“Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth,” Muhammad Ali once said.
It appears that some folks are paying more rent than others. It’s unlikely, I suppose, that evictions from these “rooms here on earth” will follow.
I am impressed by the people in every community who get engaged — who see the wheels of society grinding slowly and realize that their energy is a valued and necessary input.
In Red Deer, Alberta, where my roots go back about 50 years, I recently attended an impressive evening for the Mayor’s Recognition Awards. It was impressive not because of any particular pomp, ceremony, or artifice. It was impressive because the room was filled with hundreds of citizens each of whom had invested hours, days, even years of personal energy into making the community better. Young adults, mid-career professionals, middle-aged parents, senior citizens — supporting causes that ranged from hospitals to drop-in centres to search-and-rescue teams and urban gardens.
Looking around the room, I wondered where that city would be without its true public servants: the people who get involved because it’s in their nature and they care. Beyond the room, of course, are many more who deserve our recognition. People who perhaps don’t volunteer for formal organizations but pick up the slack wherever they see it, helping out neighbours and neighbourhoods.
As impressed as I am with these people, I must admit I am somewhat baffled by the majority who seem to assume that community-building will just get done for them. Many, of course, are at stages in their lives where immediate personal and family concerns are paramount. Fair enough.
But we know that, for most people, the day when they will turn off the TV or set down the game console or step back from their money-making business to walk down the street and lend a helping hand never comes.
It seems that Western society increasingly values independence, while devaluing collaborative, cooperative and community-based initiatives. I commented on this trend recently in two blog posts about libraries.
We want children to “stand on their own two feet.” We want user-pay systems in our public services, ignoring the broader community good that comes from shared resources.
Perhaps we need a different system of citizenship — one which requires everyone, regardless of place of birth, to apply for and qualify for citizenship papers. No, of course not. That would just create a new bureaucracy.
I hope that this is a pendulum that will swing back towards more community-based public service. An encouraging trend is ‘new urbanism,’ which values high density city environments with connected, interdependent citizens. New urbanism realizes that if we all just retreat into suburban garages with automatic doors and our private residence cocoons, then no one is left caring for our streets, parks, community centres — or one another. Community gardens, street parties, block garage sales — everything that brings people together builds our sense of shared responsibility.
And it may just be a case of self-selection, but I have found a community of energized, action-oriented people on Twitter — many with an interest in improving urban life.
How we interact in the urban environment is, after all, going to be a key to the future of our civilization, if for no other reason than the fact that we are increasingly an urbanized species. The communities that we create as we all come together in the world’s cities and mega-cities will be a direct reflection of how much personal energy we invest in our neighbourhoods and community organizations.
Photo Credit
“Hands Up” Wikipedia
Recent Lorne Daniel Articles:
- Walking Consultations: moving public engagement beyond opinions
- Murals, pride and history help prevent graffiti
- Striding Unfamiliar Streets
- The Scientific Map Of A Human
- Office Technology As Appliances
I definitely agree with your views on community service.
Unfortunately, higher density is not leading to more engaged community members. With my job I’ve had significant experience dealing with new single family home owners as they adjust to living in a new community. I am contacted to solve grade issues between new homes. When I ask if the person has contacted the person living next door that is the other side of the problem, many have not had any contact with their neighbour. I can’t imagine not being on a first name basis with my closest neighbours.
Higher density is in fact making this worse, because as we live on a smaller footprint with the same large lot attitudes, we infringe on the expectations of the people living around us. Some people do not have the skills to communicate and mediate problems. A few good examples are shared fences, fire pits (with smoke being the problem), noise, on street parking, garbage, etc.
This is slightly biased, because I am only contacted when there is a conflict between neighbours, and not when neighbours get together and solve the problem without involving me. But the trend is obvious. Our neighbourhoods, regardless of whether they have front garages or not, are becoming more isolated then ever.
Nobody lets their chilrden walk to school anymore. But I won’t get started on that right now!
Hi Gregg. I think that density itself may not be the issue – or certainly not the only issue. A key characteristic of friendly communities is having safe, friendly areas where people can informally and ‘accidentally’ interact – street cafes, stores with doors and windows opening onto the street, small parks, moveable public furniture, etc. Some cities are building new subdivisions where the design is still very suburban (which is based on cars and personal space) but the actual lots are smaller. Cities with very high densities (apartments, condos, retail, etc. all interconnected) can have a strong sense of community.
Overall, though, I agree that one challenge is that we seem to lack experience and skills in sharing. How many neighbourhoods have block parties or such anymore?
Thanks for this article, Lorne. It comes at a very appropriate time for me, feeling very pessimistic about my own community because, as you said, most people are occupied with the TV or game console or their money-making business… or focusing on immediate personal or family concerns.
Well, for those with a family, it’s even more important that they pay attention to what happens in their community (immediate and global) – at least if they want their kids to have any sort of decent world to raise their own families in. I think a lot of this “busyness” that people claim to feel is very self-imposed. They are choosing it.
I think one part of the problem is all of the distractions that you’ve mentioned. The other is our society’s attitude of “you can just move somewhere else.” When you know that your community is where you’ll always be, where your kids and your kids’ kids will always be (like traditional indigenous societies, or even most societies up until this last century), you care for it. But now, you can just move on – and no point investing energy in a community that you might be leaving in a couple of years.
Our mobile and digitally connected society means that people are distracted and pay attention mainly to very immediate and short-term things. It also means community is no longer centred on place. So why care for it? Very sad.
Jacqueline I think you’re right about the digital and other distractions. Our society makes it much easier for us to be entertained and be self-absorbed than was the case for previous generations.
You’re so right Lorne about the day never coming for people who say “one day”.
The desire (some would say compunction) to volunteer, give back and get involved does not depend on how busy we are, but rather on a particular view of what the world (our world) should look like. It is based in a deep seated belief that we can indeed effect change, in some small way.
Increasingly I see that my view of the world was shaped by my parents who moved to Ucluelet in the mid 1950s when it was completely isolated (no road out existed at the time).If anything was to be done (swimming lessons, recreation centre, arts council, curling club) the citizens, not government, had to make it happen. So, they did. My parents instilled a commitment to volunteering in me from an early age; it hasn’t gone away.
The question now would be, how do we mentor citizens today so that they feel their small actions of community building have meaning, count for something?
Thanks for your post.
Janis, you’re right that mentorship is a key. I think we sometimes forget to invest time in developing our potential community leaders. I remember being led through a number of community activities by our city’s first female city councillor – seeing her dedication instilled the sense that we all owe that energy to our communities.
Lorne, you’ve sounded the alarm with this post! Your observations are bang on. Makes me think of my neighbourhood association’s AGM that I attended earlier this week. Just a handful of people showed up. Yet, I consider it a great neighbourhood. Obviously the majority of folks are too invested with other things to get involved. Makes me wonder how many of them even consider there is a rent to pay (as you quote Ali…). Paying rent is a re-occuring activity. Most neighbourhood folks are present only when their self-interests are directly threatened = adhoc involvement. Having said all this, I too admit to often not being present (paying rent) – I do believe in the principle though and walking in that direction… Your post offers up some good suggestions how to pay rent.
Thanks Ben. Of course this is not a new trend – “Bowling Alone” really documented the shift – but it is troubling. As a self-described community activist, I have a sense that people can sometimes be engaged through skillful advocacy and leadership but I sure wish more would find genuine motivation internally.