Who speaks for community?
In the first class of our course on community-based policy-making, we spent a little time discussing definitions. What do we actually mean when we talk about “community,” “impact,” and “community-based policy-making”?
We recorded our ideas on the blackboard, and we had some good discussion and debate around whether a community is only those who self-identify as members of the group, or whether people can be members of a community without necessarily knowing or consenting to their inclusion.
It made me think of a question I have pondered many times in my past involvement in community work and activism: who speaks for “community”? This question is particularly important for any policy professionals in government thinking about who to engage with for “community-based policy-making.” So often “community” is simply defined as those who show up to a consultation, or those who speak the loudest. But a “community” may not speak in one united voice.
A couple of examples come to mind. Think of, for instance, the “post-secondary student community” in Canada. The Canadian Federation of Students is one of the most prominent national organizations representing this community. Yet when I was an undergraduate student at the University of Victoria, the student body voted to sever our membership with CFS. Students at UVic no longer felt that the CFS was adequately speaking on their behalf. Later, students from a number of post-secondary institutions in B.C. formed the Alliance of B.C. Students as an alternative group to represent the interests of the post-secondary student community. As divisions in this particular “community” emerged, a provincial government seeking the perspective of post-secondary students on policy-making in B.C. would do well to tread carefully.
Another example at the local level is neighbourhood associations speaking for a specific geographic community: a neighbourhood. Jim Diers, a Seattle-based speaker, author and community activist, notes in this thoughtful blog post that although neighbourhoods are often diverse, neighbourhood associations that speak on behalf of their communities may not be. “Neighborhood associations in Seattle, for example, tend to have a higher percentage of older, white homeowners than does the neighborhood as a whole,” he writes. This can matter a great deal for public policy at the local level, since these neighbourhood associations can often be a dominant voice in land-use or zoning discussions. Who is perhaps left out of these discussions? Renters. Lower-income people. People from communities of colour. Newcomers.
Even if policy-makers claim to be practicing “community-based policy development,” who is not included in the “community” in question? When we consider what “community” means and who speaks for it, whose voices are we not hearing? These are questions I hope we can explore as we progress in this course.
