people are also experiencing problems with access.

The problem with an equal opportunities approach like this is that an ever-expanding series of interest groups will keep coming forward as special cases demanding resources. We've already had the disabled and travellers and no doubt soon the race relations industry will start getting in on the act too.

For me there's a logical fallacy in the idea that you tackle divisions in Bristol by further dividing people into groups competing for resources. These are the same issues at the heart of the current rows over multiculturalism in the UK. They most recently cropped up in the guise of the Ken Livingstone - Trevor Phillips spat: http://www.guardian.co.uk/race...
Typically, the Oxbridge liberals at Canary Wharf preferred to concentrate on the personalities rather than the issues though. However, the issues can be found in a more adult format in the latest issue of Catalyst (http://www.catalystmagazine.or... in a debate between Tanuka Loha and Kenan Malik.
Malik's take on equal opportunities practice in Birmingham might raise a few eyebrows:


"In 1985, the Handsworth riots brought blacks, whites and Asians on to the streets in a common struggle against oppressive policing. In 2005, a riot in Lozells, next door to Handsworth, pitted African Caribbeans against Asians. Why did communities who had fought side by side in 1985 end up fighting against each other 20 years later? Largely because of the policy of ethnic representation introduced by the local council in response to the 1985 riots. Birmingham council created nine so-called ‘Umbrella Groups’ based on ethnicity and faith, the function of which were to represent the needs of specific communities. The aim was to make policy development and resource allocation more democratic. In practice, the policy undermined democracy and created new conflicts.

A report by the Birmingham Race Action Partnership observes that ‘class, intra-religious and gender differences within communities mean that many feel under-represented or even misrepresented’, while an academic study from Southampton University concludes that Birmingham’s policies helped create ‘competition between BME [black and minority ethnic] communities for resources’. Rather than ‘prioritising needs and cross-community working, the different Umbrella Groups generally attempted to maximise their own interests’."


Ultimately, it seems to me, if you're serious about tackling deprivation through technology you need to do more than wire up the current services and their methods and call it 'new'. You need to start asking what's been achieved during the 25 year dominance of the equal opportunities and race relations industries. As far as I can see we the gap between rich and poor has widened, we've got a whole generation of disaffected Muslim and black young men, inter-racial relations are at an all time low and the white working classes are turning to the BNP because nobody else appears to give a toss about them.
Isn't it time for a rethink?

I see your point BB but really the issue for me was about identifying practical barriers. I know a little about some of the issues that people with disabilities face when it come to using IT but I know nothing about the things that might prevent gypsies and travellers becoming more connected. At the end of the meeting I talked with Lynn one-to-one and we both agreed that the only way to understand this is to have some communication with potential users. She didn't seek to speak for the community directly but offered to set up some meetings that might help us understand what is useful and what might inhibit interaction for gypsies and travellers. None of this will block, restrict or prevent wider access to the Connecting Bristol project for other groups but should in fact serve to make our project more inclusive.

k

"What is important is that people opt-in because they see the benefits for themselves."

Quite. What Kevin describes is a community development professional arbitrarily identifying a community and opting-in for them.
From here there's a fairly well-trodden path.
'Community Leaders' will be selected - note that they're always selected - funding will appear and before we know it we'll have a whole mini-industry in computers for travellers on the go.
At which point, the rest of the community - invariably white and working class - who never get 'opted in' by equal opportunities professionals will begin to get quite restless...




I

I agree with what you say here Steve. I suppose the point I wanted to make in the original post, that came from the meeting, was about specific and particular access requirements for groups we haven't yet considered.

At the meeting we talked for a long time about the access requirements of people with disabilities but to some extent this has become a mainstreamed consideration and has become a standard part of specifying any system. This is of course a good thing but there are other groups who have particular access requirements that have to be considered up front to give them that opportunity to opt-in if they wish. One of the concerns that was also raised was around peoples language skills, and the potential for content to be presented in multiple languages.

We need to know what these practical limiting factors might be upfront, and/or we need to come up with connectivity and content that is flexible enough for ALL potential users to interact in the way they feel most comfortable. Its not about us or anyone else deciding who to include or exclude but it is about us considering and as far as possible addressing these practical constraints on interaction.

Kevin, our friend, the mysterious Bristol Blogger, does raise an interesting point, which we should be prepared to discuss openly here. What we mean by ‘included’ or ‘excluded’, socially, digitally or otherwise is a good question.

Can someone who is isolated, elderly, or who has mobility problems and likes to play chess gain companionship and a sense of connection by playing virtual or real opponents online? I used to work in council temporary accommodation and met several pre-op transsexuals who had been terrorised out of their homes. I also met travellers who had either decided to change their ‘lifestyle’ or couldn’t find anywhere to stay put. I can imagine many ways that both of these groups might benefit from Connecting Bristol – accessing health info online, speaking (anonymously) with others who have undergone the op, accessing schools and learning info whilst in temporary accommodation or on the road etc etc.

But let’s be honest, it’s not really important what benefits I imagine. What is important is that people opt-in because they see the benefits for themselves. “Digital Community” is not the gift of DCLG, BCC or any other authority to hand down to grateful citizens – what we can do is try to remove social and economic barriers that prevent many people from opting-in in the first place. We can also try to make sure that when people do opt-in, they feel welcome and excited by the new opportunities they find.

What do you think Bristol Blogger?

Chess players are highly unlikely to be given any particular consideration within the development of our bid. Give me a call at the office if you feel we have excluded a group who could benefit from this project and we can have a chat. 0117 927 5116.

"the needs of Gypsies and Travellers, which we are yet to address within our work."

Will you also be addressing in your bid the needs of say chess players? Drug users? Pre-op transexuals? Or any other people who make unconventional lifestyle choices?
What's the criteria for being included? Or excluded?