by David L. Thomas, Ph.D.
 Comments: dtec@cox.net

This essay is about community development, about creating a better place to live, about home-building. It is an attempt to provide a strategy for reviving and holding on course the apparatus--at least some of it--of community life, a strategy--if fully implemented--sure to lead to a healthier, more vital, more conscious culture.

The essay begins with a consideration of homelessness, homelessness in the literal sense but, in short order and always in the background, homelessness in the figurative sense as well; homelessness as a problem in and of itself, a problem deadening in its impact on those who experience it but homelessness also as a matter of degree, as an existential or psychological affliction. This sort of homelessness also is deadening and of no less concern to any community interested in its health and vitality.

We begin with homelessness--in both senses--because homelessness is a particularly compelling example of just how complex and entrenched some problems facing communities are, problems that go deep into the soil of the larger culture. To succeed against such problems, and there are many, communities must be "conscious" of themselves, i.e., they must be responsive to feedback, self-correcting, experimental, and--without robbing them of their organicity, i.e.., their capacity to unfold in surprising and beneficial ways, they must be very well organized, indeed.

Following our examination of homelessness, the essay proceeds to three proposals that, together, constitute a strategy for community development. It is a strategy intended to accomplish much of what is needed if communities are to evolve toward greater health and vitality and thus, away from the homelessness--and loss of 'at-homeness'--that can exist within them to far too great a degree.

 

HOMELESSNESS

Homelessness means the absence of an adequate full time residence, one that is both safe and sanitary. To be living or sleeping in an emergency shelter, a welfare hotel, a youth hostel, a domestic abuse shelter, a transitional living facility or, in some cases, a prison is to be homeless.

That is homelessness in the literal sense, in the extreme. In the figurative sense, homelessness means the connection has been severed, the sense of "at homeness" lost (or never sufficiently acquired). Owen Barfield, the English philosopher, wrote that the disease from which we suffer is called "cut-offness." We are cut-off, he wrote, from one another, from ourselves, from nature, from the transcendent. As such, we are, to varying degrees, alienated, not "at home" with our surroundings or with ourselves. "Cut-off" and "home-less," synonyms; or if not synonyms, then closely related concepts, one (homelessness--in the literal sense) an extreme condition of the other.

To study homelessness--in either sense--is to study the culture in which it occurs. It cannot help but be so. With homelessness, with the absence of "at homeness", many threads are drawn together and many of these, perhaps most, connect to the larger culture.

Culture is the medium through which we are grown. It includes the economics, politics, child-rearing practices, educational practices, values, beliefs, mores, fashions, institutions, and more of the surrounding environment. It is all that is external to us save for the physical, the biological and the metaphysical though it does include the beliefs and practices associated with the physical, biological and metaphysical. For the purposes of this essay, culture is the psycho-social environment and we, like fish in water, are immersed in it.

Homelessness is our beginning point because of its ability to serve as a measure of imbalance and imbalance--when sustained--is toxic. "Toxicity" is a useful concept because it implies that the medium itself is affected (infected). If sufficiently toxic, all who inhabit the medium, all who have any dependence on it at all, are sure to suffer. Thus, to measure the rate or degree of homelessness--at any level and to any degree, whether literally or figuratively--is to measure the toxicity loose in the culture and hence, to some degree, its health.

There are other measures of toxicity, of course. Crime, for example. Or pollution. These, too, are the result of cultural and community imbalances and like homelessness, they also are measures of cultural and community health. But homelessness is special. Not in its power to reveal (though here, too, it may offer advantages), but in its capacity to touch, to make us feel uncomfortable, to make us review and examine our lives. "Have I done this to myself?" asks the homeless (and alienated) adult. "And if so, why? Did accident play a role or am I alone responsible for my condition?" "Woe unto him who has no home!" said Nietzsche, for homelessness strikes not only at the physical foundations of life but also--and deeply--at one's metaphysical core. Homelessness, whether experienced or witnessed, whether literal or figurative, invites a great deal of self-examination; at stake is one's "at-homeness" with community, culture and self.

 

THE CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS

Here are five factors that surely contribute to the phenomenon of homelessness. Read them knowing that they are written with the extreme or literal notion of homelessness in mind; but know that they are presented with the presumption that they contribute just as surely to our loss of "at-homeness" as well.

Factor #1: Early childhood abuse. It is well established--to the point of being common knowledge--that the early days, months, years of life are critical to the life-long development of the individual. After all, it is during the early years of life that trajectory is established. It can be changed, of course--this trajectory, but the sooner the better, and eventually, only with great effort. And why? Because this early period of life is when the basic circuits of trust and distrust are formed, the initial and basic sense of what is and is not safe. To be physically or sexually abused during this early period is to have detrimental "Pavlovian" pairings that can inhibit for a lifetime the confidence of the developing individual. At a deep and profound level, the individual can feel that "home"--and all that it conjures--is not safe because it was in the home where the crime occurred. To return to "the scene of the crime," or to anything remotely similar, is to have aroused (quite possibly) the desire for flight. The individual may not be able to identify the source of his or her anxiety--that may remain buried, unconscious. But the capacity to be "at home" . . . with oneself . . . in a family . . . in a house . . . in a single place . . . may have been affected for a lifetime. "Better to keep moving" comes the signal from deep within the individual's nervous system. Better to be any place, any where, other than "at home" where the unbelievable and unacceptable occurred.

Add to this line of analysis one of the most curious and poignant of developmental truths; namely, that abuse from a significant other--in this case a parent--leads to the abuse of oneself. Hit, batter, abuse and/or excessively criticize the developing child and, eventually, that child will figure out how to do this to him or herself; and not for a short while only. Rather, it is possible to carry this self-abuse throughout a lifetime, giving it a variety of forms but nevertheless remaining true to the pre-verbal message originally coded in the deepest layers of the child's being: "I am unwelcome here because I am unacceptable. My parents have made that clear. They are superior beings, giants, and they would not treat me as they do were I not wrong to the core."

To put it another way, early childhood abuse affects the individual's appetite for life. To physically or sexually abuse a child is to betray that child and betrayal is a profoundly shocking experience. The response of the developing (and fragile) nervous system is to shut down, to lose the appetite or "will" for more life as there is no reason available at this tender stage, no perspective, only a very nervous system now bruised and perhaps damaged. For such a person, depending upon the degree of abuse, there can result a life-time of "acting out," of acting from and in accord with the distortions imposed by the experience of abuse; never is there the deep relaxation or ease with oneself that permits the individual to feel "at home".

Early childhood abuse severs the umbilical cord of safety and trust without which personal development cannot be natural and, indeed, may be retarded. By definition, early childhood abuse is a certain way to inflict "cut-offness", creating a condition which--unless arrested through unconditional love and the careful, therapeutic repairing of broken and/or confused psyches--can lead to a spiritual deadening so profound that the will-to-life remains flat. For individuals who are so cut-off, self-preservation seems anathema. Why preserve or nourish something in which you can find little or no worth? "Childhood decides," said Sartre, and whether or not this is the final word, there is a chilling precision in this briefest of sentences.

Factor #2: Children Without Parents &/or Children as Parents. The blind cannot lead the blind, especially into unfamiliar territory, that much is known. And yet, this is precisely the predicament of far too many children who are being raised by other children. The shear ignorance of the teenage parent is overwhelming. How can you teach what you do not know and the teenage parent knows virtually nothing about life. The complexities of modern society, the whole layer of detail implicit in successfully engaging the economy, the schooling system, the job market; all of these are mazes and the child-parent is without a clue. The problem is confounded all the more when the child-parent finds him or herself without any emotional or financial backup from a larger or extended family. Add to this the weight of the material abundance of those higher in the American class structure and you have a condition that is unbearable. The teenage or child-parent becomes de-spirited under these conditions. How could it be otherwise? The family is where people are made and the teenage parent is utterly without resources. They are the have-nots, in every sense of the phrase, as are their children, citizens of an increasingly uncivilized and growing layer of society from whom much is now being heard.

It's only natural under these conditions that the peers of the children of teenage parents should become a predominant factor in their lives. The need to belong overwhelms all participants. If there are no teachers, guardians, or parents of sufficient stature with the time and energy and commitment required for "person-making," then the children caught in this milieu will drift or be drawn or be terrorized into the hands of their peers. And these peers know even less about life than do the natural parents. Gangs flower in this soil. The Lord of the Flies . . . running in packs; the pliable child terrorized and brainwashed into a reality warped by primate hierarchies and primitive initiation rites. It's an experience that separates the child from a more natural developmental sequence. The absence of truly adult influences and adult values is decisive. These children--and their numbers seem to be growing--are homeless regardless of their living situation. They are cut-off from their own humanity by their brothers and sisters who are themselves making the best of a mad and dangerous situation.

So long as the nuclear and/or extended family was linked with other families, the ecology of the neighborhood was stable. "The family is nature's contrivance for most effectively raising children," said George Bernard Shaw. And without the family, or some acceptable version of it, the child-rearing is "unnatural." The child-parent operating without sufficient support--and much is needed--is not an acceptable version of the family. Nor are gangs. Neither has an inkling of what it is doing. The children who are in the midst of this milieu are abandoned to themselves, to other children, and to the forces that prevail when the seams of a complex and civil ecology unravel. Under these conditions, the home is in the 'hood', unsafe, without sanctuary and thus, no place that is not arresting, that does not get on the nerves.

Factor #3: Addiction. Alcohol and drugs seem always to have played a role in human development and human society. Understanding their role is not a simple or straight-forward exercise. The problem we are discussing here, however, is addiction, the point reached through repeated indulgence where the substance (or activity) in question asks far more in return than it possibly can give. To continue to indulge in the drug (or activity) at that point is to self-destruct--and that impacts others as well as oneself. Addiction, by definition, results in the diminishment of judgment and freedom, increasingly so until there is no judgment or freedom remaining, only the requirement to satisfy the craving.

One of the least frequently expressed consequences of addiction but one that goes to the heart of addiction's de-humanizing effect is the fact that --whether through alcohol, drugs or specific activities--addiction prevents and/or interferes with the fulfillment of dreams. Dream cycles are interrupted in the addict. This, in turn, means that sleep is less sound, less complete, as the integrating capacity conferred by nightly dreams is lost. The result is a loss of clarity and a diminished short term memory. Fatigue follows, a loss of energy and, eventually, enthusiasm, precisely what is needed if one is to realize their "hopes and dreams".

This situation is confounded all the more if the individual in question is impoverished. To raise your condition in American society, especially if your educational level and enculturation is marginal, requires enormous energy. If that energy is being consumed by alcohol and drugs (and hence, not available for other purposes), then the likelihood of improving or even maintaining your station in life is diminished, dramatically so the farther you go down the socio-economic ladder.

In a recent study on homelessness conducted in the State of Nebraska, it was reported that 20% of the population in the State fell into the "near-homeless" category (as defined by inclusion in at least one of the following categories: living in a residence that violates housing codes and/or ordinances; living in overcrowded conditions; living with one's health or safety threatened by domestic violence; living in a short-term treatment program) whereas only .6% actually are (literally) homeless. Interestingly, according to this research, only 2.9% of the "near-homeless" were involved with "alcohol & other drug abuse" whereas 22.7% of the homeless were involved with alcohol and drugs.

The implication is clear (though it is only an implication as it is possible that the increased involvement with alcohol and drugs occurred after the individual became homeless). The likelihood of moving from the "near-homeless" to the "homeless" condition (or, to put it another way, the likelihood of moving toward a still greater degree of homelessness or "cut-offness") is much increased if one is involved with--addicted to--alcohol and drugs. They are lubricants, sure to increase the probability of a downward slide. If your energy and resources are going into and/or being dissipated by your drive first and foremost to satisfy your craving, then there will not be energy or resources remaining for the requirements of improving or even maintaining your "near-homeless" condition, nothing to back up and realize the dream of something better. Only a transition to something worse remains, a transition which, if it does occur, may add what are perceived as additional reasons for seeking the momentary relief afforded by alcohol and drugs.

Factor #4: Violence: Domestic & Random. If you put two monkeys in a cage and periodically shock one of them, then eventually the shocked monkey will begin biting, hitting and scratching the other innocent-by-standing monkey. So it is with most of us. With the increase in stress and pain, it becomes increasingly difficult not to pass the growing frustration on to others. Only the most integrated and well-balanced individual can keep the presence of mind that is required in order not to strike out at others. If the individual's integration is far from complete, if there is imbalance due to childhood abuse or the warping of perspective that drugs, alcohol and a variety of other addictions can and do produce, then as the irritations, fears and frustrations of everyday life increase, so too does the likelihood of violence. It is a sure-fire formula for producing violence between monkeys, mice and most men and women. The fact that the violence is released (often times) against spouse and offspring--the very people who in moments of reflection the perpetrator says he or she values most--is a mystery. It is rooted in the perpetrator's history and perhaps our animal natures, and the fact that it is seldom transcended in favor of "human values" points to the emergency under which the individual feels himself to be operating. When it occurs, this phenomenon--this violence--for however long it lasts, represents a complete loss of contact with the value of life.

In the same study quoted above, it was found that only 3.6% of the "near-homeless" were involved with "domestic violence" whereas 24.7% of the homeless were so involved. As with alcohol and drugs, the implication would seem to be that if you are near-homeless and also involved with or inclined toward domestic violence, then your chances of becoming homeless are much increased. And why wouldn't that be so? Again, the very energy and focus required to maintain, let alone improve, your condition is dissipated through rage and then, following the rage, through self-hate.

As for the random violence associated with modern life, from whence does it come? From the factors already discussed to which we now must add poverty, overcrowding, the media's celebration of violence, the scapegoating, cowardice and fear implicit in racism, ethnocentrism and sexism and finally, the class system itself. To be born poor and then disadvantaged by the absence of any kind of enlightened guidance from family or community . . . to be damaged by physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse and then abandoned to peers and adolescents (also damaged) for training in the art of human relations . . . to be an under-class Black/Hispanic/Caucasian at a loss to unravel the secrets of the middle and upper classes and yet unable to blot out the images of advantage and abundance that seem always beyond reach . . . to wrap these factors in the soothing effect of alcohol and drugs as the electronic media announces that violence is the coolest, hippest way of gaining status and resolving conflict . . . and then, finally, to mix all of this inside the lower, overly-crowded compartments of America's class structure . . . is it any wonder that there is extreme violence in America, both random and domestic? The wonder is that there is not more.

If violence, whether random or domestic, results in incarceration, then that is merely homelessness (certainly, cut-offness) of a different stripe, an attempt to interrupt the chain of violence. But the conditions that fostered the violence in the first place remain--and so, for a percentage of those exposed to such conditions, individuals who lack for whatever reason the restraint required to not take it out on others, the violence continues. Society is the victim but so, too, are those who perpetrate the violence. The inability to channel the anger and frustration into acts that liberate and instead, to be driven, thrashing and mad, into acts that destroy is at the heart of the matter . . . for all of us. For the disadvantaged, however, the unschooled and impoverished, the pressure, on balance, is more extreme and the capacity to deal with it less developed. Violence is a symptom signaling the presence of a dis-ease, an imbalance, a toxic condition that is the effect of numerous causes. Until the underlying conditions causing this dis-ease are addressed, the imbalance will persist, and will remain the cause of numerous, compounding effects.

Factor #5: Cultural Values. Behind it all, however, may be something more. Behind the homelessness and the various factors that promote or accompany it--it might be argued--is a movement which, however necessary it may have been as a phase in the evolution of Western life, and however necessary--if at all--it may prove to be to other developing cultures, is now signaling, via the phenomena we have been discussing, the very limits of its usefulness as a driving and sustaining philosophy of life. Materialism; the secularization of culture. The notion that all that matters is matter, including ourselves--and that through the material, material existence finds the only fulfillment available to it. However unanticipated it may have been, this philosophy seems to have resulted in the de-valuing of life; or, to put it differently, this philosophy--through its enormous success, at least by some measures--has put in stark relief, via the "symptoms" discussed above, what it is incapable of including, or ensuring; namely, a valuing of life, human life, but life overall--first and foremost.

The "survival impulse" made it natural that we would turn to whatever promised the security that eluded all but the most privileged in society. That promise, according to futurist Willis Harman, came in the form 1) of science, with its increasing power to predict and control, and 2) a capitalist economy, with its invitation to personal wealth through free enterprise. With science came the wherewithal to transform raw materials into goods that sustained life and offered protection against the vicissitudes of what often seemed like an indifferent nature. With capitalism came the engine--the incentive system--whereby the individual could be rewarded for the effort to create goods and provide services. The result, over time, was that more people came to enjoy an increasingly higher "standard of living" -- with every reason to think that everyone might eventually jump on board.

In the early 1970's, Buckminster Fuller, after fifty years of careful study, wrote that the "critical path" has been completed, all is now known and/or has been invented necessary to make the world work for everyone. According to Fuller, the wherewithal is here. From that point forward (early 70's), it was a matter of will--with greed, ignorance, fear and inertia standing in the way.

Fuller would not be surprised--given the obstacles (i.e., greed, ignorance, etc.)--that now, twenty-five years later, one is hard put to conclude that the world is "working" for more people. Readily, the argument can be made that the world is nearer a crisis of profound proportions, whether environmental, political or economic. And why?

According to Harman, by the middle of the 20th century, science had become "the only generally recognized cognitive authority", one effect of which was the eroding of "religious understandings upon which (was based) the entire moral and ethical structure of Western society." Capitalism only seemed to work, he argued, because its negative social and environmental impacts remained localized, and because for some period of time it operated under the "overarching framework of ethical and moral principles based in religious worldviews and traditions." As the hold of those frameworks eroded, as materialism came to hold sway, modern society began to reveal the damage that could be done--increasingly--by an unrestrained amoral "ism" (of whatever stripe).

In his book, The Truants, William Barrett comes from another direction to the same conclusion. In his search for the "modern element in modern literature," he notes that the modern writer "is frightened by . . . the vision of a world stripped of value . . . " and then adds " . . . I do know--and I think most students of intellectual history know--what is the large overriding framework within which (modern) literature is written. It is the continuing secularization of our culture and the gradual withdrawal of God (whatever we may choose to mean by that term) that have been going on in the West since the seventeenth century. For Nietzsche, this disappearance of God is the paramount event in Western history, indeed, in the history of mankind, beside which all other events like wars and revolutions pale into relative insignificance."

The point is made in still another way by Terance and Dennis McKenna in their book, Invisible Landscape. "Western humans," they argue, "have lost their sense of unity with the cosmos and with the transcendent mystery within themselves." It is this absence of any felt contact with something larger and the "chance for meaning" it implies that is the concern. Without the organizing influence of an "ultimate concern," an overarching framework in which the part finds itself in creative and contingent rapport with the whole, there can be no reason (or not much of one) or justification for transcendent behavior, no reason to see the well-being of the part enhanced through the preservation of the whole.

To put it still another way, materialism--as a governing philosophy--is simply not big enough. The mirror it constructs is not large enough to capture and reflect our complete image. Too much is excluded. As a consequence, to the extent that we take the reflected image as so, we define ourselves and others as less than we (or they) are. The primary exclusion, of course, is the spiritual or the sacred or the moral/ethical, some ultimate, organizing concern that makes available a compelling and potentially felt rationale for the transcendence of selfish part for social whole .

Without this element in the equation, without a sense of the sacred, a sense of the sanctity of life, this element that connects us to (perhaps even defines) our humanity and makes possible an allegiance to Awareness, or to Evolution, or to the Species as a whole, without this, individuals lack the psychic leverage with which to dislodge the greed, fear and narrow self-interest that holds in place the current world order.

As a prevailing and/or guiding philosophy, materialism is not large enough. While it was influential in sculpting the modern world, it now is an impediment to the world that could follow if a deeper and more generous view were in its place. And while capitalism may prove to have the been the most effective way of exploiting the possibilities of a materialistic world view, there is evidence that socialism and communism--when they too lack a guiding ethical framework--need not take a back seat. The deeper problem is a materialism lacking its ethical core, stripped of any higher or transcendent dimension, separated--as they say in the East--from the ground of being, and however actualized, such a materialism is disenfranchising. It results in homelessness, homelessness of the spirit and for many, by the direct and indirect means discussed above, homelessness of the body and family. It is a source of the "cut-offness" we have been discussing. All of the factors surrounding and contributing to homelessness, from child abuse to the break-up of the family to alcoholism, drug addiction, and violence, to the structural factors that may underlie them--poverty, class to caste structure, the "isms" associated with race, ethnicity and gender, all of these may simply be the fraying ends of a worldview at the end of its usefulness as a philosophy of life. That's why homelessness--as well as crime, alcoholism, pollution, etc.--are measures of socio-cultural toxicity, signs of drift-collision-and-crack-up, feedback from the culture to the culture on the importance of changing direction and restoring balance. The question now--if any of this is so--is how.

 

BUILDING A MORE CONSCIOUS CULTURE

Ignorance and fear are the primary obstacles to enlightenment, so say the enlightened. Either we do not know what we are doing, or we are afraid to do otherwise. Awareness, many have argued, is the key. What we can and must do, to echo the sentiments of philosopher John David Garcia, is everything imaginable and ethical to increase and deepen the awareness of all people.

If we collectively become aware of the problems and unethical conditions existing in our culture and in our community and elect to do nothing, then that is who and what we are. However, to conclude that we are less than we had hoped before we have been made aware of our situation is to judge ourselves prematurely. The first task is to make ourselves aware, increasingly aware, of the condition of our collective condition. If, after that, we choose to do nothing then we, indeed, are a self-destructive lot with a capacity for evolutionary and spiritual growth far more limited than previously hoped.

What follows are three proposals designed to raise awareness and foster ethical decision-making. When implemented fully, they encourage personal responsibility, cooperation, innovation and accountability; in this way, helping us aim the larger community (and its many organizations) in a direction consistent with our growth as individuals (and as a species). To a considerable degree, the intent of these proposals is to "enlarge the mirror", permitting us to see with less and less distortion (and deniability) ourselves reflected in the workplaces, organizations and neighborhoods of the community we inhabit, i.e., the community and its prevailing culture as feedback on who we are and what we have chosen to value.

Ken Wilber, writer, philosopher and proponent of an integral approach to human development, has discussed at length what he calls the dialectic of progress. By this he means that every social/cultural/evolutionary advance is accompanied by problems that are unique to it, problems that emerge with it, problems that cannot be solved at the same level as the advance. In order to solve the new problems, the current level (from which the problems emerge) must be "transcended" as these new problems can only be solved at a higher level. In other words, another advance is required. This, he and others have argued, is the engine that drives social and cultural evolution.

The three proposals presented in this essay facilitate the transition to a new level--a more advanced level, a more integrated level. They lubricate the transcendence though they do not forecast--in any detailed way--the "look" of the new level. At base, they are proposals (or interventions) designed to foster individual empowerment through the promotion of awareness, ethical decision-making and creativity. They increase the likelihood that something better will evolve (without prescribing its form). As proposals, they have the advantage of being simple to understand and relatively inexpensive. Though they are not a cure-all, they nevertheless--other things being equal--should lead to a place increasingly hospitable, a place where homelessness, along with the loss of "at-homeness", is minimized by virtue of an increased awareness of the connection between individual choice and collective good.

Proposal #1: The Quality of Life Report. Proposal #1 takes the form of a yearly report to the entire community on the health of the community; a clearly laid out, simple to understand newsletter/bulletin/report in which is displayed the graphs, and hence the trends, of every measure related to the health and vitality of the community. Also included would be simple, concise statements of the policy/practice currently in place with respect to the issues being measured along with ratings from various community constituencies concerning the adequacy of the community's response to the issue (i.e., ratings from the existing administration--city and county, from the opposition party, from special interest groups with expertise concerning the issue, etc.).

In addition, an explanation both of what each measure means and of how it is collected would be included, as would a listing of those sponsoring the report. Hopefully, sponsorship would be broadly based since such a report and reporting system would be in the long term interest of nearly every group or sector of the community. It would seem equally possible for this to be a private, for-profit enterprise as for it to be a not-for-profit enterprise. There are only two essential requirements. First, that the data be reliable--that if someone else collected the same information by the same means they would get the same results. The allegiance of the report must be to the community as a whole, to producing a clear and reliable picture of that community every twelve months, and to making sure that neither politics nor special interests--of whatever stripe--hold sway. And second, that the report receive the widest possible dissemination. It should be available at no charge in every Laundromat, bar, grocery, convenience store, pharmacy, school, place of business, government office, etc.; free to be picked up, discarded and picked up again as a convenient, on-going reference.

There are a number of questions that might come to mind concerning this report. First, why a report at all, doesn't the newspaper and/or the local electronic media provide the same thing? The answer is no. News services may report the same information but not in a way that allows perspective to evolve. To a large extent, the "news" is that which bubbles to the surface and then is gone--with special focus on the unlikely. It is the low probability event that makes the news, the ghastly, the ceremonial, occasionally the heart-warming, always the shocking, a daily mosaic from which the health and direction of the community must be intuited. The newspaper and electronic media are supplements to a document absent in most, if not all, communities; namely, an annual Quality of Life Report. Such a report anchors the members of the community to the fundamental measures of community life, the measures that relate to the survival and vitality of the whole community. With this report, the real meaning to the community of specific events can be judged. Further, with this report, the community can be assured of the "news" that is vital to its preservation; in this way, the citizenry's right to know is honored regardless of what whim, fancy or special interest happens to be driving the local media.

Second, the measures themselves, what should they be? And how many? The answer to the second question is: No more than is necessary. It is vital that this report remain simple to understand and easy to read. At the same time, there should be a measure for every important subsystem of the community. The point, by analogy, is this: a community is a living system and like a living system no single measure can be trusted as a total reflection of its "health". Multiple measures are required. Consider the weakness of a conclusion concerning one's health based on the one-time measure of heart rate. Fluctuations in heart rate may lead to one conclusion at one moment and to another conclusion at the next. However, were the conclusion to be based not just on the one-time measure of heart rate but on several ongoing measures (e.g., analysis of blood, EEG rhythms, muscle tension, urine analysis, etc.), then such a conclusion could be drawn with much greater confidence. It has been known for years that multiple, continuous measures are needed when attempting to infer with any confidence a conclusion about something as complex as the state of one's health. So, too--indeed, more so--the health of one's community. Several variables must be monitored simultaneously and continuously. In this way the overall health of the community can be inferred; if not from the sudden decline of one or two measures (as in the "canary in the mine" paradigm) then from the convergence of several measures at once.

As for the measures themselves, they should be determined by the community in conjunction with experts in the fields of Biology, Ecology, Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Community Development, Urban Planning, Agriculture, etc., and they (the measures) should be open to modification. However, having said that, it would seem impossible to have a meaningful instrument without the following categories and perhaps many of the following measures:

Biological Environment - measures on the quality of the air, land and water (i.e., the "commons"). Obviously, these measures, like all that follow, are complex and technical but should be worked with until a simple-to-understand index of each is available. It is also the case that the quality of the air, the land and the water vary throughout the community so it is important that measures be taken up-stream and down, up-wind and down, from the most sensitive, critical and telling locations in the community so that an accurate picture can be displayed.

Crime - Crimes Against Persons (domestic violence, assault, murder, sexual assault, robbery); Crimes Against Property - burglary, auto theft, etc.); White Collar Crime (fraud, embezzlement, etc.); Drug/Alcohol-related incidents; etc.

Discrimination - Reports/findings of discrimination cases involving age, race, gender, disability, etc.; .

Education - Number enrolled in various levels and forms of schooling (grade school, middle school, high school, community college, technical training, colleges, universities); Graduation rates; Standardized testing results, Literacy measures; etc.

Employment - Unemployment; Under-employment; local employer needs; Job Training placement rates; etc.

Food: Production and Availability - Quality, cost and availability of food; also an "environmentally-friendly" assessment of food production and processing practices.

Health Care - Emergency room visits; Infant mortality; Suicide; Immunization rates; Blood Bank levels; Drug/Alcohol- treatment cases; AIDS/HIV cases; Causes of death; cost; # without health coverage; etc.

Housing - Caliber and availability of housing stock in all income brackets.

Prison Populations - By race and by crime, . . .

Energy: Production and Availability - Quality, cost and availability of various energy sources; "environmentally-friendly" assessment of energy production practices; etc.

Poverty - Percent of population/percent of households at poverty level; # of SI Recipients; # of AFDC Recipients; # of Food Stamp Recipients; # of WIC Recipients; Section 8 Waiting List.

Homelessness - Shelter & transitional housing census; Permanent supportive housing census, etc.

A given community's Quality of Life Report may look very different from the one derived from these measures. Indeed, the measures may vary from one community to the next. The point, however, is that a community without such a report is like a ship without a guidance system--in the dark and unable to steer. We must know on a continuously updated basis whether or not--as a result of the practices we choose to embrace--we are heading in a life-enhancing or potentially self-destructive direction. This is the function of the Quality of Life Report. Without it, we cannot plan as confidently or evaluate the results of our initiatives as holistically as we can with it.

 

Proposal #2: The Development of Specialty Networks. Specialty networks (they also are known as "responsibility networks" or "focus forums") are collaborations and partnerships held together by a common mission and anchored to a collection of quality improvement practices. They can form around any issue where the community believes collaboration, efficiency and continuous quality improvement are needed. At base, a specialty network is a collection of programs and organizations attempting ever more effectively to convert community resources into practices that benefit the community as a whole.

Connecting this proposal to proposal #1, one might imagine a specialty network in place and operating for each measure in the Quality of Life Report--each specialty network assuming responsibility for the community's performance on its (the specialty network's) particular measure.

Appendix A (not included here) contains a schematic entitled, "Community Development Through the Use of Specialty Networks". A review of this schematic clarifies the way in which a specialty network might work. (Note that the Quality of Life Report is included in this schematic. The reason for this is that a specialty network cannot be complete without an informed public assigning value and proportioning resources to each specialty network, and doing so in accord with a growing understanding of community-wide needs. The Quality of Life Report helps provide this understanding.)

Currently, the specialty network model depicted in the attached schematic is being applied with considerable success to the issue of homelessness. (This is one of the reasons this essay was begun with a consideration of homelessness.) The key features of the Specialty Network Model are as follows:

· First and foremost, a specialty network (as it is defined by the schematic in Appendix A) strives to make program funding contingent on program effectiveness. Increasingly, to receive funding, programs must demonstrate their ability to accomplish their mission. Not just any mission, however, but one that members of their profession consider relevant. In this way, funding is made contingent on the program's ability to become an effective means to what are deemed meaningful ends.

· Second, with a specialty network, funding is made contingent on collaboration, and on the practices that sustain collaboration. If a program desires funding to address a given issue, then it must document its involvement with and support of other programs addressing the same issue.

· Third, funding is made contingent on a program's willingness to embrace "continuous quality improvement". Thus, if a program desires funding, it must document its willingness to engage in those practices that make it increasingly accountable to those it serves (i.e., clients, colleagues, funding source, community). These "practices" are built into the model (i.e., Client Feedback, Colleague/Community Feedback, Quality Assurance /Technical Assistance Panels, Monthly Progress Reports, Outcome Reports, etc.).

· Fourth, with a specialty network, the strategy for most effectively addressing the problem under consideration is made the province of those closest to the problem. Experts in the field, from theoreticians to front-line field workers, in collaboration with one another and in dialogue with all relevant constituencies, evolve and propose the programs and approaches most likely to impact the problem area. It is they, and not a distant funding source, who determine the order in which proposed initiatives should be implemented and funded.

· Fifth, funding sources--by means of the specialty network model--are given the opportunity to fund proposed improvements/solutions that are arrived at by processes that build community. This permits the community to "win" even if the proposed "solution" proves ineffectual because here, before all, funding supports and reinforces community development, i.e., reinforcing collaboration, networking, dialogue, responsiveness to feedback and the other characteristics of the specialty network model that lead to a strengthened community.

· Sixth, by means of a specialty network, an expanded understanding and awareness of the issue being addressed is made available to all involved (client, program, profession, community). The Monthly Progress Report, the Information Management System, the Directory of Programs and Services, the Feedback processes, virtually every component of the model serves the cause of clarity, education and awareness. This benefits all constituencies by enhancing their ability to make responsible, enlightened decisions.

In short, by means of this model, responsible, accountable, issue-oriented collaborations are established and through them, strategies for serving the community are developed and implemented. Over time, by means of feedback, analysis and dialogue, effective strategies are identified and then supported (via renewal funding, for example) while those that are ineffective are re-directed or disbanded. In this way, the specialty network model helps to evolve the quality of community services and in turn, the quality of community life.

Proposal #3: Ethics Training. Proposal #3 calls for every program (or organization) involved in any one of the specialty networks (or otherwise willing to do so) to implement an ethics training program within itself, one of their own choosing but one that goes well beyond the merely legal (as important as that is) to a consideration of "optimal ethical performance." Such a training program can be developed by the organization itself or purchased and implemented with outside trainers and facilitators. The important point, however, is that it must permit the organization to accomplish the following: 1) create an ongoing dialogue on ethics, 2) include everyone in the organization in the ethics training experience (& resulting dialogue), 3) challenge leaders, managers and supervisors within the organization "to be the change they expect" (Gandhi), 4) invite everyone--not on a one time basis but periodically--to review and examine their performance in the light of their organization's ethics code. Such a program, if implemented fully, would hurt no one, may enlighten many and could do much to benefit the overall performance of the program or organization.

For those who say that an organization has no business involving itself with ethics training, that such training belongs in the home, in the church, synagogue or mosque, we would counter by saying that--as a matter of fact--the organization has a responsibility to involve itself with ethics training, a responsibility to itself, to those who comprise it, and also to society. Why? First, because today's work force is a diverse one, with individuals coming from a variety of settings where different codes are followed in order to achieve survival and success. The organization has an obligation to itself to eliminate the confusion brought on by conflicting codes by presenting the one code it believes relates most to its survival and prosperity. In this way, the organization serves itself. To the extent that the organization's code prescribes a clearly elaborated work ethic (as the requirements of organizational success would seem to ensure), then all members of the organization who lacked this knowledge would be benefited (i.e., "readied" to succeed should they choose to leave the organization for other work settings). In this way, the ethics initiative serves not only the organization but its members and the larger community as well.

The second reason that organizations should involve themselves in the identification and training of those ethics they believe most serve them is so individuals can know whether or not the organization stands for values and practices the individual believes worth serving, worth embracing. The individual has a right to know (in advance for those contemplating joining the organization) whether or not--in their view--the organization is worthy of the life they will be giving it. With this information, the individual can choose to be "in" or "out"; and if in, to make a conscious commitment to ethically interact with the requirements of the organization's vision. Only with this kind of conscious and enlightened commitment can the organization test the adequacy of its code and the reasonableness of its vision.

Again, the only proviso here is that organizations select/construct and train ethics codes well above the merely legal; not "stay out of jail" codes but codes that address optimal ethical performance, optimal conduct, conduct that calls for the full development of human potential (so that everyone regardless of their position in the organization can find room for improvement). Ethics codes of this sort are leadership development codes; training involving these codes is leadership training.

Thus, proposal #3 calls for an active attempt on the part of organizations in all sectors (profit, non-profit, educational, etc.) to anchor work and organizational life to an ethical framework. Without this step, organizations (and the individuals who comprise them) are less restrained from doing harm, less likely to think expansively, holistically, with the whole community in mind; more likely to pursue the short term goal that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Hopefully, and this is the intent of the proposal, organizations will evolve and/or select ethics training programs that steep the organization (and its members) in a consideration of those practices that promote the ethical growth of all concerned--individual, organization, larger community; practices that promote an ethical awareness in the individual while establishing within the organization an ethical culture. Such a culture would minimize organizational self-destructiveness (fraud, libel, theft, negligence, abuse, inertia) while at the same time maximizing organizational prospects for survival and prosperity. The more organizations of this sort in a given community, the better; the more organizations of this sort linked together through specialty networks, the better still. The result--eventually--is a larger community benefiting from the spill-over that comes as individuals begin to insist on the presence in the community of those standards they have labored to establish in their organizations and workplaces.

 

THE OVERALL STRATEGY

In A Brief History of Everything and again in Sex, Ecology and Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Ken Wilber makes the point that is at the center of our strategy for community development and cultural change. Writes Wilber:

"Every society has a certain center of gravity, . . . around which the culture's ethics, norms, rules, and basic institutions are organized, and this center of gravity provides the basic cultural cohesion and social integration for that society.

This cultural center of gravity acts like a magnet on individual development. If you are below the average level, it tends to pull you up. If you try to go above it, it tends to pull you down. The cultural center of gravity acts as a pacer of development--a magnet--pulling you up to the average expectable level of consciousness development. Beyond that, you're on your own, and lots of luck, because now the magnet will try to drag you down-- . . . "
(Wilber - A Brief History . . . , p. 139)

By extension, we might say that every organization (or organizational culture) has a center of gravity, a center-point or standard of ethical performance. If you--as a member of the organization--perform below that standard, then the forces of the status quo operate on you so as to "pull up" your performance, raising it to the existing standard sooner than would otherwise occur. If, on the other hand, you are performing above the standard then you do so at considerable cost to yourself. Though you (via your performance) point the organization in the direction it should evolve, you do so in the face of forces that otherwise "pull down" your performance. This effect--of the organization's center of gravity on individual performance--is graphically illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - depicting the organization's "center of gravity" which acts on individual performance like a magnet. Each "X" represents a different individual in the organization.

 

This notion--of a center of gravity that acts like a magnet on individual development--is fundamental to the community development strategy presented here. We believe (and this is implicit in the strategy), that it is the duty of leadership to do all that it can do in order to raise the center of gravity. In our view, this is leadership's responsibility; and, as well, the measure of good leadership. By raising an organization's center of gravity, leadership 1) serves the members of the organization (by inviting out their full potential, by rewarding aspiration, by no longer encouraging--through neglect--the "the flight of talent"); 2) serves the organization's customers and consumers (by ensuring quality services and/or defect-free products); and 3) serves the larger community by providing the community with one ever-improving, increasingly ethical, creative "unit".

The proposals identified in the previous section (The Quality of Life Report, the Specialty Network Model, Ethics Training) are intended to work together so as to aid leadership in its effort to raise an organization's center of gravity; and to make it possible for everyone--whether among the organization's leadership or not--to do their part.

Of particular relevance to this task is proposal #3. The focus of the ethics training initiative is on the teaching of those (optimal performance) ethics that most directly effect an organization's center of gravity. Indeed, an organization's center of gravity is a reflection of the degree to which such ethics are practiced. Individuals behaving in accord with (optimal performance) ethics do their part by raising their own performance. That is their responsibility. This in turn raises the overall standard of the organization, i.e., its center of gravity. Leadership, by continually re-visiting these ethics, by continually responding to their requirements, ensures a continuous raising of the organization's center of gravity. (As indicated above, that is their responsibility.) The effect on the organization (of leadership's--indeed, each person's--ongoing involvement with the requirements of the organization's optimal performance ethics) is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Impact of "Ethics Training" intervention on a given organization's "center of gravity". Each "X" represents a member of the organization.

 

Figure 3 displays this logic taken to the next level. Here is displayed the center of gravity around which is organized the various programs attempting to address the problem of, let's say, homelessness. With this step we move from a focus on a specific organization (as in figure 2) to a consideration of the many organizations addressing the same issue. Again, there is a center of gravity. And, just as the center of gravity of a specific organization rises as individuals within the organization raise their performance, so, too, (other things being equal) the center of gravity of a "network of organizations" rises whenever specific organizations within that network raise their performance. It is at this level that proposal two, the Specialty Network Model, comes into play. This model, with its arrangement of information, feedback and incentive systems, creates a coherence at the larger level that makes (in a useful way) one organization of the many organizations. The Specialty Network Model creates an arrangement of contingent, accountable relationships where, hopefully, the dynamic referred to by systems' theorists as "dependent co-arising" can occur (i.e., where each unit finds advantage in considering and in many cases, working for, the advantage of other units). In other words, the Specialty Network Model (coupled with ethics training) works with a network of organizations so as to raise the center of gravity around which that network is organized.

Figure 3: Impact of "Specialty Network" intervention on a given specialty network's "center of gravity". Each "O" represents an organization in the specialty network.

 

Figure 4 illustrates the final level (for the purposes of this essay) to which this logic is taken, the level of the community as a whole. In figure 4, we move from a "network of organizations" (as depicted in figure 3) to the larger community which is, itself, comprised of many such networks; not only the network of organizations that focuses, say, on homelessness but also those networks that focus on health care, literacy, addiction, the environment, child care, adult day care, low and moderate income housing, job training, employment, etc. To all such networks the Specialty Network/Ethics Training intervention applies. The operating assumption remains unchanged: as the standard of a given network rises, so too (at least by degree) does the center of gravity for the entire community and thus, one might argue, so too the overall quality of community life.

A specialty network for homelessness in which the center of gravity is slowly but surely rising, along side another specialty network for senior housing making the same effort, along side still another network for job training doing the same, not only improves services in those specific areas but also contributes to the raising of the quality of life in the community as a whole.

Figure 4: Impact of "Ethics Training plus Specialty Network" intervention on the larger community's "center of gravity". Each "sn" represents a different specialty network in the community.

 

This, then, is the overall strategy for community development: to work with organizations, and networks of organizations (specialty networks), to raise their center of gravity and in the process, raise the center of gravity for the entire community, or city, or region. The course-correcting mechanism in this strategy is proposal #1, the Quality of Life Report. With this report, the location of the larger community's center of gravity is monitored, putting specialty networks in a position to adjust and evolve (to the benefit of the larger community) their strategies and interventions.

CONCLUSION

Throughout his life, Buckminster Fuller argued on behalf of what he called "comprehensive anticipatory design science." By this he meant, the application of empirically-derived principles to the design of systems supportive of "livingry" (as opposed to "weaponry", his terms) in an ongoing effort to make the world work for all people. He believed that sufficient resources exist, including "know-how," which--if put to the task--could create a living arrangement supportive of an acceptable, indeed, high standard of living for all of earth's inhabitants. This was not a naive man, nor was his analysis in any way casual. He deeply believed that there is enough to go around, that Malthus was in error, that scarcity--as a matter of fact--is fiction. This realization, he argued, is overdue, the notion that only the few can win while, of necessity, the many must lose a dangerously outdated notion. He also believed that the earth is a spaceship and that it is irresponsible not to inventory resources, monitor their use and, in general, consciously and creatively respond to feedback concerning not just the maintenance but also the quality of life experienced by all "passengers."

Compared to Fuller's vision, the proposals in this essay are modest. They are, however, intended to be in line with Fuller's notion of making the world work for more and more people without "disadvantaging" any along the way. For example, in order to make a community "work" in a sustained way for more and more of its citizens, it is helpful (perhaps essential) to have an understanding of how it is working currently. Thus, a Quality of Life Report. As indicated earlier, such a report will provide the "trendings" indicative of the direction in which the community is heading; indicative also of the community's capacity to adapt, correct course, manifest its values.

Similarly, in order to heighten the capacity of the community to steer in the direction it desires, it is helpful to have "specialty networks," collaborations where communication among the relevant parties and the capacity for a coordinated response to certain problems is greatly enhanced. As the phrase implies, specialty networks "specialize" and in so doing provide communities with an understanding and readiness to act--with respect to one specific problem after another--that they otherwise would not have. When the "craft" that is the local community veers off course or fails to move with sufficient speed then--in many instances--it is to its array of specialty networks that the community can turn for the "ruddering" and "steam" required.

Finally, given that communities are made up of organizations, and organizations of individuals, the ethics training proposal helps to expand ethical awareness and in so doing, raise the standard to which personal and organizational conduct is held. This--it is believed--will result in less conscious and unconscious sabotaging of self and others. One result is that organizations will be able to increase their capacity to do as they intend. Their center of gravity will rise.

It's here that we begin to glimpse part of what it means for a community to "work" for more and more of its citizens. Currently, there are practices in programs, in schools, in workplaces, in organizations of all sorts that "enable" dependency, that support the denial of personal responsibility, that dishonor those involved by presuming life-long incompetence. These practices debilitate those they contact. They are, in fact, practices that do not "work" for the community. Instead, they "disable" the individual's capacity for community life. They are practices that need to be replaced by practices that do the reverse, by practices that encourage independence, self-sufficiency, competence, the assumption of personal responsibility. Such practices honor those involved and in time strengthen the fabric of society. That is the aim of the proposals put forward in this essay: to expand awareness with the hope of aligning conduct with the ethical requirements of self, organization and community. Ignorance, drift, other factors that may be suggested serve less readily then as excuses for the toxicity loose in the culture. Increasingly, as we see the relationship between personal choice and the quality of community life, we are rendered without excuse, with fewer and fewer factors other than ourselves to blame. This is a liberating condition, one that will show us who we are. Hopefully it will invite the flowering of local cultures anchored to achievement, inclusiveness, creativity and the value of life.

Homelessness began this essay because it is one measure of community and cultural health; and is, itself, the result of several factors that also might be considered measures of community and cultural health (addiction, violence, child abuse, etc.). Homelessness--in both its literal and figurative sense--provided a point of entry. As suggested at the beginning, however, many other points of entry exist; crime, pollution, health care, poverty, educational level, to name a few. All serve as indicators of community health, and many of these--perhaps all--would have led us to the same set of proposals.

In the end, a given culture, a given community, reflects the consciousness of those who comprise it. And consciousness--it might be argued--is measured most surely, most meaningfully, by conduct. The proposals in this essay are designed to work together and in working together to effect conduct in accord with an expanded and expanding awareness. By this means we raise the center of gravity--in ourselves, in our organizations, in our communities--so that the community and its culture can work for more people, with less potential wasted, with a legitimate sense of possibility extended to all. The three proposals are intended to support conscious, responsible development, human development, as well as (indeed, at the base of) neighborhood, community and cultural development so that fewer and fewer of us have any reason for not being "at home" in our communities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several individuals read drafts of this paper and offered feedback on various sections and/or at one time or another offered their views on the specific issues covered. I particularly am grateful in this regard to Mike Saklar (who led the Planning Department's effort with respect to the creation of a viable "Continuum of Care"), Chris Wayne (who suggested many of the measures included in the proposed Quality of Life Report), David Tollefsrud, Jim Anderson, Kit Diesing, Marion Todd, Thom Vaccaro, Roger Gipple, and Dale Stover.

The sections on homelessness and, in particular, the section on specialty networks grew out of work with the Omaha Area Continuum of Care for the Homeless (OACCH), a three county specialty network consisting of well over one hundred and eighty programs providing services to homeless and near homeless individuals and families. The leadership provided OACCH by its first three chairs was critical to its development, i.e., Thom Vaccaro (Salvation Army) who labored tirelessly to establish OACCH as an effective, understood and respected part of the larger community . . . creating in the process a state-wide awareness of OACCH's strategy and approach to the problem of homelessness, and Chris Carlson (Catholic Charities) and Gene Klein (Family Service), both of whom carried forward the difficult but critical work of both managing and evolving an increasingly effective Continuum of Care.

Finally, this paper was written while I was employed by the Omaha City Planning Department. I am very grateful to Bob Peters, Planning Department Director, and Mike Saklar, Community Development Manager, for their encouragement, professionalism and ongoing support.