Maybe We Shouldn’t Agree On What Community Is and Isn’t

An aspect of academia which really interests me is the study of processes. I am so interested in processes that I am considering undergoing a PhD in arguably our most important process: the process by which we choose our leaders. All by means of saying, I really enjoyed the first class of SPPG+Evergreen because, in my opinion, our discussion primarily concerned process; specifically, by which process can we define the word “Community.”

During class, I was mostly interested in where our three definitions intersected; for instance, the words “people” and “change” were agreed upon by all three groups. But as I reflected on our similarities, I became more drawn to the differences in our definitions: “lived-experience,” “collaborative,” and “warmly” are words unique to each group. Furthermore, these words were topic of such debate that we ultimately did not reach consensus on how to definitively define community. How can we proceed in a course concerned with community, if we don’t agree on what community is?

Perhaps there’s a deeper lesson to be learned from our attempt. I think that concept of “community” is unique to each individual, and that a consensus about its meaning, would, by definition, subvert its purpose. Maybe we shouldn’t agree on what community is and isn’t. Instead, we should consider trying to understand why and how we differ so that we can learn to enjoy the differences. I think that this approach, which considers opposition and celebrates differences, will ultimately lead to more inclusive community- based-policymaking.