Community Media Discussion – The Paradox of Identity

This week in our Community Media Discussion, we’ll be reflecting on the podcast I recorded with Ted Cantle, and the ‘paradox of identity’ that he described. This is when a community group becomes largely identified with their social characteristic, forming a powerful and robust purpose which doesn’t foster greater social interaction with other social groups. What is our aim as community advocates, Ted asks? Are we content with segregated but independent social groups, or do we want fluid and interactive social engagement? This week, we’ll continue our discussion of the purpose of community media as a platform for enhanced social cohesion rather than segregation.

Join our regular Tuesday discussion by signing up on Patreon for as little as £1 per month.

Talking with Ted Cantle in the latest episode of the Decentered Media Podcast, I was struck by how many concerns and ideas I associate with participative forms of community media that are deeply rooted in Ted’s work on community cohesion. In our conversation, Ted explained how community cohesion should be understood as a purpose-driven form of community and social development, which tries to achieve the objective of having more interconnected communities. We need, according to Ted, multiple forms of ongoing social investment which are capable of bringing people together, rather than holding them apart according to their differences, if we are to bring about a more cohesive society.

Ted argues that given the pressures of globalisation, climate crisis and changing technology – to name a few pressing challenges – we need to rethink how we can better address our collective problems with a more purposeful sense of investment in our social infrastructure. According to Ted, this means giving serious thought to how we foster a shared and meaningful culture of experience, ensuring we have the collective capacity to manifest a more unified and less dysfunctional quality of life, which can be articulated both within and through different forms of community.

Ted has spent some time asking what makes a community cohesive, and cautions against the pervasive sense of fatalism that is in danger of taking hold in many contemporary Western societies. This fatalism, Ted suggests, make it feel inevitable that we are bound to live ‘parallel lives’, in which the social experience of many people becomes completely alien to others. This fatalism, many have pointed out, is associated with the common feeling of ongoing social breakdown. A response to which we shrug our shoulders and say ‘but it is the same everywhere’! A lack of social cohesion leads to increased crime, a surge in poor mental and physical health, increased incidents of anti-social behaviour, and is manifested in an increasingly decrepit social realm that is poorly maintained. While our basic costs are continually rising – which is high on the political and media agenda presently – there is less trust and belief that governments and our politicians can do anything about this decline.  As Ted points out,

“Little or nothing had been done to break down the barriers between the communities, to promote interaction and mutual trust and understanding – prejudices were allowed to fester with little leadership at either local or national level to promote a positive view of diversity. In these circumstances, it was relatively easy for the far right and other extremists to develop myths and misinformation and stir up race and religious hatred – and to maintain the conditions under which disadvantage and inequalities would persist.”

Ted believes, however, that a cohesive society is possible, as long as we reject the parallel lives hypothesis. To ensure we have a cohesive sense of purpose, Ted argues, we need to be able to take on board the different histories, heritages, identities and stories that people embody in our neighbourhoods and communities. And rather than seeing these as isolated workings with a multicultural society, in which peoples’ identities and experiences are held separately, Ted suggests that we ought to be looking at community interactions as part of a dynamic set of shared relations expressed in an intercultural society in which people are brought together for a common purpose.

For Ted, a cohesive community is one that can articulate a common vision of what a good life for all might be like. Such a society would be founded on a shared sense of belonging, which, according to Ted, is recognised and accessible across all communities. While this used to be manifested in the role of the nation, changes brought with globalisation and new communications technologies, mean that we have to rethink where our sense of shared identity comes from. For Ted, this would be a society that recognises the variety of people’s backgrounds and circumstances, while ensuring that each respective group of people are appreciated and positively valued for their contribution. This sense of appreciation can’t be simply well-meaning, however, but must also be able to provide similar practical life opportunities for people who come from different backgrounds and live in different places.

One possible example of a situation where we might recognise how purposeful changes in society come about was described by Colin Prescod, the outgoing chair of the Institute of Race Relations. As reported in The Guardian, Prescod is said to be concerned that the way we tackle racial injustice needs to be reworked to take account of two factor. First, the institutional and structural forms of racism that remain a significant part of British society, which need to be addressed directly in public policy, legislation and institutional reform. While, the second, Prescod points to progress that has been made in fostering a positive sense of contribution by people who might otherwise be excluded from taking part in society because of their race. Prescod suggest this offers hope that things can change, and points out that:

“We now have populations here who are not thinking of themselves from some other place or going to some other place, but here, and are aware of their history of struggle. When Sons of Kemet says something like ‘we want to take our country forward’, notice all the words in the phrase.” He believes it shows a significant cultural shift of “new generations [of black Britons] born here, belonging here, speaking with a different kind of authority”.

In relation to bringing about social change, I asked Ted what he thinks of the Levelling-Up policy agenda? Ted told me that he isn’t impressed that successive governments have failed to maintain a consistent focus on the objectives of social cohesion, and that we have started to see reversals in progress that was made earlier. Government in Westminster as has now conceded that we need to think through the social purpose of social investment once my, simply by the fact that there is a Levelling-Up agenda at all. Many share Ted’s concern that it has been a mistake to stop and start the community cohesion engine at different times in response to sporadic outburst of discontent. Each time the engine stops, we fall further behind, and it then takes longer to catch-up again. It’s vital, according to Ted, that we keep the process of community cohesion heading in a purposeful direction so that all communities can have faith that we have a shared future sense of belonging, and that we will be dealing with challenges like climate change together.

Ted told me that he regards as the driving principle for community cohesion to be based on evidence informed policy, whereby changes in society are reflected in both the principles and the practices of social policy. There must be a purpose to social policy, Ted argues, which seeks to improve the quality of interactions between people who are defined by different experiences, and who live in different places, while having shared goals that include people from different cultural traditions and heritages. This doesn’t mean ignoring our differences and treating people who do not identify with the majority as ‘other’, but instead means finding ways to bring people together based on common understanding.

I asked Ted what he felt are the most significant challenges in achieving a cohesive sense of community looking forward, and what difference we can see that have been embedded over the last two decades. The most obvious, Ted remarked, has been the shift in the way we communicate and share information. Back in the late 1990s the internet was expanding, smartphones had not become widely available, and information was still dominated by mass media, such as television, radio and newspapers. Society had fewer options for independent and alternative media engagement, which was why the legislation for community radio in the UK was so important, with its recognition of the need to foster community cohesion.

Ownership and control of media was itself more varied, though there was still little that local communities could do to develop independent platforms for information distribution and representation. The shift in technology and skills for producing media over the last twenty years has therefore been remarkable. The democratisation of media production tools, for example, has thrown-open the communications process in ways that few would have imagined possible in the mid-1990s. So, rather than waiting for commercial media business or public service institutions to catch up with our expectations of identity and cultural expression, the main shift, in my mind, is that we can now take responsibility for our own media without waiting for government to give us permission or approve of what we create.

I was pleased that Ted also believes that community cohesion is more likely to be achieved by people working together locally, across self-defined networks, in ways that are trusted and accountable. This is something that Ted aims to foster when he set up the Belong Network. The network aims to “support and develop all those who are delivering cohesion, integration and intercultural work,” by giving people the “resources, skills, inspiration and confidence to lead and champion this vital work.” In my mind, then, there is a clear correlation between the work of advocates and activists in community media, who recognise that we can’t have a cohesive society if we don’t also invest in the tools and skills to use media with this purpose in mind.

Liked it? Take a second to support Decentered Media on Patreon!

Become a patron at Patreon!

1 Comment

  1. This discussion is right on the point. I have some observations to make from listening to the radio and going to St. Denys’ for their Open Church with Alex and then discussing later what we might put in the next Evington Echo about the Open Church and Lent. (Alex wants to write about Lent, but I’m not so keen. As you say so clearly, it is promoting ‘parallel lives’.
    I also had a discussion with the Curate at St. Denys Church that I think is significant as well.

    Last night on Radio 4 (I think) there was a discussion between someone who was trying to explain horrific deaths of ‘innocent’ people as being compatible with a loving God. The interviewer was trying to question why the person still believed in a loving God and the conversation just got more and more strange and complex with all the theology we are aware of that to me are built on unproved foundations. (As Bertrand Russell said “you can’t prove a negative – so I can’t prove a loving God doesn’t exist in the same way that I can’t prove that little green men is spaceships aren’t circling around the sun), but it isn’t based on any observable experience of the world or open to the scientific method, where a hypothesis can be put forward and then looked at in terms of the evidence we have. When they put forward the idea of a loving God the arguments that support it seem impossible to me. This to me was an example of the BBC putting forward an extreme view and then unsuccessfully trying to pull it down, when that is also impossible.

    In contract, BBC Radio Leicester did better this morning because for their ‘religious’ bit, they talked about the death of a Hindu man at 102, who had come over from Uganda and been instrumental in setting up Hindu temples in Leicester. Perhaps our religious news should be about current people, when change happens.

    Alex and I went to the ‘Open Church’ at St. Denys. I thought it started around 10am, but in actual fact they all had a service from 10am to 10.30am, in the Church that Alex and I were invited to, but we chose to stay in the parish room on our own, called the ‘Parish Centre’ and could talk to each other, but no one else was there. Alex was keen to talk to people who came to the Open Church, so she did this. She talked to people after the service and a couple of people who dropped in without going to the service, but they were Christians as well. A year ago, when I went, there were non Christians (who if they live in the parish are all parishioners), but the effort to promote this idea of an Open Church hasn’t been maintained. It would need an ongoing effect and commitment not to slip back. I think the vicar Anthony Lees-Smith did try to put this effort in before, but now he is also Dean of Leicester as well, he leaves this to people who don’t prioritise this. The person Alex and I talked to separately was the Curate, Mark. I said something like it was good to have an Open Church and invite people with different personal beliefs. He said it wasn’t about personal beliefs but about showing people that they all believe in Love and that comes through explaining about Jesus. We then spoke about the fact that Muslims don’t see Jesus as a God, but a prophet. Then Mark said something that I am still processing, which was that the difference with this Church is that it just isn’t about control, but just letting people know how they think. I haven’t caught up with Alex about her discussions with Mark, the curate. It is probably just the simple case of intentions and vision being OK, but failing in practice. I have heard it said that Christianity is a concept that has never been put into practice. Perhaps what is wrong is the concept of Love being too idealistic and non specific and the life of Jesus is open to many interpretations and questions.

Comments are closed.