Introduction:

The concept of community concerns to a particularly constituted set of social relationships, based on
something which the participants have in common – usually a common sense of identity. It is to
remember Talcott parsons, frequently used the term to indicate a wide ranging relationships of solidarity
over rather undefined area of life and interests. There was a symbolism of community in the 19 th century
thoughts, which identified this form of social association of people with a good society and with all forms
of relationships that are characterised by high degree of personal intimacy, emotional depthness, moral
commitment, social cohesion and continuity in time. At the arrival of urban industrial society a fear of
loss of community became central to the thought about society and culture.

Classical anthropological approaches:

One of the renowned attempts of conceptualizing community belongs to that of Robert Redfield (1960),
who identified four key qualities in community:
1. a smallness of social scale;
2. a homogeneity of activities and states of mind of members;
3. a self-sufficiency across a broad range of needs and through time; and
4. a consciousness of distinctiveness.
Nevertheless, in 1955, Hillery could compile 94 social-scientific attempts at definition whose only
substantive overlap was that all dealt with people (1955:117)! To overcome this problem, community is
often further specified by a qualifying or amplifying phrase: the ‘local community’, the ‘West Indian
community’, the ‘community of nations’ or ‘souls’. But this would seem only to beg further questions.
In anthropology, one might usefully isolate three broad variants of traditional approach. ‘Community’ is
to be characterized in terms of: (i) common interests between people; or (ii) a common ecology and
locality; or (iii) a common social system or structure.
For example, Frankenberg (1966) suggests that it is common interests in achievable things (economic,
religious, or whatever) that give members of a community a common interest in one another. Living face-
to-face, in a small group of people, with common interests in mind, eventuates in community members’
sharing many-stranded or multiplex relations with one another; also sharing a sentiment towards the
locality and the group itself. Hence, communities come to be marked by a fair degree of social coherence.
For Minar and Greer (1969), physical concentration (living and working) in one geographical territory is
the key. The locale will throw up common problems and give rise to common perspectives, which lead to
the development of organizations for joint action and activities, which in turn produces common
attachments, feelings of inter-dependence, common commitment, loyalty and identity within a social
group. Hence, communities come to exhibit homogeneity: members behaving similarly and working
together, towards common aims, in one environment, whatever their familial or generational differences.
For Warner (1941), meanwhile, a community is essentially a socially functioning whole: a body of people
bound to a common social structure which functions as a specific organism, and which is distinguishable
from other such organisms. Consciousness of this distinction (the fact that they live with the same norms
and within the same social organization) then gives community members a sense of belonging. So long as
the parts of the functioning whole (families, agesets, status-groups, or whatever) work properly together,
the structure of the community can be expected to continue over time.
Whether it be in terms of interests, ecology or social structure, then, anthropologists have traditionally
emphasized an essential commonality as the logic underlying a community’s origination and
continuation. Communities have been regarded as empirical things-in-themselves (social organisms), as
functioning wholes, and as things apart from other like things. This was in turn the logical basis of ‘the
community study’: the tradition in anthropology of basing research on what could in some sense be
treated as a bounded group of people, culturally homogeneous and resident in one locality, because this
‘community’ would provide a laboratory for the close observation of the interrelations, the continuing
interfunctioning, between interests, sub-groups and institutions; and also serve as a microcosm of a bigger
social picture which might prevail as societies grew in size and complexity. Anthropologists
conventionally studied communities (villages, tribes, islands) because these were regarded as the key
structural units of social life: what the elementary structures of kinship gave onto; what the complex
structures of society were composed of.
Amit and Rapport observe that for anthropologists in the twenty-first century who no
longer have bounded fieldwork sites – whether remote tribes, islands or villages -- "notions of
community" offer "a convenient conceptual haven, a location from which to safely circumscribe
potentially infinite webs of connection" (2002: 17). This idea of community as what I might call
conceptual comfort food for the alienated social scientist, and by extension the pragmatic
activist, is fairly pervasive in the critical literature.
This introductory scan raises some chief issues surrounding community as concept which
the sections to follow will explore in greater depth. These include: 1) the positive valence
usually attached to it; 2) the emotional potency it wields; 3) its fuzziness, slipperiness, denseness
and thickness; 4) its comforting qualities which are not merely psychological but practical:
community is not only a haven but a solution.
Tönnies' prose to be more like a coral reef or a sponge: Community, on the other hand, which is best
understood as a metaphysical union of body or blood, possesses by nature a will and a life force all of its
own. It therefore has its own law with regard to the will of its members, so much so that its members
may appear to be nothing more than adaptations and sub-divisions of this all embracing organic mass"
(2001: 187).
Agrawal and Gibson in 2001: Communities are not, however, monolithic, undifferentiated entities. They
contain categories of people distinguished by age, sex, interest, and power. Nor do they exist in a
political or economic vacuum; they are linked in various ways with the larger society that surrounds
them (Murphree 1994: 403).
Ever since anthropology has existed as a research discipline it has had a practical, problem-solving
aspect, although this has attracted more attention in recent years. Historically this aspect of
anthropology has been called applied anthropology. As the number of anthropologists who apply their
knowledge and skills to activities other than basic research and teaching has increased, so has the
number of different terms for practical activities. Besides applied anthropology, many other terms are
used for the different forms of practice, including: practicing anthropology, development anthropology,
action anthropology, research and development anthropology, and advocacy anthropology.
The view of applied anthropology expressed here has both research and intervention aspects. It
provides anthropologists with a number of effective action strategies that can be used to assist
communities in reaching their goals within the context of self-determination. Applied and practicing
anthropologists can draw upon experiences from the past as effective guides for work in both
intervention and research; thus, knowledge of history is very useful. Activities done by anthropologists
in both the past and present provide choices for problem solving. The foundation of most of the
techniques presented here is the ideology of self-determination by communities and individuals. The
research techniques presented also have at their base the idea of systematically identifying local
viewpoints and needs as these relate to development efforts or program functioning.
assignments; one needs direct experience. So why read this book? The answer is simple enough: many
applied anthropologists work in isolation, operating in agencies or firms that hire few other
anthropologists. They spend time tracking over the saw ground and solving many of the same problems
in ways that may seem to them unique. This book attempts to describe applied anthropology in its
breadth and to build a shared tradition of practice, as much as to teach some techniques of application.
It is useful to grasp the breadth of activity found in anthropological practice because it helps us see the
power of the ideas produced within the discipline. That discovery will enhance our own ability to be
effective users of anthropological knowledge. Further, the knowledge presented in this book will help
link the experiences associated with contemporary practices to those of the past.
The basic point is a simple one: there are many kinds of anthropological practice, and knowledge of
these different ways of practice is useful for the applied or practicing anthropologist. Not all useful
practices are represented in this book.
since the 1917 revolution. Certainly, one could consider other regional traditions as well.
The value orientation of the applied anthropology described in this text is consistent with the political
culture within which it developed, that is, it is pragmatic and democratic. It is pragmatic in that it
stresses practices that work to achieve people's goals. It is democratic in that all the approaches,
whether they are for research or intervention, have at their core the commitment to discover and
communicate the community's perspective. A function of the democratic orientation is a consistent
regard for the interests of the local community.
Depending on the circumstances, the approaches can be both radical and conservative. In some cases,
these different kinds of applied anthropology can be used to slow and redirect change that political
authorities are advocating. In other cases, the practices discussed here can be used to transform
communities into more powerful organizations, giving control where none existed previously. It is
important for you, the reader, to realize these features are at the core of all the approaches to using
anthropology that are discussed here. Applied anthropology is not about getting people to change
against their will, it is about helping people express their will. Yet the framework for action that we
discuss here is practical; it has to do with the job market, and it has to do with politics, power, and will.
Although most of the technique chapters have to do with change-producing strategies, this book is also
about cultural persistence. You will notice that even in the more explicit change-producing approaches
there is a strenuous commitment to identifying the community perspective in the development process.
None of the approaches involve unilateral imposition of development goals from outside the
community. The basic task is to foster acceleration of the adaptation process. Sometimes expressed
simply as "getting more" for the community, the process involves creating a better adaptation for the
people of the community. Adaptation questions are ultimately survival questions. Therefore, we should
recognize that community-defined development aided by the applied anthropologist is basically a
culture-conserving activity.
IS IT ANTHROPOLOGY?
This book does not ask the question, "Is this anthropology?" The question itself is viewed as basically
destructive from both intellectual and action perspectives in that it generally limits competition and
protects vested intellectual interests. In the case of applied anthropology the question is particularly
problematic. Further, if we look at the effect of applied anthropological work on the rest of the field
through time we can see that applied work often has functioned as the cutting edge of the discipline.
The first chapter, entitled "The Domain of Application," will consider both the relationship between
theoretical and applied anthropology and the content of contemporary anthropologists' work situations.
An explicit definition of applied anthropology is presented to give the reader a more systematic and
comprehensive understanding of what applied anthropologists do. The relationship between application
and theory is seen as poorly understood within the discipline. Two aspects of the relationship between
theory and application are stressed. First, good knowledge of theory is a necessity for the applied
anthropologist because it guides research and increases the scope of applicability of the information
obtained. Second, theory that is useful to the applied anthropologist will concern variables that can be
acted upon. The chapter maps out a strategy for self-instruction concerning potential employment
situations.
made in this chapter: the theoretical and applied aspects of anthropology have developed
simultaneously, and, to a large extent, activities in the academic realm have often been motivated or at
least rationalized by the information needs of governments, research funding organizations, and other
policy research consumers.
of the Society for Applied Anthropology. The research component of this chapter discusses the core of
ethical research practice: informed consent, voluntary participation by informants, and the issue of risk.
The discussion of ethics is expanded to include consideration of the conflicts that may exist between the
different groups with which anthropologists work. Although most research or action situations can be
carried out without facing overly difficult dilemmas, even very simple situations can turn into a labyrinth
of apparently insoluble conflicts. While it is best to be prepared for these problems, they cannot all be
anticipated because real learning requires experience. Situations of irreconcilable conflict are easy to
read about, and can even be discussed around seminar tables with some benefit, but being faced with
harmed communities, betrayed colleagues, and unfulfilled contracts is quite another thing. All these
complexities aside, it is important to understand that standards of ethical practice need not be viewed
solely as constraints, but more importantly as good guides for effective professional action. Indeed,
ethical behavior is more often than not the most effective action.
Action anthropology, research and development anthropology, and community development are similar
in approach, purpose, and result. Each varies somewhat, and it can be argued that each represents a
somewhat different array of techniques to achieve certain goals. All of these approaches can be used to
achieve development of different kinds at the community level. To varying extents, these approaches all
stress what has been called developmental change--change that improves a community's long-term
adaptability. One can often observe two parallel strands of development in projects that use these
approaches. The first is more public and results in physical transformations and improved services, and
serves as a medium for the second. The second thread is more obscure and results in strengthened
community organization and improved decision making. It is more focused on educational change, and
results in the creation of social structures rather than physical structures. The three approaches vary
enough to provide a set of alternatives for dealing with different development problems in different
kinds of communities.