A RT I C L E

DEVELOPING AND APPLYING

CONCEPTS ABOUT COMMUNITY:
REFLECTIONS FROM THE FIELD
Stephen J. Fyson
East Gosford, Australia

The author reflects on his 20 years of experience in applied community

psychology, the last 12 years of which were spent in school settings. This
experience provides the basis for the development of two integrated models
of community based on community psychology, school organizational
development, and theological literature. The models were developed as part
of current, school-based, case-study material that focuses on preventing
alienation for 10- to 14-year-old students. The first model furthers the
theories of community as caring persons (Dokecki, 1992) in its third position
(Newbrough, 1995). It also posits that transformational community is
when the tension between the One and the Many is resolved in such a
way that meaning is added to the individuals and communitys life because
of a common calling to a vision. This vision is transcendental to the
individual and community and is reflective of the concept of agency as the
pursuit of truth (Williams, 1992). This framework is then used to present
a community-development application of the components of transformational
community, extending the community concepts of McMillan and Chavis
(1986) toward those similar to the empowermentorganizing features posited
by Maton and Salem (1995), and the theoretical revisions of McMillan
(1996). Future reports will deal with the further applications of these
concepts, particularly in developing ways of structuring schools to enhance
the experience of transformational community for its student members.
1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Correspondence to: Stephen J. Fyson, 34 Webb Street, East Gosford, 2250, Australia. E-mail: sfyson@phcs.nsw.
edu.au

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 27, No. 3, 347365 (1999)

1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4392/99/030347-19
348 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The changes experienced by an individual moving from a job as a street-based youth
worker, to a manager of, and researcher for Community Health Services, then on to the
position of Head of a Middle School, would undoubtedly be great. However, underlying
principles learned through the study of Community Psychology enables the development
of helpful concepts across applications in different field settings, while still being a part
of those settings (Wicker & Sommer, 1993).
The genesis of this belief started in 1977 when the I sat in a Community Health Cen-
ter with a colleague, simply observing. We had been oriented into Sarasonian com-
munity psychology (e.g., Sarason, 1974). What we saw was a community service, locat-
ed in a second-story office suite, which was designed to have people to come to itand
then take whatever intervention was preferred by the case worker on duty at the time.
The people helpers involved would occasionally argue over who would take which
clients, because professional survival was tied to sustaining a client load. This was a far
cry from what Hill (1982) described:

Empowerment as a rally-cry for the community psychology movement also

makes explicit the practitioners role: it is one of collaboration with community
members. Knowledgeability rather than expertise is stressed; knowledge of the
places where people live out their lives, and a commitment to bring psycholog-
ical knowledge to enable people to have more control over those very places and
settings. Recall that if we are giving psychology away to the people we are then
also doing ourselves out of a job; this should be our goal (p.15).

I was determined to adopt four principles of Community Psychology in all of my applied

work settings. These were:

1. Prevention of human misery, rather than simply patching up after the event;
2. Use of (interdisciplinary) theories which went beyond explaining problems by
only focusing on the individual;
3. Maintaining an historical perspective (acknowledging the self-transcendent na-
ture of people and their relationships, and thus admitting the sociological pri-
macy of story over empiricism); and
4. Having a personal commitment to reading applied research literature.

Basically, these principles were summarized in the thoughtdont compromise the

best of the heritage from the concept of community. What follows below is a descrip-
tion of a model which has helped explain what community may mean for people in re-
lationship. On the basis of this, another model is presented to help explain movements
to, or away from constructive experiences of community. To use a word such as con-
structive also implies making a value judgement about whether an experience of com-
munity is helpful or not. I shall attempt to use the concepts from Williams (1992) and
Dokecki (1992) to suggest that our choices in relationship (the practice of human
agency) can lead us to experiences of transformational community (in Williams lan-
guage, living truly) or in experiences towards isolation and alienation (in Dokecki
terms, toward the removal from the ethos of care). The ethical direction of power with-
in empowerment is then considered in trying to resolve some tensions between you
and me.
 Concepts About Community 349

THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF SCHOOLING

The basic reason for adopting a construct of community as a paradigm for change
in an educational setting is that education is a relational process (Dewey in Bowen and
Hobson, 1982; Augustine in Howie, 1969; Andersen, 1984), and community, as defined
below, is the most comprehensive, yet, succinct concept that deals with the various do-
mains and complexities of educational life. As Sergiovanni commented, If we want to
rewrite the script to enable good schools to flourish, we need to rebuild community.
Community building must become the heart of any school improvement effort. (1994,
p. xi; see also, Gaffney, 1996; Thomas & Whan, 1996)
There is also a steady flow of information highlighting the need to understand what
school does to our young people. Sarason has long been a commentator on our lack of
consistent critical thinking on this issue (e.g., 1983), and recently has again voiced his
concern about the effects on our youth: Our schools violate what is known about the
contexts for productive learning which is why our students become bored going into
junior high (1997, pp. 773774; also Seidmann, Aber, Allen, & French, 1996).
To better understand these complex issues, which are inherent in the relational life
of schools, the two models developed in this article seek to develop the McMillan and
Chavis (1986) and McMillan (1996) frameworks of sense of community by integrating it
with the educational theory of Sergiovanni (1990, 1994), the organizational development
material of Kouzes and Mico (1979), and the Biblical theology models of Hanson (1986)
and Brueggemann (1982).
The impetus behind this school-based project is best illustrated in the following anec-
dote. My next-door neighbor recently pointed out some young tree branches in our
hedge and advised me that the sapling was a noxious weed and I should remove it. When
I next passed the spot with my pruning sawdown came the branches. But the longterm
reality is that because I havent dug out the roots, the tree will continue to grow. It will
keep sprouting, and when I am too forgetful, absent, or old to cut down branches any-
more, it will grow into a tree of substance.
This, I believe, is like the continual battle to keep relationships a priority in a grow-
ing school. At first, community members see things that they think will stop the rela-
tional certainty and sensitivity in their setting, and then try to chop them out. But as the
school becomes older as a community, enjoying the fruit of increased numbers, appar-
ent success, economies of scale, and the attendant opportunities for the traditional op-
timal teaching of subjects (in contrast to best practice for teaching students), the roots
of practices poisonous to constructive relationships take hold and wait for the pioneers
to tire out.
Thus, the purpose of this project is to develop a thorough understanding of com-
munity in order to protect it; that is to protect the relational priority that many new
schools (particularly, alternative ones) have when first established. The context from
which the material has been developed is that of resident researcher, with all of the at-
tendant strengths, weaknesses, complexities, and mysteries (Wicker & Sommer, 1993, as
well as commentaries in the same volume).

CONCEPTUAL COMPONENTS OF
TRANSFORMATIONAL COMMUNITY
The seminal definitional material about community by McMillan and Chavis was
constructed by identifying factors originating from social science research, particularly
350 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

social climate scales (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Chavis & Newbrough, 1986; Moos, 1976,
1979, 1996). However, the 80s concepts that tried to systematically describe community,
were also being developed in other disciplines. The work of Brueggemann (1982) and
Hanson (1986) reviewed the development of community as a way of living extending
back to the earliest days of the JudeoChristian faith, and then tracked it through to the
founding of the early Christian Church. Their methodology provides a conceptually cu-
mulative framework of community across thousands of yearsa case study approach
spanning the unusually long period of life of a very resilient mediating structurethe
JudeoChristian Church (Maton & Pargament, 1987).
These two interdisciplinary sources have provided the basis for an attempt to clarify
the key factors of community for the me, while being engaged in absorbing the language
of schools and its relational networks. This assimilation is summarized by the diagram in
Figure 1.

Social Science Perspectives

The McMillan and Chavis (1986) definition and theory of community can be inter-
preted as an attempt to try to come to grips with the individual/collective tensions of life
(also Brewster-Smith, 1990; Newbrough, 1992). Their summary definition reflects this:
Sense of community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that mem-
bers matter with one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members needs
will be met through their commitment to be together. (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9)
This definition has four critical elements to itmembership, influence, need ful-
fillment, and shared emotional commitment. The authors made comments about each
of these which are not only useful theoretically, but can also provide very valuable guid-
ance for those in community psychology practice. McMillans (1996) revisions do not al-
ter the thrust of the lessons to be learned from the original constructs, but do contain
a subtle shift (see below).

Figure 1. Conceptual components of transformational community.

 Concepts About Community 351

Membership {the belongingness of community}. McMillan and Chavis outlined that this ele-
ment is the bottom-line experience that defines whether or not one belongs to the com-
munity concerned. Within their description they raise the issue of boundaries. Bound-
aries is the obvious extension of belongingnessfor if it is possible to be a member of
something, then it must be possible to not be a member. They have commented that,
While much sympathetic interest in and research on the deviant have been generated,
group members legitimate needs for boundaries to protect their intimate social con-
nections have been overlooked. (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9)
They also admit the pain which can come from boundaries, by those who use them
to scapegoat others, and by those who engineer themselves into being the deviant. The
antidote to this they claim, is to clarify the benefit that boundaries provide to commu-
nities. (p. 9; also McMillan, 1996, p. 317)
This challenge seems to not have been taken up. Why? Perhaps, because bound-
aries are thought to be incompatible with tolerance. Or that inclusiveness is thought
to be incompatible with freedom of association. Or again, that equality is thought to
be synonymous with sameness. Whatever the reason, the model outlined in Figure 1
uses this element not only as a foundation for understanding the experience of com-
munity, but also as the starting point of the ability to articulate sense of communitybe-
longingness is strongly related to choice in relational contexts. Boundaries are essential
for choice to occur, for they are the means by which one decides whether to undertake
the initiation process of declaring willingness to be a part of the community (McMil-
lan & Chavis, 1986, p. 15Dynamics Within the Relationships; McMillan, 1996, p. 316
discussion on truth and intimacy). It is proposed below that such choices are funda-
mental in whether ones experience of community is transformational or not.
McMillan and Chavis further contend that membership also provides the basis for
emotional safety, a sense of identity from fulfilling the journey of striving to belong, and
the provision of the cultural experience of shared symbols (pp. 1011). This aspect of
membership has also been often ignored by psychologists, being of interest primarily to
sociologists. Yet, if we are to take up the challenge to understand the link between the
need for transcendence (or needs of the soulBerkowitz, 1996) and the need for com-
munity (Sarason, 1993), it is an aspect of relational life which may need new considera-
tion. The section below on theological perspectives will present possible theoretical con-
nections between membership and vision.

Influence {norming the ethos of community}. Given as a bidirectional [mutual] concept, in-
fluence is presented by McMillan and Chavis as that which provides the group norms of
the community. Due to the process which they call consensual validation, they distin-
guish between the kind of conformity which provides cohesiveness, and that which sim-
ply robs one of individual choice. Again, it would seem that this subtle, yet critical un-
derstanding, which may be expressed as unity does not equal uniformity, has not been
well addressed in subsequent discussions of community, other than as an incidental part
of considerations of empowerment (see below).
Yet, as MacMurray (1954) warned, Without justice, cooperation becomes impossi-
ble (p. 204). MacMillan and Chavis agree with this in the propositions that they give,
which basically derive from a relational dynamic akin to MacMurraysthat of persons
needing to be persons in relationship, which derives from the need for reassurance that
the way that they make sense of the world is not an alone reality. In his later revision,
McMillan (1996) makes this principle more explicit by noting the need for authority
352 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

(which is to serve the many and not just the self ) to maintain a sense of order and there-
fore, trust (p. 319). The model presented here agrees with this understanding, while rec-
ognizing that keeping a balance between justice and oppression is difficult.
Many observers would argue that at the current time, the balance is on the side of
the next elementneeds fulfillmentparticularly in the literature which discusses the
dominance of individualism in contemporary culture (e.g., Sarason, 1986; Bellah, Mad-
son, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Newbrough, 1992). As Frankl (1959) observed:

Freedom, however is not the last word . . . Freedom is but the negative aspect of
responsibleness (sic). In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere ar-
bitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend
that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Re-
sponsibility on the West Coast. (pp. 155 156).

Fulfillment of need {embracing the pathos of community} This is given by MacMillan and
Chavis (1986) as the element which reinforces the acts of relationship, such that the in-
dividual is rewarded for being a part of the group: The main point is that people do
what serves their needs. (p. 13)
The primary reinforcers they discuss are gaining status from being a member, gain-
ing from the competence of the group, and the organizing of ones values (from the
group norms) such that they can prioritize their needs. The model in Figure 1 integrates
this concept into the language and constructs of Dokecki (1992)that of community of
persons in caring relations, wherein Caring is a norm for the rightness or wrongness
of all action whatever. (p. 31, after MacMurray, 1954)
This concept is considered to be focal for understanding the difference between a
group of people in an organizational (institutional, mechanical) relationship, and one
where there is an experience of transformational community (see development model
below). If members are in the latter, they can experience what McMillan (1996) de-
scribed as safety from shame in a community economy based on shared intimacy to
meet members needs (p. 321).

Shared emotional connections {the commitment to service within community}. This is the critical
definitional element that MacMillan and Chavis (1986) use for describing the experience
of sense of communityindeed, the definitive element for true community (p. 14).
Their description of shared emotional connection across seven factors presents a sce-
nario of people reconnecting in a way lamented by others as being lost (after Nisbet,
1953). They contend that strong community experience can be seen in the everyday life
of its members in the way they interact and share, to the point of opportunities for spir-
itual bonding and the recording of such experiences in art (McMillan, 1996).
This language, which goes beyond the scientism of modernity (Wildavsky, 1973;
Berkowitz, 1996; Kolawkowski, 1990) is one which is inherent in the study of communi-
ty because of its origins in the experiences and concepts of our culture(s). For example:

The personal community has its roots in the JudeoChristian tradition, and, be-
cause it submerges neither the social (as in the mechanistic), nor the individual
(as in the organic), it avoids both the alienated individual and the totalitarian
state. (Dokecki, 1992, p. 31)

A brief overview of the theological literature concerned with the origins and impli-
cations of community in the JudeoChristian heritage particularly as it relates to the el-
 Concepts About Community 353

ements presented by McMillan and Chavis follows. This examination may also promote
our understanding of the need for transcendence, often linked to the need for com-
munity, as described by Sarason (1993).

Theological Perspectives
Brueggemann (1982) uses the Old Testament to construct an educational model of
community. The ethos sets the character tone for the community; the pathos allows
the new needs to be responded to; and the logos allows for the relational certainty of
everyday life to be focused on something greater than the individuals within itan or-
dering which leads to responsibility and freedom. (p. 91)
Brueggemann placed these concepts within a framework with the following sum-
mary (p. 91):

The ethos is founded on the disclosure of Gods purpose for His way with His
peopleit is represented by the law writings, and is sure and undoubted;
The pathos stems from fresh revelation which shatters the consensus in or-
der to avoid oppression. It is founded on the disruptive word of the prophet;
and
The logos is the sure ordering of created reality. It is an ordering which requires
wisdom to discern it and it leads to responsibility, freedom, mystery and awe.

Hansons (1986) work confirmed the basic structure of Brueggemanns model. His the-
ory of community is based on a vision of being called as Gods people. This enables di-
versity within unity, with a focus beyond self and the collective. The basis of this unifying
impact, claimed Hanson, comes from recognizing certain principles of the Biblical pic-
ture of community, including a relational triad in its social structurethe righteousness
(moral life) of the community sets the responsibilities of the community. These givens
also provide the standards for community justice and responsibility to which individuals
commit themselves. Compassion expresses how the community embraces individual needs
against oppression, for righteousness was not supposed to be a heartless affair. And wor-
ship (literally service) is the dynamic belongingness that identifies the community
(the collective vision of being called), and maintains membership focus outside of self
and the collective (daily commitment).
This worship was to take into account the realities of human nature, which at times
takes the helpful to an extreme position. Having reached this point, what started out
as helpful can become relationally destructive. Thus, Hansons description can add to
that of McMillan and Chavis, for he explains from his case study how the need for order
could harden into rigid administration rather than righteousness. Conversely, the asser-
tion of human passions could lead to sentimental permissiveness, which encourages so-
cial chaos. (Note the extremeand distortedexperiences of transformational com-
munity represented by the concepts in italics in Figure 1.)

The Meeting of the Perspectives

It is these contradictions that arise from the extremes of community which tend to
encourage people not to seriously examine their hidden axioms or world views. Sarason
and others have recognized this as a struggle of greater society, symbolized by the ten-
sion between rampant individualism and suffocating collectivism (Sarason, 1986a, p.
354 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

905; see also Sarason, 1982, 1983). It is these contemporary tensions that social scientists
have started to describe.
Thus, Berger (1967), while reviewing the social nature of religion, defined the shift
away from the traditional JudeoChristian models in Western civilization by describing
secularization as:
The process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the domi-
nation of religious institutions and symbols . . . Put simply, this means that the mod-
ern West has produced an increasing number of individuals who look upon the
world and their own lives without the benefit of religious interpretations. (p. 113)
Yet, a comparison between the social science and theological frameworks for interpret-
ing community reveals some commonality. The belongingness of McMillan and Chavis
is reflective of the calling vision of the Hanson model, whereby membership is initiat-
ed. The mattering (mutual influence) is described in terms similar to the givens of
the ethos of Brueggemann, such that identity is possible because of the establishment of
norms to which individuals are committed. The mutuality of need fulfillment echoes
the compassion of both Biblical models, and is given as the way for individual growth
and development. The feeling and faith experience of these dynamics (or the emo-
tional connectedness) corresponds clearly to the worship of the theological models,
and is the outworking of mutual commitment and acceptance.
Such a meeting of perspectives is reflected in the shift in language by McMillan
(1996) which came after he reviewed his original conceptual frameworks. His new cate-
gory labels tend to highlight in more transcendental language the relational implications
which arise from living out the concepts initially described. He thus moved from mem-
bership to spiritplacing greater emphasis on the spark of friendship which arises
between fellow members in their search for a safe place to explore truth. Mutual in-
fluence became the experience of trust as authority and thus, power structures are ex-
plicated under the passion of a transcendent principle. Integration of needs moved on
to become trade of a particular kind for McMillana social (relational) economy
whereby group cohesion is not threatened by dissent and disagreement. And the shared
emotional connectedness moved on to be celebrations of the communitys transcendent
values though artthe symbols, stories, music that are transcendent and eternal,
based on moments of tragedy redeemed by courage (p. 323).
Some have been warning that we ought not ignore the need for these ultimate val-
ue community perspectives. Sarason (1986a) penned the following over a decade ago,
To the extent, as in Western society, the center undergoes weakening and takes on cen-
trifugal features, the ensuing sense of rootlessness demands a new center. (p. 899; see
also Starratt, 1993a, pp. 75 79 & Gaede, 1985, pp. 4647).
By examining this issue, I will attempt to provide a developmental framework for
transformational community that includes the notion of a transcendent vision as the
starting point for membership, based on choice, which will be explained as the work of
human agency towards truth.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

OF TRANSFORMATIONAL COMMUNITY
This difficulty, of a weakened center, was highlighted when I became involved with
a new set of schools which were committed explicitly to the practice of community. The
 Concepts About Community 355

critical focal question for involvement with these schools took on the form of, How can
we adopt an understanding of community which will help in the planning and develop-
ment of these schools in the direction of their vision, which includes non-institutional-
ized relationships? (cf. Sarason, 1983.)
This section describes how a developmental model has been constructed from the
four main components of transformational community, and their extremes, to provide
a framework that addresses this question, or issue of substance (Wicker, 1989). The
model is at this stage descriptive, and is the basis of current research into the prevention
of alienation for 10- to 14-year-olds in schools.

Background
Wallace (1956) outlined the historical pattern of the originination of new commu-
nities of relationships. He noted that when there was a consensus for change, a new vi-
sionary leader was required to institutionalize the revitalization process. This is similar
to what Etzioni (1964) described as the cycle of non-bureaucratic heads, whereby
charismatic leaders routinely establish new organizations (p. 54; Etzioni cites the various
concepts of Weber as his source for this idea).
The proposed model in Figure 2 encompasses these dynamics by placing the four
elements common to the psychological literature and theological case studies on a de-
velopmental progression towards a renewing of, or a decline from transformational com-

Figure 2. Development and decline of transformational community.

356 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

munity. The model is based on lectures on the rise and fall of Christian para-church or-
ganizations (Houston, 1988. See also Bartunek & Betters-Reed, 1987).

Outline of the Development Model

1. Identity formation corresponds to the belonging and membership initiation of Fig-
ure 1.
2. Establishing entity corresponds with the mattering, or the ethos of the community.
3. Giving expression to relationships is equivalent to the pathos of the community.
4. Establishing strategies for daily routines corresponds with the emotional connected-
ness of daily life.

It is posited that these elements occur when a new corporate vision is developed by peo-
ple in relationship. It is my experience that the first two stages tend to happen without
much conscious planning and management (see also Sarason, Zitnay, & Grossman, 1971;
Sarason & Lorentz, 1979). The excitement of the idea tends to group people together
(identity formation), and they quickly establish basic parameters of operation out of ne-
cessity and in an attitude of neighborliness. These common goals, often contributed to
at significant cost to the inaugural members, maintain the activity settings within the
community (ODonnell, Tharp, & Wilson, 1993, p. 505).
However, growth in numbers, years of operation and/or new members start to test
the realm of needs nurture. In this environment, the pressure for routinization occurs,
and the same levels of founding commitment and belongingness rarely survive easily.
These issues are currently the topic of further research by the author, but they are broad-
ly confirmed in the writing of Sergiovanni (1990) who, using the language of (value-
added) leadership and school transformation, summarizes the process as bartering (ini-
tiation), building (uncertainty), bonding (transformation), and banking (routinization)
(p. 31). This is represented by the terms and arrows through the middle of the diagram
(Fig. 2).
The model in Figure 2 also outlines the problem areas that often arise when devel-
oping and/or maintaining community (although if it is true that the only alive school
is a renewing school then maintenance becomes development of some kindSarason
& Klaber, 1985). Hanson (1986), in his theological construct, described the extremes of
legalism and sentimentalism derived from the exaggerated expression of the boundaries
and the meeting of needs, respectively. Under the vision of worship, compassion, and
order, were to keep each other in check, transforming a dialectical tension into a com-
plimentary dynamic:

Without denying the need for order, the compassion of Yahweh awakened con-
sciousness of the fact that in and of itself order can be oppressive . . . A right-
eous standard capable of ordering the new society was thus to be accompanied
with a heart reaching out to embrace all. (Newbrough, 1992, pp. 7273)

Newbrough summarized these tensions as between the One and the Many (see also
Peck, 1987, pp. 136168). Educators are very familiar with this tension in a number of
domains, e.g., individual staff versus the overall teaching community; the particular fam-
ily versus the broader parent group; and the needs of the individual student versus the
whole class.
 Concepts About Community 357

If these tensions remain as dialectical forces, impinging on each other instead of

complimenting each other, the path away from transformational community is followed.
The path away from community in Figure 2 reflects the general kinds of disagreements
as outlined by Dunphy (1981, p. 298 290):

Doubts about operations deal with the routine facts of life in the community.
This kind of questioning revolves around is there a better way of doing this?
type of inquiry;
Ideological doubts relate to the goals of the community, and the start of per-
sonal hurt and disillusionment as to what the community stands for. These type
of doubts are expressed in the kind of questioning that is focused on the they
dont care for me [or others] anymore [or ever] expressions of hurt. It is here
that doubt is expressed as to whether the relationships are operating as a com-
munity experience or as an organizational/institutional one;
The expression of ethical doubt not only questions what the community stands
for, but whether it maintains its integrity in the pursuit of these goals, i.e., a
questioning of the methods. The language can tend to shift from I am hurt
to this is [absolutely] wrong. It should also be noted that sometimes people
use ethical or ideological language when they are only concerned with an op-
erational issue. When people do this (i.e., increase the commitment level of
their language beyond the issue at hand), it is suggested that they are doing so
in order to utilize political power processes rather than relationship enhanc-
ing ones.
The last stage, of absolute doubt, challenges the values (identity) of the com-
munity, and calls into question the desired membership of the individuals with-
in the community. This stage is the language of I am testing out whether this
is where I [or you] belong, and it is suggested that it is often brought about
by lack of perceived encouragement in a persons routine contribution to the
community; insensitivity over a controversial or personally traumatic issue;
and/or lack of resolution of ethical issues, i.e., a break-down in stages 13
above.

Such a journey corresponds with Kouzes and Micos (1979) description of organizations
where:

Service becomes professionalization of relationshipsstage 1 questioning(see Sara-

son & Lorentz, 1979, p. 110130)
Management becomes perceived as bureaucratic insensitivitystage 2 questioning
Policy becomes legalismstage 3 questioning
People leave instead of wanting to belongthe final stage.

In Figure 2, these relationally negative experiences are placed in juxtaposition to con-

structive expressions of relationship, i.e., instead of relationships becoming profession-
alized, there can be acceptance of each other to the point of collaboration; insensitivity
can be overcome with affirmation of care in relationships; legalism can be avoided
through the exercise of justice; and people will stay committed to the relationships rather
than leave them. If this is achieved, there is an increase in intersubjectivity, because as
358 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

ODonnell et al. (1993) commented, Who we are, is who we know, is who we are.
(p. 506; see also Maton, 1989). Therefore, perhaps a better word for intersubjectivity in
our discussion of community is intimacy.
In looking at the development of, the renewal of, or the movement away from com-
munity, the role of the central core must be continually kept in mind, as expressed
below.
Therefore, one must ask what price has been paid in the substitution of the con-
cepts of morals and values for that of sin as a transgression of divine law? I would
suggest, as have many others, that the price we paid was in the weakening of the
sense of interconnectedness among the individual, the collectivity, and ultimate
purpose and meaning of human existence (Sarason, 1986b, p. 159).
With direct reference to education, Purpel (1987) similarly claimed that, [This is]... the
crux of our crisis: the difficulty of creating a vital, authentic and energizing vision of
meaning in a context of significant diversity, pluralism, division, skepticism, dogmatism
and even nihilism. (p. 64; see also Conway, 1984; Etzioni, 1993)

D o We Need Leaders?
The role of leadership in this process is also an important aspect to keep in mind
when encountering paths to, or from community (e.g., McKnight, 1990; Handy, 1982;
Dunphy 1981, Sergiovanni, 1990; Duignan, 1994; Bennis & Nanus, 1985). A visionary
leader can use the questioning of operations, ideas, ethics, or identity as a time for re-
newal, as indicated by the loops on Figure 2 (Barna, 1992, 1996; Starratt, 1993a; Sarason
& Klaber, 1985 ). McMillan (1996) believed this process starts by recognizing differences
of need within a base of understanding and support. The model in Figure 2 agrees with
his hypothesis that this process starts at a relatively early phase of community develop-
ment (p. 321), i.e., in stages 1 and 2. The model also takes into account Wiesenfelds
(1996) criticism that too many views of community ignore the antagonistic forces op-
erating within communities and that they do not value diversity (p. 338). Instead, it seeks
to acknowledge questions arising from differences and to put them to good use within
the community (p. 342).
Conversely, if questioning remains unresolved, then decay of community as outlined
above ensues (McKnight, 1990; Sarason, 1990; Peck, 1987). This is critical in under-
standing the nature of community building which is transformational. Some leaders or
founders make the mistake of assuming that a mature community is one where there
is no questioning. This study proposes that community is a dynamic, relational experi-
ence. Thus, the ability to ask questions is not only allowed, but encouraged (Davidson &
Cotter, 1989). Issues of power, responsibility, rights, justice, and compassion can then be
addressed under a unifying central corea vision. It is suggested that this transfor-
mational dynamic (the third position of Newbrough, 1995) has the potential to address
some of the unanswered questions about empowerment (Cowen, 1994, p. 168).

Empowerment Revisited
This view helps to answer Rigers (1993) question about whats wrong with empow-
erment. Riger noted that the underlying assumption of empowerment theory is that of
conflict rather than cooperation among groups and individuals, control rather than com-
 Concepts About Community 359

munion (p. 285). Because of this, she posited that situations which foster community
may be the opposite of those which foster empowerment (p. 288). In other words, if dif-
ferent groups are vying for power (and community psychology has traditionally support-
ed those they see as disenfranchised), then what is to hold them together?
Riger concluded that the challenge for community psychology is to articulate a vi-
sion that encompasses not only empowerment but also community (p. 290). What is sug-
gested here is that the study of vision per se may be a productive starting point. For a
central vision can transform conflict into cooperation, and control into communion.
Admitting a unifying core can thus provide an alternative basis to that of empower-
ment for empowerments sake, which is, in turn, keeping oneself open to the charge of
not requiring any obligation to make explicit the moral effect of the redistribution of
control. For example, was Hitler both empowered and empowering when he went on his
campaigns? Admitting a calling vision as a starting point to the development of trans-
formational community requires its leaders to articulate what they are hoping to moral-
ly achieve (Barna, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1993; Porras and Silvers, 1991).
Maton and Salem (1995) were also interested in describing a set of organizational
characteristics foundational to empowerment (p. 652)or, as their title states Em-
powering Community Settings. It seems that when one reviews the four critical areas
distilled from their research, they have described what has been presented in this article
as basic components of community, including the need for a unifying center. Their ar-
ticle could thus be described, in contrast to the paradox of Riger, as empowerment
equals developing a settings sense of community. That is:

1. Group-based belief system (the ideology and values that prescribe patterns of be-
havior) the ethos/givens
2. The support system pathos/needs fulfillment
3. Leadership (visionary and enlisting) vision
4. Opportunity role structure daily connectedness

Subsequent analyses which have generated lists of dimensions of sense of community

also tend to fit into these four major areas (Puddifoot, 1996 ; Royal & Rossi, 1996). This
issue of defining empowerment needs to be taken further, but suffice to say here, that
any consideration of power (even through the rubric of empowerment) is to engage in
an examination of a critical aspect of community, particularly within the setting of
schools (Sarason, 1990, p. 28).

You, Me, and We

The tensions described in these discussions are well-summarized by Dokecki (1992)
and Newbrough (1992). Dokecki, at the level of analysis of the person-in-community ar-
gues that community integrates the levels of society by means of the intentional caring
relationship, which becomes the norm for rightness or wrongness for any action
(p. 31). Givens and needs are thus integrated. Newbrough (1992), at the level of the hu-
man social system, and in exploring the relationship between theory of community and
theory of praxis, argued the same basic thesis that the duality, identified as the prob-
lem of the One and the Many, has to be transcended into a unitary concept of both The
One AND The Many. (p. 11) Or as I would describe it, into an experience of transfor-
mational community.
360 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

Thus, Pretty and McCarthy (1991) also noted after their review of community in the
workplace: Determinants of sense of community reflect the give and take characteris-
tics whereby the environmental press interacts with the individuals needs (p. 360, af-
ter Murray, 1938).
This paradigm is a cornerstone to the concept of community. Without it, the con-
cept of we becomes too difficult (Wiesenfeld, 1996), and one is tempted to take ei-
ther an individualistic philosophy, or one involving corporate personality (Rogerson,
1985).
It is interesting to note the description of similar integrating forces that provide for
creativity in natural sciences. Davies (1989) argued the need for dissipating (communi-
ty psychologists would call them mediating) structures to allow organisms to be consid-
ered as collections of particulars, but also as open systems (p. 182). In a pattern similar
to the renewal cycles suggested in Figure 2, Davies described how the relationship be-
tween symmetry and structure is an inverse onedisequilibrium is the source of order,
such that chaos becomes the precursor to order (pp. 87, 126).

VISION, MEANING, AND THE SOUL

OF TRANSFORMATIONAL COMMUNITY
What then is the future in recognizing the need for a central core to encourage
transformational, in contrast to disintegrating, community? It is suggested that the role
of questioning, as described above, is the equivalent disequilibrium force to that sug-
gested by Davies. The resolution of said questioning (for example, as in Table 1), can
then hopefully aid communities to be more competent (Iscoe, 1974) by them identify-
ing and acting upon their collective vision. The lack of security in asking questions indi-
cates a lack of mutuality, based on an inequitable power base (Sarason, 1990, pp. 8788).
In the models in this article, vision is the make- or break-point in the bringing to-
gether of the diversity of relationships within community, in its function of providing a
safe basis for questioning, and its resolution. Yet, as theologians often say, one cannot
force the soul of another.
Thus, one of the powerful metaphors incorporated into the language of vision is
the belief in choice (see above). It is this authors belief that this relational dynamic is
critical if community is to be transformational, for it is within voluntary commitment
that the issue of power and control versus authority and responsibility can be dealt with.
Williams (1992) has explored this concept with reference to the relationship between
human agency and truth. Rather than be limited by a philosophical continuum bound-
ed by determinism and indeterminism, he constructed a discourse that is anchored

Table 1. Critical Questions from Components of Transformational Community,

Focuses on Relationships

Structurally Component Individually

1. Why are we gathered as a people Vision To whom do I belong?

2. For what do we stand? Ethos What are my boundaries?
3. How will we serve each other? Pathos Who listens?
4. What are our routines which become Connectedness Am I engaged with the
traditions? community?
 Concepts About Community 361

within metaphysical necessity and agency. Within this framework, he rejected agency as
simply choosing among alternatives and presented an intimate relationship, not a du-
alism, between agents and grounds (p. 756). This relationship manifests itself in the
search for truth, whereby freedom is an activity which is being involved in the world
truthfully, and which requires our fullest truthful social and moral participation
[(p. 757). This is similar to Shotters (1975) concept of psychology being a moral sci-
ence of action (p. 104)].
If agency is a moral act with the expressed intent of willing a socially relevant con-
sequence (relationship), then with reference to the models presented in this aricle, truth
is discovering and committing oneself to the unifying vision which integrates the ethos
and pathos of life. Therefore, a transformational community experience is choosing to
live together with others truthfully. Conversely, living falsely reifies relationships and de-
stroys community.
Thus, it is within the personal choice of committing oneself to relationships that one
exercises genuine human freedom. It is within such experiences that life becomes mean-
ingful. Frankls (1959) classic description of this has been recently taken up by those in-
terested in leadership and education (Starrat, 1993b; Sergiovanni, 1993; Wilhoit, 1986).
If we can understand transforming community experiences more fully as choices about
relationships in historical contexts, then perhaps, we will be closer to accepting that we
must be connected by ideas which are greater than our individual and collective selves,
and that these visions of life are what provide for the needs of the soul and commu-
nity (Berkowitz, 1996, pp. 446, 454).
Sergiovanni (1994) has summarized the process, with reference to school settings,
this way:

Both [leadership by bonding and binding] depend upon the emergence of a

community of minda set of shared values, ideas and ideals that define the
school as a purposeful community . . . The school becomes a place where peo-
ple care for each other, help each other, devote themselves to their work, and
commit themselves to a life of inquiry and learning. (p. 198; see also Dornbusch,
Glasgow, & Lin, 1996, p. 413; Boag, 1991)

CONCLUSION
Chavis and Newbrough (1986) contended that a sense of community is the orga-
nizing concept for the psychological study of community, among other things (p. 335).
The models presented here have attempted to demonstrate this with reference to more
detail about the social regularities of community life, and with an organizational map of
relationships that described the movement toward, or the movement away from trans-
formational community. I also suggest that further exploration of the relationship be-
tween choice, truth, and transformational community will help us understand more
clearly the human dynamic of transcendencethe linked concept to sense of com-
munity (Hill, 1996; Sarason, 1993).
This discussion has also been organized within the assumption that community is
not an end in itselfit must arise as a consequence of people gathered for some rea-
son other than lets be community. It is as Pearson (1994) has commented, Commu-
nity is a method of analysis rather than an examination of a specific thing in itself.
(pp. 2728)
362 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

REFERENCES
Andersen, W.E.C. (1984a, April). From gospel into education Exploring a transition. Part 1. Jour-
nal of Christian Education, pp. 26 37.
Andersen, W.E.C. (1984b, Oct.). From gospel into education Exploring a transition. Part 2. Jour-
nal of Christian Education, pp.1119.
Barna, G. (1992). The power of vision. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
Barna, G. (1996). Turning vision into action. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
Bartunek, J., & Betters-Reed, B. (1987). The stages of organizational creation. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 15, 287 304.
Bellah, R.N., Madson, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits of the heart:
Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Sydney: Harper Collins.
Berger, P.L. (1967). The social reality of religion. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
Berkowitz, B. (1990). Who is being empowered? The Community Psychologist, 23(3), 1011.
Berkowitz, B. (1996). Personal and community sustainability. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 24, 441 460.
Boag, C. (1991, July 30). The getting of character: Education expectations in the 90s. The Bul-
letin, pp. 7883.
Bowen, J., & Hobson, P.R. (1982). Theories of education. Brisbane, Australia: Wiley.
Brewster-Smith, M. (1990). Psychology in the public interest: What have we done? What can we
do?. American Psychologist, 45, 530 536.
Brueggemann, W. (1982). The creative word Canon as a model for Biblical education. Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press.
Chavis D., & Newbrough, J.R. (1986). The meaning of community in community psychology.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 335 340.
Conway, R. (1984). The end of stupor? Victoria, Australia: MacMillan.
Cowen, E. (1994). The enhancement of psychological wellness: Challenges and opportunities.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 149180.
Davidson, W., & Cotter, P. (1989). Sense of community and political participation. Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 17, 119125.
Davies, P. (1989). The cosmic blueprint: Order and complexity at the edge of chaos. London: Pen-
guin Books.
Dokecki, P.R. (1992). On knowing the community of persons. Journal of Community Psychology,
20, 2635.
Dornbusch, S.M., Glasgow, K.L., & Lin, I.C. (1996). The social structure of schooling. Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 47, 40129.
Duignan, P. (1994). Leaders as learners: Building a learning organization. Sydney: Catholic Edu-
cation Office.
Dunphy, D. (1981). Organizational change by choice. Sydney, Australia: McGraw Hill.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The Spirit of community: The reinvention of American society. Sydney, Aus-
tralia: Simon & Schuster.
Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Frankl, V. (1959). Mans search for meaning. New York: Pocket Books.
Gaede, S.D. (1985). Belonging: Our need for community in church and family. Grand Rapids, MI:
Academie Books.
Gaffney, M. (1996). Conflicting messages. Directions in Education, 5(7), 34.
Handy, C. (1982). Understanding organizations. Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books.
 Concepts About Community 363

Hanson, P.D. (1986). The People calledThe growth of community in the Bible. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Hill, J.L. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research. Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 431 438.
Hill, M.A. (1982). Community psychology: A science, a profession, a means of promoting human
welfare. Unpublished manuscript, Australian Psychological Society.
Houston, J. (1988). Spirituality and ministry&emdash;Christian character and Christian ministry.
Unpublished manuscript, Regent College, Vancouver, Canada.
Howie, G. (1969). St. Augustine on Education. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.
Iscoe, I. (1974). Community psychology and the competent community. American Psychologist, 29,
607613.
Kolakowski, L. (1990). Modernity on endless trial. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kouzes, M., & Mico, P.R. (1979). Domain theory: An introduction to organizational behavior in
human service organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, 15, 449469.
Mackay, H. (1993). Reinventing AustraliaThe mind and mood of Australia in the 90s. Sydney,
Australia: Angus and Robertson.
Macmurray, J. (1954). Persons in relation. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.
Maton, K.I. (1989). Community settings as buffers of life stress? Highly supportive churches, mu-
tual help groups, and senior centers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 203
233.
Maton, K.I., & Salem, D.A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community set-
tings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, pp.
631656.
Maton K., & Pargament K. (1987). The roles of religion in prevention and promotion. Prevention
in Human Services, 5, 161206.
McKnight, J. (1990). Australian Christian communes. Macarthur, Australia: Trojan Head Press.
McMillan, D.W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 327 326.
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 622.
Moos, R.H. (1976). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. New York:
Wiley.
Moos, R.H. (1979). Improving social settings by social climate measurement and feedback. In R.F.
Munoz, L.R. Snowden, J.G. Kelly, and Associates, (Eds.), Social and psychological research in
community settings. London: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, R.H. (1996). Understanding environments: The key to improving social processes and PRO-
GRAM OUTCOMES. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 193201.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Newbrough, J.R. (1992).Community psychology in the postmodern world. Journal of Community
Psychology, 20, 10 25.
Newbrough, J.R. (1995). Toward community: A third position. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 23, 9 38.
Nisbet, R.A. (1953/70). The quest for community. New York: Oxford University Press.
ODonnell, C.R., Tharp, R.G., & Wilson, K. (1993). Activity setting as the unit of analysis: A theo-
retical basis for community intervention and development. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21, 501 520.
Pearson, D. (1994). Community in New Zealand society: A sociological introduction. Palmerston
North New Zealand: Dunmore Press Ltd.
Peck, M.S. (1987). The different drum : Community-making and peace. London: Arrow Books.
364 Journal of Community Psychology, May 1999

Porras, J.I., & Silvers, R.C. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review
of Psychology, 42, 5178.
Pretty, G.M., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological sense of community among women
and men of the corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351362.
Puddifoot, J.E. (1996). Some initial considerations in the measurement of community identity.
Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 327 336.
Purpel, D. (1987). The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice and com-
passion in education. Massachusettes: Bergin and Garvey Publishing.
Riger S. (1993). Whats wrong with empowerment? American Journal of Community Psychology,
21, 279292.
Rogerson, J.W. (1985). The Hebrew concept of corporate personality: A re-examination. In Blang
(Ed.), Anthropological approaches in the Old Testament (pp. 4357). Philadelphia: Fortress
Press.
Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R. (1996). Individual level correlates of sense of community: Findings from
workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 495416.
Sarason, S.B. (1997). The public schools: Americas Achilles heel. American Journal of Commu-
nity Psychology, 25, 771786.
Sarason, S.B. (1993). American psychology and the needs for transcendence and community.
American Journal of Community Psychology. 21, 85202.
Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sarason, S.B. (1988). The making of an American psychologist: An autobiography. London: Jossey-
Bass.
Sarason, S.B. (1986a). And what is the public interest? American Psychologist, 41, 899905.
Sarason, S.B. (1986b). The emergence of a conceptual center. Journal of Community Psychology,
14, 405407.
Sarason, S.B. (1983). Schooling in AmericaScapegoat and salvation. New York: Free Press.
Sarason, S.B. (1982). The culture of school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Sarason, S.B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychol-
ogy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sarason, S.B., Zitnay, G., & Grossman, F.K. (1971). The creation of a community setting. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press.
Sarason, S.B., Lorentz, E. (1979). The challenge of the resource exchange network. London:
Jossey-Bass.
Sarason, S.B., & Klaber, M. (1985). The school as a social situation. American Review of Psycholo-
gy, 36, 11540.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1993). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in
schools. San Diego: H.B. Jovanovich.
Shotter, J. (1975). Images of man in psychological research. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.
Starratt, R.J. (1993a). The drama of leadership. London: Falmer Press.
Starratt, R.J. (1993b). Transforming life in schools: Conversations about leadership and school re-
newal. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Seidman, E., Aber, A.L., Allen, L., & French, S.E. (1996). The impact of the transition to high
school on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 24, 489 516.
 Concepts About Community 365

Thomas, A.R., & Whan L.D. (1996). Principals and stress: Evidence from observation and psycho-
logical measures. The Practising Administrator, 2, 3539.
Wallace, A.F. (1956). Revitalization movements. American Anthropologist, 58, 264281.
Wiesenfeld, E. (1996). The concept of we: A community social psychology myth? Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 24, 337 346.
Wicker, A.W. (1989). Substantive theorizing. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 531
547.
Wicker, A.W., & Sommer, R. (1993). The resident researcher: An alternative career model centered
on community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 469482.
Williams, R.N. (1992). The human context of agency. American Psychologist, 47, 752760.
Wildavsky, A. (1973). If planning is everything, maybe its nothing. Policy Sciences, 4, 127153.
Wilhoit, J. (1986). Christian education and the search for meaning. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House.
Copyright of Journal of Community Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.