Sustaining the Rural Community Commons[1]
A community is a
more than a collection of people.
Historically, a community has been defined as a group of people who
share similar beliefs and customs and who live in the same area. The community is among the oldest and most
basic of human institutions, perhaps ranking second only to the family. Historically, people have valued communities. Members of a true community share a sense of
connectedness – of belonging and of mutual obligation. They are linked by economic, social, and
emotional relationships. These economic,
social, and emotional relationships exist among, not within, the people who
constitute the community. The
connections or relationships which define true community are not owned or
controlled by individual community members; instead, they are held by the
community “in common” – owned by all to be shared equally by all. The essence of true community is embodied in
the “community commons.”
Sociologists now
talk about the replacement of “communities of place” by “communities of
interest” – by groups sharing the same “interests,” but not necessarily the
same “places.” Communities of interest
may be formed by those sharing ethnic or racial origin, religious or political
beliefs, occupations or hobbies, or other interests. But, members of interest groups typically do
not share all aspects of their lives, and not for the duration of their lives,
as did members of traditional communities of place. They simply share “an interest.” Obviously, the economic, social, and
emotional bonds among members of community of interest are not nearly as strong
as they were for communities of place.
It seems reasonable to ask whether
Many rural
communities remain communities with a strong sense of place. In these rural communities, strong
connections exist not only among the people of the community, but also between
the people and “the place.” “A place”
may be defined by its landscape, climate, or geographic proximity to other
“places.” But, for most communities in
“rural places,” the primary defining connection is between the people and the
land. In some rural communities,
connections with the land are with lakes, forests, or mines, but for most rural
communities the most important connection with the land remains a connection,
directly or indirectly, with farming.
“The land,” like
the connections or bonds among people within a community, is distinguished by
its contributions to the “common good.”
Certainly, individuals may rightfully use the land for their private
benefit, but land has undeniable common property aspects as well. All people have an equally shared right to
clean air and clean water, to enough food from the land to sustain life and
health, and to an opportunity to connect with those things of nature, which
help to define our humanness. Many people
also feel a sacred responsibility to protect the particular piece of creation
with which destiny has led them to be most closely connected. Thus, all people in a community have common
rights to and common responsibilities for the land which define their community
of place.
A community is a
living organism – it is an interdependent network of living things. Obviously, people are living beings. The land also is living – soils, plants,
animals, all are living, growing things.
The social, ecological, and economic problems of communities and of
society today are all direct consequences of treating people, soil, plants,
animals as if they were separable, replaceable, mechanistic parts of some sort
of sophisticated “biological factory.”
The current “biotech craze” in the scientific community is but the
latest product of an outdated worldview that life is nothing more than a
sophisticated mechanical process. People
live, breathe, eat, think, and feel – they are alive. People also need other people and they need
to believe that their lives have purpose and meaning. Building and maintaining healthy,
regenerative rural communities for the future will require new ways of thinking
– a new “living” worldview.
Machines are
manmade; they are designed to perform specific functions to achieve a specific purpose. They may be well maintained, but all machines
eventually become obsolete or wear out.
Worn out and obsolete machines must be redesigned, rebuilt, or discarded
and replaced. They cannot redesign,
rebuild, replace, or otherwise remake themselves.
Living things,
on the other hand, are “self-making.”
They are born, germinate, hatch, or otherwise come to life on their
own. Living things also are dynamic;
they are ever changing. As they grow and
mature, they gain the ability to perform various functions to fulfill their
purpose in life. Although dynamic in
structure, the pattern of living things, their DNA, remains unchanged. A human is always a human at all stages of life
– whether it’s a bouncing baby, a strong mature adult, or a feeble “senior
citizen,” it’s the “same” human.
Finally, living things are regenerative.
No matter how well nurtured, all living things eventually must die. Before they die, however, living things have
the capacity to reproduce themselves – to start the process of life anew.
Living things
also are holistic. If the various parts
of our bodies were surgically separated and laid side by side on an operating
table, our life, the essence of who we are, obviously
would have been destroyed. A living
organism is more than the “sum of its parts” – living organisms are
inseparable, holistic. The unique
functional, spatial, and temporal connections and relationships among the
diverse organs of a living organism, in essence, give it life.
Communities are
living organisms; they are regenerative, dynamic, and holistic. They are not machines or factories. If there is to be a future for rural
communities, our ways of thinking about community must reflect their dynamic,
regenerative, and holistic nature. We
must have the courage and wisdom to abandon the old, mechanistic worldview and
adopt new, organismic ways of thinking about
community health and development.
The
development of sustainable rural communities for the future will require a very
different approach from that of industrial, economic development, which
dominates rural community development efforts of today. The stages of developing should be patterned
after the “stages of life,” not after the stages of building a factory. The stages of life include conception, birth,
early development, growth, maturity, productivity, and regeneration before
death – in an endless cycle.
The
“conception” of the sustainable community development process occurs with the
selection of a set of guiding principles.
The principles by which a process is to be carried out define the basic
nature of the process, and thus, determine whether it can fulfill its initial
purpose. Principles provide the
conceptual DNA for the development process.
The DNA of living things determines what they are -- plants, animals,
insects, humans, etc. – but it also defines the uniqueness of each member of
each living species. Likewise,
principles define the basic nature of a community development process,
industrial, sustainable, etc., as well as define the uniqueness of development
initiatives for a particular community.
The
number and nature of guiding principles should be sufficient to ensure that, if
followed, the purpose will be achieved.
However, principles that are not necessary for achievement of the
purpose should be omitted, to avoid unnecessary complexity and
distraction. For example, the principles
of sustainable development are ecological integrity, economic viability, and
social responsibility. Any process which
follows these principles will be sustainable, any process that does not, will
not. The three principles are both
necessary and sufficient to ensure sustainability.
After
conception comes birth and early development.
The “living systems” approach assumes that development processes require
different types of support during the early phases of development than will be
required at later stages. Industrial
developers prefer to bring “full grown” industries into their communities so
they can immediately realize whatever benefits are to be achieved. However, these “outside” industries have no
“natural connections” to the community – they didn’t “grow up” there. They have no commitment to contribute to the
“common good” of the community, unless it contributes to their short-run
corporate economic objectives.
Sustainable, grassroots development must come from local people – from
people who are committed to the future of the community. Their ideas and initiatives must be
encouraged and nurtured, so eventually, their “infant” ventures will grow to
maturity. And in the process, those who
are new in the role of business and politics will grow to become community
leaders with a commitment to helping others to grow and mature – to the “common
good.”
The
stages of birth and early development should focus on the creation and
dissemination of knowledge – on empowering people to solve their own problems
and to realize their unique opportunities.
The “food” for the “early development of knowledge” is
“information.” And, the type of
information provided must be appropriate for “living processes.” Sustainable development, for example,
requires a fundamentally different approach to research and education than does industrial development.
Public institutions must be redirected to creating and disseminating
information and technologies appropriate for sustainable self-development. Public policies should provide “protection”
for the process, at least during the stages of “early development.”
The
developmental stages of growth, productivity, and maturity, in living
processes, require little more than encouragement. Access to financing, appropriate marketing
infrastructure, accommodative laws, and facilitating regulations are a few
examples of the types of encouragement that local entrepreneurs need to grow,
develop, and become mature, productive members of their communities and of
society. The key to success in the
“living systems” approach to development is to focus on people rather than
production and profits. Once people have
achieved a desirable quality of life – economically, socially, and spiritually
– they will be committed to the current and future well-being of others – to
the “common good.”
Mature
members of “living communities” will accept the social responsibilities of caring
for others as a privilege, not as a sacrifice.
Mature members of “living communities” will accept the responsibilities
of stewardship of nature, as a God-given privilege, not as a sacrifice. Mature members of “living communities” will
accept their responsibilities to regenerate and renew their community, rather
than abandon it. They will participate
with others in the process of “conception and birth” of the new ideas needed to
sustain new generations of people. They
will contribute to the “early development and growth” of others who will grow
and mature to fulfill their responsibilities in the future. They will help care for the “aged and dying”
of the community, because they will know at some future time their work too
will be done.
Finally,
the keys to a successful “living systems” approach to rural community
development are the same as the keys to a successful life: faith, hope, and
love. Those who successfully pursue
truly sustainable approaches to development must have a fundamental faith in
the basic good of people, faith in the ability of nature to provide for our
needs, and faith in a “higher order of things,” in God, to give purpose and
meaning to their life.
People
who succeed in sustainable development also must be people of hope. Hope is not the expectation that something
good is destined to happen or even that the odds favor something good, but
rather, that something good is possible.
It is this possibility of something good that gives us the courage to
challenge the conventional ways of thinking, to denounce the status quo, to try
new and different things, because we hope to achieve something better.
The
final key to success in sustainable community development is love. No one expresses the importance of a loving
relationship between people and the land better than Wendell Berry. In his book of essays, What Are People For?, he writes, "if
agriculture is to remain productive, it must preserve the land and the
fertility and ecological health of the land; the land, that is, must be used
well. A further requirement, therefore,
is that if the land is to be used well, the people who use it must know it
well, must be highly motivated to use it well, must know how to use it well,
must have time to use it well, and must be able to afford to use it well.” In essence, he is saying, if the land is to
remain capable of sustaining people, we must have people on the land who love
the land. The same holds true for all relationships
of people to the land, not just for farming.
Applying that same concept of love to human relationships within rural
communities, we may conclude; “if our rural communities are to remain viable,
they must preserve the health and productivity of rural people, their physical,
emotional, and spiritual well-being; rural people, that is, must be treated
well. A further requirement is that if
people are to treat each other well, they must know each other well, must be
motivated to treat each other well, must have time to treat each other well,
and must be able to afford to treat each other well. If our rural communities are to be sustainable, we must
have people in rural communities who love each other.
Ultimately, the rural commons must be sustained by faith, hope, and
love. All are important, but the
greatest of these is love – love of the land, of each other, and of God. Through their love of the land and love of
each other, rural people ultimately must learn to express their love of God.
[1] Presented at Rural Life Day 2003,
Farming in the Sacramental Commons, sponsored by Social Concerns Office,
Diocese of Jefferson City and MSR Center for Rural Ministry, Jefferson City,
MO. December 6, 2003.
[2]