This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 09 October 2013, At: 19:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Community Development
Society. Journal
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod19

The Basics: what's Essential

about Theory for Community
Development Practice?
a b
Ronald J. Hustedde & Jacek Ganowicz
a
Department of Community and Leadership
Development , University of Kentucky Lexington
Kentucky
b
Department of Anthropology, Sociology, and Social
Work , Eastern Kentucky University
Published online: 09 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Ronald J. Hustedde & Jacek Ganowicz (2002) The Basics:
what's Essential about Theory for Community Development Practice?, Community
Development Society. Journal, 33:1, 1-19

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490139

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
 indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013
 Journal of the Community Development Society Vol.33 No. 1 2002

THE BASICS: WHAT'S ESSENTIAL

ABOUT THEORY FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE?
By Ronald J. Hustedde and Jacek Ganowicz
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

ABSTRACT
The major point of this article is that the multidisciplinary field of community development
needs some common theoretical concepts for community development practice. The
authors examine three major limitations of theory for community development and discuss
why theoretical frameworks are important for the field. There are three major concerns
that encompass community development practice: structure, power and shared meaning.
These concerns are related to three classical theoretical frameworks: structural
functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. These seemingly disparate
theories take on a deeper meaning when tied to Giddens' structuration theory. Giddens'
theoretical perspective is essential for practitioners because of its link between macro and
microstructures and the ability of the community to influence macro and micro changes
through cultural patterns and norms (modalities). The article includes case studies and
examples to illustrate the applicability of key theoretical insights.

Keywords: community development theory, definition of community

development, solidarity, agency, structuration theory, modalities, conflict
theory, structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism.

INTRODUCTION
There are at least three major limitations of theory for community
developers. First, it can be argued that the profession is undergirded with
theories from so many disciplines that it is difficult for practitioners to sort
through them all. The situation is compounded by disciplines that seldom cross
academic boundaries. Community development-oriented anthropologists,
community psychologists, sociologists, social welfare professionals, community
economists, and others have their own disciplinary approaches and publications.
Even interdisciplinary groups such as the Community Development Society and
Ronald J. Hustedde, Associate Professor, Department of Community and Leadership Development, University
of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky; and Jacek Ganowicz, Associate Faculty, Department of Anthropology,
Sociology, and Social Work Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond Kentucky.
Communication should be directed to Dr. Ron Hustedde, University of Kentucky, Department of Community
Leadership and Development, 500 Garrigus Bldg., Lexington, KY 40546-0215. Phone: (859) 257-3186, Fax:
(859) 257-1164. E-mail: rhustcd^uky.edu. Communication can also be directed to Dr, Jacek Ganowicz, Eastern
Kentucky University, Department of Anthropology, Sociology, and Social Work, Keith 223, Richmond, KY
40475.
The authors wish to thank Professors Lori Garkovich and Julie N. Zimmerman from the University of Kentucky,
the four anonymous reviewers, and the editor, Ted Bradshaw, for their helpful critiques of our original manuscript.
© 2002, The Community Development Society
 2 Journal of the Community Development Society
its publications tend to be dominated by those with a domestic rather than an
international perspective. This fragmentation makes it difficult to sort through
what is important for community development research or practice.
Second, the balkanization of theory is compounded by theoreticians
whose language is cumbersome and fraught with jargon that scares away most
practitioners. For example, one of the leading theorists of the day, Jurgen
Habermas, has a lot to offer community developers about free and open
communicative action. However, his books and articles take so much time to
decipher that few practitioners have the time or patience to do so. Further,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

theoreticians strive to explain the world but do not necessarily apply their theories
to day-to-day practices of community development. Unfortunately, this situation
leads some practitioners to conclude that theory is irrelevant.
Third, the culture of the community development profession consists
of many practitioners who often want to dispense with theory and "get down to
earth." They want studies to shed light on issues such as urban slum life,
growth versus the environment, globalization or a range of other issues that
need immediate attention. Hence, there is more interest in empirical research or
practical initiatives than theory itself. The field is supported by classic community
development texts, which focus on the philosophical underpinnings of various
community development strategies such as Rothman's three approaches (conflict,
technical and locality-based) (Rothman, 1987), or the process of doing community
development (Biddle and Biddle, 1965; Christenson and Robinson, 1989). If one
looks at most community development publications since that time, one might
say that the field is theoretically poor because many community development
texts tend to focus on process or content rather than theory.'
The purpose of this paper is to ask what is essential about theory and
to identify several theories that are essential for community development research
and practice. Bhattacharyya's (1995) definition of community development as
solidarity and agency is offered as a starting point to select theories that are
most relevant for the field. We argue that the most important issues for community
development theory concern structure, power and shared meaning. These are
expressed in functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interaction theory. No single
theoretical approach is sufficient on its own because it is argued that societies,
communities, and social change are complex.

WHY THEORY?
Theories are explanations that can help us understand people's behavior.
Theories can provide a framework to community developers to help them
comprehend and explain events. A good theory can be stated in abstract terms
and can help develop strategies and tools for effective practice. If community
developers want others to conduct relevant research or if they want to be involved
in participatory action research, it is important that they have theoretical
groundings. Theory is our major guide to understanding the complexity of
 Hustedcle and Ganowicz 3

community life and social and economic change (Collins, 1988; Ritzer, 1996).
The starting point is to offer a definition of community development
that is both distinctive and universal and can be applied to all types of societies
from the post-industrial to pre-industrial. Bhattacharyya (1995) met these
conditions when he defined community development as the process of creating
or increasing solidarity and agency. He says solidarity is about building a
deeply shared identity and a code for conduct. Community developers sort
through conflicting visions and definitions of a problem among ethnically and
ideologically plural populations to help groups and communities build a sense
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

of solidarity. Bhattacharyya argues that community development is also agency

means the capacity of a people to order their world. According to Giddens,
agency is "the capacity to intervene in the world, or to refrain from intervention,
with the effect of influencing a process or the state of affairs" (Giddens, 1984, p.
14). There are complex forces that work against agency. However, community
development has the intention to build capacity, and that is what makes it different
from other helping professions. Community developers build the capacity of a
people when they encourage or teach others to create their own dreams, to learn
new skills and knowledge. Agency or capacity building occurs when practitioners
assist or initiate community reflection on the lessons they have learned through
their actions. Agency is about building the capacity to understand, to create
and act, and to reflect.
Following this definition of community development, three major
concerns involve solidarity and agency building: (1) structure; (2) power; and
(3) shared meaning. Figure 1 suggests these concerns are interrelated and
influence the direction and impact of community development practice.

Figure 1. Three Key Concerns in the

Community Development Field
Power Structure
Community Development
(Solidarity
and
Agency)

Shared Meaning
 4 Journal of the Community Development Society
Structure refers to the social practices or to organizations and groups
that have a role to play in solidarity and capacity building and their relationship
to one another. Some of these social practices and organizations may have a
limited role and there may be a need to build new organizations or expand the
mission of existing organizations for solidarity and agency to occur.
Power refers to relationships with those who control resources such as
land, labor, capital, and knowledge or those who have greater access to those
resources than others. If community development is about building the capacity
for social and economic change, the concept of power is essential.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

Shared meaning refers to social meaning, especially symbols, that

people give to a place, physical things, behavior, events, or action. In essence,
solidarity needs to be built within a cultural context. Individuals and groups
give different meanings to objects, deeds, and matters. For example, one
community might see the construction of an industrial plant as a godsend that
will bring prosperity to the town, while another community might see a similar
construction as the destruction of their quality of life. Community developers
need to pay attention to these meanings if they wish to build a sense of solidarity
in a particular community or between communities.
In essence, structure, power, and shared meaning are integral aspects
for solidarity and capacity building. These three aspects of the community
development triangle (Figure 1) form the basis for essential community
development theory. Horton (1992) shared similar concerns about African-
American approaches to community development. He emphasized historic power
differences and the influence of culture and black community institutions in his
black community development model. Chaskin, et al. (2001) focus on
neighborhood and other structures and networks in their work on capacity
building. However, the authors also include concepts about power and building
a sense of community or shared meaning in their interdisciplinary approach.
The concepts of empowerment and strengthening community capacity are
frequently intertwined in the community development literature (Perkins, 1995;
Jeffries, 2000). Beliefs and values evolve in community through daily experiences
that lead to pragmatic conclusions about the community's own social reality or
shared meaning (Ejigiri, 1996).
What is Essential Community Development Theory for
Practitioners and Researchers?
The three key community development issues, structure, power,
and shared meaning, have each been a starting point for three key orientations
in modern social theory: functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic
interactionism. The former two originated in the European tradition of macro-
structural thinking preoccupied with large scale social phenomena, such as
social classes, societal system, culture, norms, i.e., macro objectivity and
 Husledde and Ganowicz 5

macro subjectivity, whereas symbolic interactionism, with its roots in the

Chicago school of social pragmatism, is considered a micro approach, focusing
on individuals and small group behavior, psychological characteristics and
properties of interaction.
Conflict theory, going back to the towering figure of Karl Marx,
addresses the macro concerns of power. Functionalism, originally laid out in its
contours by Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and Emile Durkheim, centers on
the macro structural concerns of social cooperation and solidarity. The symbolic
interactionists, and the related approaches, followed the opposite tack from
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

both the macro approaches, taking the individuals and their micro behavior as
their starting point.
We will look at each of these three theoretical perspectives and how
they can be applied to community development practice.

CONCERNS ABOUT STRUCTURE: FUNCTIONALISM

First, let us look at structure, which is about organizations and group
capacity to bring about or stop change. In essence, structure is related to the
Giddens' concept of agency or capacity building. The theoretical concept
concerned with structure is known as structural functionalism. It is also called
systems theory, equilibrium theory, or simply functionalism. According to this
theoretical framework, societies contain certain interdependent structures, each
of which performs certain functions for the maintenance of society. Structures
refer to organizations and institutions such as health care, educational entities,
businesses and non-profit groups, or informal groups. Functions refer to their
purpose, mission, and what they do in society. These structures form the basis
of a social system. Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton are the theorists most
often associated with this theory. According to Merton (1968), social systems
have manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are intentional and
recognized. In contrast, latent functions may be unintentional and not
recognized. For example, it could be argued that the manifest function of urban
planning is to assure well-organized and efficiently functioning cities, whereas
the latent function is to allocate advantages to certain interests such as those
involved with the growth machine or real estate developers.
Functionalists such as Parsons argue that structures often contribute
to their own maintenance, not particularly to a greater societal good. Concern
for order and stability also led functionalists to focus on social change and its
sources. They view conflict and stability as two sides of the same coin. If the
community developer wants to build community capacity, she will have to pay
attention to the organizational capacity for stimulating or inhibiting change.
Structural functionalism helps one to understand how the status quo is maintained.
Some critics claim its fallacy is that it does not offer much insight about change,
social dynamics, and existing structures (Turner, 1998; Ritzer, 1996; Collins, 1988).
 6 Journal of the Community Development Society

How Can Structural Functionalist!! Guide Community

Development Practice?
Structural functionalism is a useful tool for practitioners. Let us look at
a case study of an inner city neighborhood that is struggling to create micro-
enterprise businesses that will benefit local people. If one applied structural
functionalism to community development practice, one would help the community
analyze what organizations are committed to training, nurturing and financing
micro-enterprise development and what their latent or hidden functions might
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

be. A functionalist-oriented practitioner is more likely to notice dysfunctions in

organizations. If the existing organizations are not meeting local needs in this
area, the functionalist would build the capacity of the community by creating a
new organization that focuses on small-scale entrepreneurs or adapting an
existing organization to meet the same concerns. A functionalist would also
want to build links with broader social systems such as external organizations
that could help the community's micro-entrepreneurs to flourish. In essence, a
functionalist would see structures as important components of capacity-building.
While structural functionalism is an important tool for community development,
it is limited because it does not fully explore the issue of power that can be found
in other theories.

CONCERNS ABOUT POWER AND CONFLICT THEORY

Power is the second key issue for community development. Power is
about who controls or has access to resources (land, labor, capital and
knowledge). If community development is about building capacity, then concerns
about power are pivotal. Insights about power tend to be found in political
science or political sociology. Theorists that are more contemporary have added
to the richness of the literature. Foucault (1985), in his later writings, argued that
where there is power, there is resistance. He examines the struggles against the
power of men over women, administration over the ways people live and of
psychiatry over the mentally ill. He sees power as a feature of all human relations
(Foucault, 1965,1975,1979,1980,1985; Nash, 2000). It has a fluidity in the sense
that power can be reversed and there are different degrees of power. Foucault's
focus extends beyond conventional politics at the state level to the organizations
and institutions of civil society and to interpersonal relations.
Wallerstein (1984) applied Marxist theory to understand the logic behind
the expansion of capitalism to a globalized system, which needs to continually
expand its boundaries. "Political states" such as Japan, the UK and the USA are
the core-developed states based on higher-level skills and capitalization. These
states dominate the peripheral areas, with weak states economically dependent
on the "core." The low-technology states form a buffer zone to prevent outright
conflict between the core and the periphery. Some have applied Wallerstein's
world system theory to regional economics, with places like Appalachia serving
 Hustedde and Ganowicz 7

as a "periphery" to global market forces. Mills (1959), one of the earliest American
conflict theorists, examined some of the key themes in post World War II American
politics and argued that a small handful of individuals from major corporations,
federal government and the military were influencing major decisions. He believed
this triumvirate shared similar interests and often acted in unison. Mill's research
on power and authority still influences theories about power and politics today.
However, Mills also had critics such as Dahl (1971), who believed that
power was more diffused among contending interest groups. Galbraith (1971)
asserted that technical bureaucrats behind the scenes had more power than
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

those in official positions. Neo-Marxists argued that Mills and Dahl focused too
much on the role of individual actors. They believed that institutions permit the
exploitation of one class by another and that the institution of the state intervenes
to correct the flaws of capitalism and to preserve the status quo, which is in their
interests.
In essence, conflict theory suggests that conflict is an integral part of
social life. There are conflicts between economic classes, ethnic groups, young
and old, male against female, or one race versus another. There are conflicts
among developed "core" countries and those that are less developed. It is
argued these conflicts result because power, wealth, and prestige are not available
to everyone. Some groups are excluded from dominant discourse. It is assumed
that those who hold or control desirable goods and services or who dominate
culture will protect their own interests at the expense of others.
Conflict theorists such as Coser, Dahrendorf, and Simmel have looked
at the integrative aspects of conflict and its value as a force that contributes to
order and stability. Conflict can be constructive when it forces people with
common interests to make gains to benefit them all. Racial inequalities or other
social problems might never be resolved at all unless there is conflict to disturb
the status quo. Simmel discusses how conflict can be resolved in a variety of
ways, including disappearance of the conflict, victory for one of the parties,
compromise, conciliation, and irreconcilability. (Schellenberg, 1996).
This theoretical framework about power of one party over another and
the potential for conflict is not intended to be exhaustive - but, it points to some
of the major concerns that can guide community development practice.
How Can Conflict Theory Serve as a Guide for Community
Development Practice?
Community organizers tend to embrace more readily conflict theory as
a pivotal component of their organizing work. However, we argue that community
developers also need conflict theory if their goal is to build capacity. Power
differences are a reality of community life and need to be considered as
development occurs. Let us take the case of an Appalachian community that is
near a major state forest. The Department of Transportation (DOT) wants to
build a highway through the state forest. They claim it will lead to more jobs and
 8 Journal of the Community Development Society

economic development. A group of local citizens have questioned this

assumption. They believe the highway could pull businesses away from the
prosperous downtown area to the edge of town, and will lead to sprawling
development that will detract from the quality of life. They also believe the
proposed highway will lead to the destruction of a popular fishing hole and
could harm the integrity of the forest. The DOT has refused to converse with the
community; they claim the proposed highway's economic benefits are irrefutable.
Conflict theory can serve as a reference point for moving the community's interests
further. At first glance, it appeared the DOT was in charge of making the major
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

decisions about the highway. However, the community developer incorporated

conflict theory into practice. Community residents were encouraged to analyze
the community's political, technical, economic, and social power as well as the
power of the DOT. Through its analysis, the group was expanded to include
downtown business people, hunters, environmental, and religious groups. In
this particular case, the community decided it needed power that is more technical.
They were able to secure the services of university researchers (economists,
foresters, sociologists and planners) who had the credentials to write an alternative
report about the impact of the proposed highway. This report was widely
circulated to the media and prominent state legislators from the community.
Gradually, external support (power) emerged and the DOT decided to postpone
the project.
In a similar situation, the use of conflict theory took another twist. The
opponents of a DOT-proposed road sought the role of a mediator/facilitator to
help them negotiate with the DOT and other stakeholders. They believed a
third-party neutral could create a safe climate for discussion, and that during
such discussions power differences could be minimized. In this particular case,
their use of conflict theory paid off because the dispute was settled to everyone's
satisfaction.
In summary, community developers need conflict theory because it
provides insights about why there are differences and competition among groups
and organizations within the community. These theories can help us understand
why some peoples are silent or have internalized the values of elites even to their
own disadvantage. Practitioners and researchers can use Simmel's understanding
of conflict to see how people resolve their differences, or they can borrow from
Marx and neo-Marxists to see why people believe there are sharp differences
that relate to class economic interests, gender, race, culture, and other concerns.
Conflict theory can help communities understand competing interests
among groups or if power is concentrated in the hands of a few or more broadly
distributed. One can also explore how communities can use conflict to upset the
equilibrium through protests, economic boycotts, peaceful resistance, or other
ranges of possibilities, especially if competing groups or institutions refuse to
budge or negotiate.
While conflict theory is an essential tool for capacity building, it should
 Hustedde and Ganowicz 9
be noted that critics claim it is limited because it ignores the less controversial
and more orderly parts of our society. (Turner, 1998; Ritzer, 1996; Collins, 1988).
It does not help us understand the role of symbols in building solidarity. This
leads us to another theoretical framework about shared meaning.

CONCERNS ABOUT SHARED MEANING: SYMBOLIC

INTERACTIONISM
Shared meaning is the third key concern about community development
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

in Figure 1. If community development is about building or strengthening

solidarity, then practitioners must be concerned about the meaning that people
give to places, people, and events. Symbolic interactionism is about symbols.
Herbert Blumer (1969) gave this name to the theory because it emphasizes that
human interaction is symbolic rather than a mechanical pattern of stimulus and
interaction. For symbolic interactionists, the meaning of a situation is not fixed
but is constructed by participants as they anticipate the responses of others.
Mead (1982) explored the importance of symbols, especially language, in shaping
the meaning of the one who makes the gesture as well as the one who receives it.
Goffman (1959) argued that individuals "give" and "give off' signs
that provide information to others on how to respond. There may be a "front"
such as social status, clothing, gestures, or a physical setting. Individuals may
conceal elements of themselves that contradict general social values and present
themselves to exemplify accredited values. Such encounters can be viewed as a
form of drama in which the "audience" and "team players" interact.
In his last work, Goffman (1986) examined how individuals frame or
interpret events. It involves group or individual rules about what is to be "pictured
in the frame" and what should be excluded. For example, a community developer's
framework about a community event might exclude ideas such as "citizens are
apathetic." It will probably include our shared "rules" such as "participation is
important." The emphasis is on the active, interpretive, and constructive
capacities of individuals in the creation of a social reality. It assumes that social
life is possible because people communicate through symbols. For example,
when the traffic light is red, it means stop, or when the thumb is up, it means
everything is fine. Flora, Flora, and Tapp (2000) investigated how two opposing
community narratives moved through the stages of frustration, confrontation,
negotiation, and reconciliation. Their case study could be viewed as the
employment of symbolic interactionism. Among the symbols that humans use,
language seems to be the most important because it allows people to communicate
and construct their version of reality. Symbolic interactionism contends that
people interpret the world through symbols, and they stand back and think of
themselves as objects.
For example, a group of Native Americans view a mountain as a sacred
place for prayer and healing, and they react negatively when someone tries to
 10 Journal of the Community Development Society
develop it or alter their access to the mountain. Developers, foresters, tourism
leaders, and others are likely to have other meanings about the mountain.
Different individuals or groups attach a different meaning to a particular
event, and these interpretations are likely to be viewed by others as a form of
deviance, which may be accepted, rejected, or fought over. Social interactionists
contend that one way we build meaning is by observing what other people do,
and by imitating them and following their guidance.

How Can Symbolic Interactionism Serve as a Tool for

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

Community Development Practice?

We believe symbolic interactionism is essential for community
development because it provides insight about how people develop a sense of
shared meaning, an essential ingredient for solidarity.
When a community developer helps a community to develop a shared
vision about its future, she is helping to build a sense of unity. A community-
owned vision comes about through interaction of people and is told through
symbols: pictures, words, or music. A symbolic interactionist would be keen on
bringing people together to develop a shared understanding about something.
For example, let us take a case where some citizens have expressed an
interest in preserving the farmland adjacent to the city and they have asked a
community developer for assistance. If one employed a symbolic interactionist
perspective, one would ask them what the presence of farmland means to them.
One would link them with farmers and others to see if there is a different or
competing meaning; participants would be asked how they developed their
meaning about farmland. A symbolic interactionist doesn't ignore the concept
of power. Participants would be asked questions such as whose concept of
farmland dominates public policy. Through the employment of symbolic
interaction theory, a sense of solidarity can gradually be established in a
community.
A symbolic interactionist would spot groups that deviate from the
dominant meaning about something and would engage them with the others in
order to move the community towards solidarity. Symbolic interactionists also
use symbols to build capacity. For example, a community may choose to preserve
a historic structure because they believe it is beautiful, or they may say it is an
important part of a labor, class, racial or gender struggle or some other interest.
A community developer can augment their meaning with data about the historical
and architectural meaning that external agents see in the structure. Community
capacity can be built in other ways, such as providing information about tax
credits for historic structures or how to locate grants for preservation.
Increasingly, community development researchers and practitioners are asked
to help citizens reflect and understand the meaning of their work. We can use the
symbolic interactionist concepts to aid us in collective evaluations. Essentially,
it all boils down to what it means and who gives it meaning.
 Hustedde and Ganowicz I I

Symbolic interactionists probe into the factors that help us understand

what we say and do. They look at the origins of symbolic meanings and how
meanings persist. Symbolic interactionists are interested in the circumstances
in which people question, challenge, criticize, or reconstruct meanings.
Critics argue that symbolic interactionists do not have an established
systematic framework for predicting what meanings will be generated or for
determining how meanings persist or for understanding how meanings change.
For example, let us say a group of Mexican workers and a poultry processing firm
move into a poor rural community that has been historically dominated by Anglo-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

Saxon Protestants. The event may trigger cooperation, good will, ambivalence,
anger, fear, or defensiveness. The cast of characters involved in this event may
be endless. What really happened and whose interpretation best captures the
reality of the situation? Symbolic interactionists have limited methodologies for
answering such questions. In spite of these limitations, we hope we have made
a strong case why symbolic interactionism is an essential theory for community
development practice.

MOVING BEYOND CLASSICAL THEORY TOWARDS

GIDDENS' STRUCTURATION THEORY
We have argued that the classical macro theories of structural
functionalism and conflict theory are essential concepts for building community
capacity, while the micro theory of symbolic interactionism is important for
creating or strengthening solidarity. There are obvious tensions inherent in
these classical theories. The dualism of macro versus micro characterizes much
of the theoretical thinking in sociology. Sharing the same goal of picturing the
social reality, these schools choose to proceed from the opposite directions.
The macro thinkers attempt to draw a holistic picture and lay down the workings
of "society," whereas the micro theorists hope to arrive at the same results by
scrutinizing what happens "in" and "between" the individual people. Neither
approach is entirely successful in producing a complete and exhaustive picture
for community development practice. In a more recent development, efforts
have been made at a "micro-translation," seeking to visualize social reality as
made up of individuals interacting with one another and forming "larger
interaction ritual chains" (Collins, 1988).
However, it has also been recognized in the recent theory that the issue
of social agency itself, pointed out above as a key concern for community
development, represents a concern that needs to be theoretically addressed in a
way that transcends the established orientations in modern social theory and
the whole macro-micro split. In his structuration theory, Anthony Giddens (1984,
1989), offers a perspective that is more fluid and process-oriented than either the
macro or the micro approaches. Giddens introduces a third dimension, or an "in-
between" level of analysis, which is neither macro nor micro. It has to do with
 12 Journal of the Community Development Society
the cultural traditions, beliefs, and norms of society, and how the actors draw
upon those in their behavior (Collins 1988: 399). For Giddens, those normative
patterns of society exist "outside of time and space" (Collins, 1988, pp. 398-399),
meaning they are neither properties of the empirical social system, nor of the
individual actors. Their actuality consists in the moments when individuals
reach up to that level of society's traditions and norms, in their behavior. People
also draw upon and act upon thought patterns or cultural "molds," for example,
the notion of reciprocity—getting something in return for something else. Cultural
traditions and patterns become modalities by virtue of placing them on Giddens'
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

analytical scheme. They represent a third level, which is in between individualistic

behavior and the macro structures. Even though the reality of modalities may be
only momentary, when people actually reach up to them in their behavior, we can
better visualize the social process and the role of culture and normative patterns.
"Actors draw upon the modalities of structuration in reproduction of systems of
interaction" (Giddens, 1984, p. 28). Social structure is upheld and existing divisions
of society carry on through those "mental molds."

Figure 2: Gidden's Modalities: The Link to Social

Change at the Macro and Micro Levels

Macro Conflict Theory Functionalism

Structures
Structuration Theory
& Social
Action
Modalities Theory
Structuration

Micro Behavior Symbolic Interactionism

The laying out of society on three theoretical levels serves to better
visualize the issue of agency compared to either the macro or the micro theories
(see Figure 2). The relationship between those three levels is not necessarily
uni-directional or mechanical. Rather, it is a fluid process, in which all three
levels interact with each other. Individuals represent the agency whereby
interactions between levels take place.
Thus, it becomes easier to grasp how macro structures have an
independent existence outside of individuals, people are pictured as free agents
 Hustedde and Ganowicz 13
exercising their motives and agendas, and yet society continues to exercise an
influence on individuals. The notorious problem of Marx's theory and several
radical thinkers informed by it, of people being the "puppets of the
macrostructure," becomes circumvented.2
Coming back to the community development profession and its key
concerns, Giddens' model is perhaps best suited to grasp how social agency is
exercised and solidarity established amid and often against the existing structural
divisions of society. Modalities represent the level whereby solidarity is
established by people following the symbolic norms and patterns available to
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

them based on their cultures and traditions. Behavior is neither haphazard nor
merely a reflection of the existing social structure and its divisions, but it follows
certain paths (modalities) established and available to people through the cultural
patterns. Similarly, new rules of behavior also occur through the medium of
modalities, in this instance their creative redefinition. This is how the existing
divisions can be overcome and new bonds between people forged. For this to
take place, a genuine social creativity is necessary, meaning people coming up
with solutions and ideas that simultaneously draw on their cultural traditions
(common reference point) and transcend those, as a basis for new bonds, new
patterns of solidarity to be put into place. Modalities serve not only as the rules
for the reproduction of the social system, but also for its transformation (Turner,
1984, p. 494).
Giddens' concept of modalities is the link between macro and micro
theories. Modalities are part of the analytical scheme in a particular place. For
example, individualism in the United States is a strong modality and can keep
citizens from becoming united to take action. The notion of a common good is
another American modality, which can be used to transform a divided community
into a greater sense of solidarity. Modalities can be used to influence the macro
or micro level of social change. There are several substantive analyses of the
social processing and the dynamics of social transformation carried out, at least
in part, on the level of modalities, looking at cultural patterns and systems of
ideas and how they mediate the social process. Gaventa (1980) examines the
modalities of Appalachia with a focus on rebellion and quiescence. He analyzes
how power is used in the region to prevent or implement decisions. The use of
force and threat of sanctions are discussed along with less intrusive aspects
such as attitudes that are infused into the dominant culture by elites and
internalized by non-elites. For example, there are perspectives such as "you
can't change anything around here" or "you don't have to be poor if you want
to really work." Gaventa argues there are other modalities in which Appalachian
culture has resisted the penetration of dominant social values. Those with less
power can develop their own resources for analyzing issues and can explore
their grievances openly. He views the "myth ofAmerican democracy" as another
modality that can set the stage for greater openness and transparency in local
government.
 14 Journal of the Community Development Society
Staniszkis (1984) provides further insights about modalities through
her ideas about how workers' solidarity emerged in Poland. She saw the working
class under the communist regime as a unified bloc, both in a positive hegemonic
way and negatively, as subject to the party's control and manipulation. These
modalities were taken by Solidarity and its charismatic leader Lech Walesa and
transformed through references to workers' common identity as opposed to the
party apparatus. Walesa forged workers' strong Christian identification into
this new self-understanding and self-image of the workers in Poland to further
create a sense of solidarity and unity in opposition to the community party and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

the system. Through her consistent attention to symbolic meanings and their
interplay with the social structure, Staniszkis' work on the transformation of
workers' collective identity represents an apt demonstration of how a
transformation of modalities may take place.
Analytically, Giddens' structuration theory stands as the middle ground
between the micro and the macro theories, where we have also placed the issue
of agency and solidarity (see Figure 2). Giddens' structuration theory suggests
that the micro theories associated with symbolic interactionism can influence
cultural and traditional norms and patterns (modalities) and vice versa. While
the symbolic interactionist tend to ignore structure, Giddens' mid-level theory
about modalities is a crucial link between symbolic interactionism and the macro
conflict and "structural functionalist theories (Giddens, 1984).
Max Weber's social action theory was originally cast at an "in-between
level." If his theory were not explicit, it was at least implicit in his intentions.3
Weber attempted to view society as a fluid process, for analytical purposes
dissecting it into various components (Turner, 1998, p. 17) much like Giddens
does. Although Weber never attempted an analytical model of society along
those lines, some observers have categorized Weber as a micro-theorist because
of his subjective interpretation of behavior and its meaning to the actor. Others
argue that Weber is a strong macro-theorist. Our understanding is that his
intentions actually lie closer to Giddens' perspective that a three-tiered model is
better suited to grasp the complexities of social action and the interplay between
the symbolic meaning and the structural forces of society. Weber's writings
suggest he is constantly preoccupied with the interplay between the symbolic
meaning and the structural forces of society. This is especially obvious in his
attempts to explain the rise of modern capitalism through the interplay of social
structural conditions and the religious beliefs of Protestantism. He followed
similar analyses for non-Western societies in his sociology of religion volumes.
What Giddens lays down in theory, Weber actually performs in his works, bridging
the macro, and the micro dimensions by his attention to society's traditions and
norms and how they become transformed, independently of the macro structural
forces of society, through people interpreting and reinterpreting them. Similarly,
Gaventa and Staniszkis demonstrate how one can connect communities or groups
to structure in a way that is not fixed or mechanical.
 Hustedde and Ganowicz 15

In contrast to debates about whether structure shapes action to

determine social phenomena or the reverse, Giddens believes that structure
exists in and through the activities of human agents. He views it as a form of
"dualism" in which neither can exist without the other. When humans express
themselves as actors and when they engage in the monitoring of the ongoing
flow of activities, they are contributing to structure and their own agency. He
contends that social systems are often the result of the unanticipated outcome
of human action. Giddens viewed time and space as crucial variables. Many
interactions are face-to-face, and hence are rooted in the same space and time.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

However, with the advent of new technologies, there can be interaction across
different times and spaces. Community developers are likely to feel some kinship
with Giddens because he has a dynamic rather than a static concept of the world.
He recognizes the interplay of humans in shaping and being shaped by structure.
Critics are likely to argue that he has oversubscribed to the concept about the
power of human agency. Our space limits the response to such critiques; we
cannot provide a fuller exploration of Giddens' theoretical insights.
How Can Giddens' Structuration Theory Guide Community
Development Practice?
Structuration theory provides many theoretical insights (see Ritzer,
1996 p. 433) for those engaged in community development because it links
disparate macro theories about structure and conflict with micro theories about
individual and group behavior and symbols (symbolic interactionism). Giddens'
concept of modalities is essential for community development practice.
Let us revisit the case of the Appalachian community group that is
opposing the construction of a road through a nearby state forest. They believe
they are overpowered by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that wants to
build the road. The community finds it difficult to argue against the DOT report,
which contains sophisticated economic, social and natural resource information.
Here is what the community developer practitioner did. First, the community's
residents identified the strengths of their local traditions - particularly,
storytelling and the arts - as a venue for building a sense of solidarity about the
integrity of the forest. They examined the modalities of storytelling and the arts
as a way to make an impact through the media to the public and elected leaders
in the region. The community's strong respect for the local Cooperative Extension
Service was identified as another modality that could mobilize the broader
informational resources of the land-grant university. The developer was able to
draw upon the services of professional economists, sociologists, foresters, and
others without spending much money; these professionals developed an
alternative to the DOT report that was widely disseminated. Storytelling, the
local arts, and links with the local Extension Service influenced broader structures
and led to less power imbalances. Eventually, the DOT decided to permanently
"postpone" the development of the road. Because the community developer
 16 Journal of the Community Development Society
understood the power of modalities (local cultural traditions and patterns), the
community was able to develop a sense of shared meaning which led to greater
influence on structure and resolution of the conflict.
How do Giddens' structuration theory and the concept of modalities
relate to the three classical theories: structural functionalism, conflict theory,
and symbolic interactionism?
When one looks at functionalism through the Giddens lens, one sees
how structures shape and can be shaped by modalities. From a Giddens
perspective, community change agents are not powerless when faced with
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

powerful structures. Cultural patterns can be transformed to influence or break

down structural constraints that inhibit solidarity or capacity building.
Giddens' structuration theory illuminates conflict theory because it
suggests that communities can influence power imbalances through cultural
norms and patterns. It also means that external power can also shape behavior.
Based on a Giddens perspective, the micro theories associated with
symbolic interactionism can influence cultural and traditional norms and patterns
(modalities), and vice versa. While the symbolic interactionists tend to ignore
structure, Giddens mid-level theory about modalities is a crucial link between
symbolic interactionism and the macro "conflict" and structural functionalist
theories.
Limitations of Giddens' Structuration Theory
Giddens' writing is analytical and abstract to the point of being vague
and imprecise. He rarely gives concrete examples, which can be frustrating to
those community developers who are more empirically grounded. Giddens'
analysis is also difficult because it involves a constant moving between the
levels of modalities and societal institutions and the actual actions of individuals.
In spite of these limitations, we believe it is especially useful to
community developers because of the potent role of symbolic norms and cultural
patterns (modalities) in creating new structures, influencing power differences
and shaping individual behavior into a sense of solidarity.

CONCLUSION
We have defined community development by its intention to build
solidarity and agency (capacity building). There are three classical theories that
are essential for community development practice. They include the macro
theories of structural functionalism, conflict theory that relates to capacity
building, and symbolic interactionism that is associated with solidarity building.
We have provided some case studies that illustrate the importance of these
theories to community development practice.
We have focused on Anthony Giddens' structuration theory because
Giddens links macro and micro theories through his concept of modalities that
represent the level where social solidarity is established. Modalities are symbolic
 Hustedde and Ganowicz 17

norms and patterns that can be found in community cultures and traditions.
Modalities are shaped by structures and power differences. However, they can
also be transformed to influence structure and address power differences. For
example, a community can transform its belief about the common good to build
a stronger sense of unity and to take appropriate action steps rather than feel
powerless. Our discussion of modalities is interspersed with examples from
Appalachia and Poland.
This article is about reaching across the conceptual divide between
theory and action. It is about stimulating dialogue and further discussion about
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

essential theory for community development practice. We believe that Giddens

and other synthesizers have reenergized interests in classical theory by linking
theoretical camps in a novel way.

NOTES
1. There are several exceptions such as the text, Community Economics by Ron E.
Shaffer (1989). It is theoretically driven. However, it focuses on one aspect of community
development, namely economic development.
2. We argue that structuration theory represents an improvement over conventional
micro theories (i.e., symbolic interactionists) which also visualizes behavior on two levels,
the "me" and the "I." The 'me' is reminiscent of Giddens' modalities but the micro theorists
miss the significance of the social structure and its divisions, which Giddens treats as the
analytical third level.
3. Talcott Parsons original 1937 formulation of his theory was cast at a similar level,
with the dimension of "culture" representing a bridge between personality and the social
system, but subsequently it got lost as the social system swallowed up the micro dimension in
Parsons' theorizing (Collins, 1988).

REFERENCES
Bhattacharyya, J. 1995. Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development.
Human Organization 54(1): 60-68.
Biddle, W., with L. Biddle. 1965. The Community Development Process . New York: Holt
Rhinehardt and Winston.
Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. New York: Prentice-
Hall.
Chaskin, R. J., P. Brown, S. Venkatesh, & A.Vidal. 2001. Building Community Capacity.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Christenson, J., & J. Robinson (eds). 1989. Community Development in Perspective. Iowa
City: University of Iowa Press.
Collins, R. 1988. Theoretical Sociology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
Coser, L. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press.
Dahl, R. A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Dahrendolf, R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
 18 Journal of the Community Development Society

Ejigiri, D. 1996. The value of local knowledge and the importance of shifting beliefs in the
process of social change. Community Development Journal 31(1): 44-53.
Flora, C. B., J. L. Flora, & R. J. Tapp. 2000. Meat, meth and Mexicans: Community
responses to increasing ethnic diversity. Journal of the Community Development
Society 31(2): 277-299.
Foucault, M. 1965. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.
New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. 1975. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of Medical Perception. New
York: Vintage.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. 1980. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, An Introduction. New York:
Vintage.
Foucault, M. 1985. The Use of Pleasure. The History of Sexuality, Volume 2. New York:
Panthenon.
Galbraith, J. K. 1971. The New Industrial State. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
Gaventa, J. L. 1980. Power and Politics: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian
Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkley: University of California Press..
Giddens, A. 1989. A reply to my critics. Pp. 249-301 in D. Held & J.B. Thompson (eds.),
Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Goffman, E. 1986. Frame Anlaysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Horton, H. D. 1992. A sociological approach to black community development:
presentation of the black organizational autonomy model. Journal of the
Community Development Society 23(1): 1-19.
Jeffries, A. 2000. Promoting participation: A conceptual framework for strategic practice,
with case studies from Plymouth, UK and Ottawa, Canada. The Scottish Journal of
Community Work and Development, Special Issue, 6(Autumn): 5-14.
Mead, G. H. 1982. 77?<? Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert
Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. Rev. ed. New York: The Free
Press.
Nash, K. 2000. Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics, and Power.
Maiden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Parsons, T. (ed.). 1960. Some reflections on the institutional framework of economic
development. In Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Parsons, T., & E. A. Shils (eds.). 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. New York:
Harper & Row.
Perkins, D. D. 1995. Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social
intervention and policy. American Journal of Community Psychology 23(5): 569-
5 79.
 Hustedde and Ganowicz 19
Ritzer, G. 1996. Sociological Theory. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rothman, J. & L. M. Gant. 1987. Approaches and models of community intervention. Pp.
35-44 in D. E. Johnson, L. R. Meiller, L. C. Miller & G. F. Summers (eds.), Needs
Assessment: Theory and Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Schellenberg, J. A. 1996. Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research and Practice. Albany, NY:
State University of New York.
Shaffer, R. E. 1989. Community Economics: Economic Structure and Change in Smaller
Communities. Ames, 1A: Iowa State University Press.
Staniszkis, J. 1984. Poland's Self-Limiting Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 19:07 09 October 2013

University Press.
Turner, J. H. 1998. The Structure of Sociological Theory. 6"' ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Wallerstein, I. 1984. The development of the concept of development. Sociological
Theory 2: 102-116.
Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. A.M. Henderson & T.
Parsons (Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.