Click on the link and read the whole post — it is short.
My friend Tim Merry has taken to saying that we can’t do community engagement we can only do community. Or not. I think this is a compelling idea. Engagement is meaningless now as a term. We are seeking real community, a genuine sense of being in this together. Whether it is public policy or building infrastructure you have the choice to do it to people or do it with people. Just using the word “engagement” is not enough.
Time to put real power behind the idea of community.
via Community engagement is dead « Chris Corrigan.
I have a little inkling that the practice of deciding what not to do is related to Chris and Tim’s insight. But I haven’t quite chased down the thought yet. Ideas?
For me I think that the term “community engagement” actually imbeds a separation between community and those who are engaging with community. So in the realm of things NOT to do, I’d say start with not doing things that imagines that community is OUT there, and we’re IN here.
In other words, also in the words of Tim: “If it’s about us, don’t do it without us.” Too often community engagement happens because things are ABOUT the community but the ones doing the engaging still want to hold on to the control they exert over the initiative and so the separate themselves from the community.
So in the realm of things to DO as yourself this design questions: what could we do that would actually result in this initiative creating MORE community.
YES!
Sure.
The term ‘community’ should include ‘engagement’, because it’s the one of it’s basic components.
I think the question, Larry, is who is engaging with whom? 🙂