Example 1: Deprivation Trap

Community practitioners can analyze undertakings by anchoring to the broad concept

of vulnerability as embodied in Robert Chamber’s Deprivation Trap. (Fig. 1). It is looking at
certain cycles such as, why is the health status poor? The health status is poor because the
women are illiterate. So why, are the women in the study, illiterate? This situation is linked
with their poverty status, their powerlessness, their isolation, and vice versa.

POWER-
LESSNESS

VULNERABILITY
ISOLATION

PHYSICAL
POVERTY WEAKNESS

Figure 1: Deprivation Trap and Poor Health Status

 According to Chambers (1993, pp 113-114), poverty contributes to physical
weakness through lack of food, small bodies, malnutrition leading to low immune response to
infections, and inability to reach or pay health services; to isolation because of the inability to
pay the cost of schooling, to buy a radio or a bicycle, to afford to travel to look for work, or to
live near the village center or a main road; to vulnerability through lack of assets to pay large
expenses or to meet contingencies; and to powerlessness because lack of wealth goes with
low status, as such the poor have no voice. The physical weakness of a household
contributes to poverty in several ways: through the low productivity of weak labor; through
the inability to cultivate larger areas, or to work longer hours; through lower wages paid to
women and to those who are weak; and through the withdrawal or weakening of labor
through sickness. It sustains isolation because of lack of time or energy to attend meetings or
to seek information, especially for women because children make travel difficult. It
accentuates vulnerability by limiting the ability to overcome a crisis through harder work,
new activities, or negotiations for help. It contributes to powerlessness through the lack of
time or energy for protest, organization, or political activities: sick and hungry people dare
not bargain hard. Isolation (lack of education, remoteness, being out of contact) sustains
poverty: services do not reach those who are remote; illiterates cannot read information of
economic value, and find it difficult to obtain loans. Isolation goes with physical weakness:
remote households may have a high level of migration of the able-bodied to towns or to other
rural areas. Isolation also accentuates vulnerability – remote marginal areas are more liable
to crop failures, and are less well provided with services to handle contingencies like famine
or sickness; illiterates also find it harder to register or acquire land and are more easily
cheated of it. And isolation means lack of contact with political leaders or with legal advice,
and not knowing what the powerful are doing. Powerlessness contributes to poverty in many
ways, not least through exploitation by the powerful. It limits or prevents access to resources
from the state, legal redress for abuses, and ability to dispute wage or interest rates; and it
entails weakness in negotiating the terms of distress sales, and only feeble influence on
government to provide services for the poorer people and places. It reinforces physical
weakness, because time and energy have to be devoted to queuing for access, because labor
obligations to patrons reduce labor available for household production and other earning; and
because relief food supplies in time of famine may never be obtained since people are
powerless to demand what is meant for them. Isolation is linked with powerlessness through
the inability of those who are powerless to attract government aid, schools, good staff, or
other resources. Powerlessness also makes the poor more vulnerable – to sudden demands
for the payment of loans, to threat of prosecution and fine or imprisonment, or to demands for
a bribe in a dispute.

Example 2: Emancipatory Actions

Poverty, education and social problems are inextricably linked to community

development concerns and cannot be addressed in isolation from each other. Development
workers are being challenged to care for clients who are socially, politically, and
economically disadvantaged. The model of emancipatory actions is derived from: Paulo
Freire- work concerning oppression and revolutionary action; Jurgen Habermas- concept of
emancipatory interests; and Katz’s- concept of synergistic community. The model is
presented as a practice in guiding caregivers and Development workers to begin choosing
actions that seek to help people FIGHT BACK from the depths of their despair, rather than
helping people cope and adapt to their oppression.

The goal of emancipatory actions framework is to help the oppressed and

disenfranchised persons gain freedom from people, ideology, or situation that helps them
cope with poverty. Community development practitioners should be helping people fight
back against the forces that maintain their homelessness, hopelessness and hunger. The
purpose is to theorize on the role of emancipation as a new type of caring for poverty-stricken
and oppressed clients through living, teaching, encouraging and activating emancipatory
behaviors, rather than relying heavily on the concepts of coping and adaptation.
Emancipatory interventions are provided to help development workers launch a new direction
toward freeing their clients, rather than herding them through an uncaring and disjointed
social service system.

Example 3: Theory of Revolutionary Action

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire discussed the choices society must be

responsible for: helping the younger generation direct the future’s course by breaking the
culture of silence (educate and facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the
logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it); and enhancing the culture of
freedom (help people question and critically examine the reality in which they live in and
help them to discover how to participate in the transformation of the world). For this to
happen, Freire calls for the use of the processes of Critical Reflection; Revolutionary Praxis;
and Continual Dialogic Commitment with those who are oppressed in order to promote
freedom and transformation of the current social reality, ultimately achieving humanization as
a permanent process.

In order to examine oppressive forces, one must look critically at the barriers and
actions that effect subordination of one group to another. According to Freire, most
oppressors hold onto their power until they are forced to yield to the demands of the
revolutionary forces, whether that be through negotiation or political action. An exchange of
power can then occur as a revolutionary moment, a brief moment in time when the oppressed
group takes power from the oppressor. Such system could not exist if the groups were not
well defined and if the suppressed group were not acquiescent to some extent to their
subordination.

The root word of oppression is “PRESS”. To be pressed is to be caught between as

among forces and barriers that are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or
prevent mobility or motion. An individual, group or class of people who exploits and
prescribes consciousness and behavior to certain powerless groups for its own self-interests to
be served is called the oppressor while individuals or groups who are exploited and prevented
from being authentically human due to having internalized the consciousness of the oppressor
is called the oppressed. This oppression and manipulation of oppressed people is done
through the use of suppressive actions that limit the quality and extent of education,
employment, economic security , health and social service possibilities by encouraging
conformity with the beliefs and values of the oppressor, keeping oppressed people divided
among themselves while periodically granting favors or small tokens.

There are BARRIERS to the OPPRESSED group’s ability to gain freedom such as:
internalization of the belief that the oppressor is right by virtue of his power; fear of taking
risks to achieve autonomy; an inclination to conform to ideals of the oppressor in order to
achieve the power of the oppressor; and the desire to affiliate self with a more powerful
group, believing that by stationing one’s self with others who are more politically and
emotionally advantaged one will achieve higher status and influence oneself, often at the
expense of the people and group to which one originally belongs.

In gaining emancipation, there should be people within oppressed and disfranchised

groups who recognize the existence of oppression and help people learn about the roots of
oppression and that together they value the group and its members; organize unified political
action; involve in critically examining frozen authority structures; participate in a continual
dialogic process with all actors, including the oppressor; create an empowering environment
for self and others; and demand egalitarian relationships with self and others.

Example 4: Synergy Paradigm

Katz describes the current ideologic mode of thinking in Western culture as based on
the Scarcity Paradigm and suggests the Synergy Paradigm be used instead. The Scarcity
Paradigm is a perception that all resources including the human resources of helping and
healing are scarce and that people and groups must compete for them. The adversarial nature
of this competition leads to the development of institutional bureaucracies in order top justify
why one set of people should have some set of resources over another. Katz takes an
alternative position to the Scarcity Paradigm called SYNERGY PARADIGM. Synergy is a
pattern by which phenomena relate to each other and where human activities and intention,
such as helping and healing, are intrinsically expanding and renewable and need not be
viewed as scarce. This paradigm assumes that human resources are renewable, expandable
and accessible; mechanisms and attitudes exist to guarantee that resources are shared
equitably among community members; what is good for one is good for all; and the whole is
greater than the sum of its parts.

According to the concept of synergy, caring is a renewable resource that has the
potential of expanding exponentially – the more it is given freely, the more it is desired, and
the more it is available. This notion of synergy and promoting synergistic community is one
that seems applicable as the goal for emancipatory social practice and for emancipated human
relationships.

The Theory of Emancipatory Nursing Actions, illustrated in Fig. 4 (attached page)

demonstrates how this framework can be operationalized. The framework argues that
emancipatory actions are those that increase the potential for oppressed groups to take power
from those who oppress them. Some of these emancipatory actions might include assessing
for the political and social factors that influence oppressive relationships, helping to empower
politically and socially disenfranchised groups by providing alternative and critical
explanations for their situations, or aligning with oppressed individuals and groups against
structures and systems that oppress them. Through the process of continual dialogue
(meaning negotiation), Development workers, such as health professionals/nurses can
commit to promoting an environment where aspects of change can be freely communicated.

The most important factor in emancipatory practice is the commitment to using

communication in as free, undistorted, and nonauthoritarian ways as possible, while
constantly questioning and critiquing the unacceptable conditions which certain people and
groups in this society are forced to live in. The goal of emancipatory actions is to empower
oppressed groups to take their share of power from the people who have been oppressing
them. Once this quest towards successful completion of a revolutionary moment has
occurred, emancipatory actions are then directed in hope of attaining a synergistic
community. Revolutionary moment takes place when there is an exchange of power or a
brief moment in time when the oppressed group takes power from the oppressor. The
Dialogic process occurs when there is free and uncoerced discussion of the dialectic
contradiction inherent to the social system.

Gaining emancipation requires that there be people within oppressed and

disenfranchised groups who recognize the existence of oppression and help people learn
about the roots of oppression and that together they value the group and its members;
organize unified political action, critically examining frozen authority structures; participate
in a continual dialogic process with all actors, including the oppressor ; create an empowering
environment for self and others; and demand egalitarian relationships with self and others.

The basic premise lies in the ability of human beings to engage in critical
thought, as opposed to animals that use mere adaptation. Human beings have the ability to
integrate their contextual reality in order to achieve the critical capacity to make choices and
transform reality. It seeks to supersede the social, political, and economic situations of
oppression by instituting a process of continuing liberation through dialogic encounters and
revolutionary actions. The four assumptions underlying this framework are the following:

1. The reality of oppression can be transformed, allowing for a permanent process of

humanization in our social world if the oppressor could come to know and be with those
whom he oppresses through the establishment of continual dialogic actions.

2. Revolutionary actions culminate in a brief REVOLUTIONARY MOMENT when

opposing interests clash, and the oppressed class takes power from the oppressor.
Through continual dialogue between both groups, humanization can then be
permanently achieved.

3. Human’s ontological vocation is to act on and transform their world and, in so doing,
move toward every new possibilities of richer life both individually and collectively.

4. All human beings, no matter how submerged in the “culture of silence”, are capable of
looking critically at their world in a dialogic encounter with others.

These theoretic frameworks provide a way of approaching community development

work with communities. It enables Development workers to embark on the transition from
provider to partner on a more holistic perspective.

Example 5: Community Organizing Approach

It is claimed that the term “community organising” (CO) was coined by American
social workers in the late 1800s in reference to a specific field activity in which they were
engaged. The growth of charity organizations and settlement houses for new immigrants and
the poor marked this period. The phrase "community organising" was used to describe the
social workers' efforts to coordinate services for these various groups (Garvin and Cox, 1987;
Minkler, 1990).

There are important milestones in the history of community organization even before
the social work era (Garvin and Cox, 1987). A post-Reconstruction period of organising of
blacks by blacks in America was directed to efforts of trying to salvage newly won rights that
were rapidly slipping away. The Populist movement in the American South began as an
agrarian revolution and became a multisectoral coalition and major political force. Together
with the labor movement of the 1930s and 1940s, these movements taught the value of
forming coalitions around issues, the importance of using full time community organisers,
and use of conflict as means to bringing about change.

Ross's (1955) classic book on community organising stressed methods of consensus

and cooperation, and confrontation and conflict as equally useful approaches to social
change. This approach gained popularity during the 1950s and 1960s, Saul Alinsky being the
one most identified with this approach to community organising (Minkler, 1990). In the late
1950s and early 1960s, a new dimension of community organising was realised in the form of
the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King Jr. was the most noted leader in effecting
social transformation.

Historically, community organising has been widely adopted in programs concerned

with improving the socio-economic and political conditions of the poor, the oppressed, and
the disadvantaged. Introduced as a political strategy to help bring about societal change in
favour of the disadvantaged majority, community organising has emerged as a practical,
relevant and effective approach. From a narrowly conceived field within the social work
profession it has evolved into a "broad process that stresses working with people as they
define their own goals, mobilise resources, and develop actions for addressing problems they
collectively have identified" (Minkler, 1990). Community organising is now viewed as a
promising tool in achieving the goals of self-reliance and self-determination.

Community Organizing according to Ross (1955) is a process by which a community

identifies its needs or objectives; orders or ranks these needs or objectives; develops the
confidence and will to work at these needs and objectives; finds the resources
(internal/external) to deal with these needs or objectives; takes action concerning their needs;
and develops cooperative and collaborative attitudes and practices in the community.

To those at the College of Social Work and Community Development of U. P. Diliman

and among the CBHP network in the Philippines, community organising is defined as "a
continuous and sustained process of educating the people to understand and develop a critical
awareness of their existing conditions, working with the people collectively and efficiently on
their immediate and long-term problems, and mobilising the people to develop capability and
readiness to respond and take action on their immediate needs towards solving their long-
term problems" (CPHC, 1985; PCF, 1990).

There are several key concepts central to the concept of community organising
approach to effect change in the community, namely:

1) empowerment;
2) community competence;
3) community participation or starting where the people are;
4) issue selection; and
5) creating critical consciousness (concientization).

Numerous scholars have explored these concepts and their application to community
development work.1 The literature indicates that there is an increasing number of community
development programs that base their actions on empowerment and long-term solutions to
social, political and economic injustice in place of the traditional approaches that created
dependency.

Empowerment, according to Minkler (1990) represents a central tenet of community

organising. As defined by Rappaport, empowerment is "a process by which individuals,
communities and organizations gain mastery over their lives" (1984, p.1). It builds upon the
Latin root passe, from which the word power and freedom are derived (Minkler, 1990).
Labonte (1994) suggests an empowerment holosphere model to enable Development workers

1 See, among many Minkler and Cox, 1980; Rappaport; 1981; 1984; Cernea, 1985; Freudenberg, 1985; Uphoff,
1986; Auerbach and Wallerstein, 1987; Korten, 1987; Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1988; Minkler, 1990; Oakley, 1989;
Osteria, et al., 1989; Davidson and Ray, 1990; Steefland and Chabot; 1990; Corcega, 1992; Eng, Salmon and
Mullan., 1992; Kendall, 1992; Zerwekh, 1992; Connelly, Keele, Kleinbeck, Schneider and Cobb., 1993; Braithwaite,
Bianchi and Taylor, 1994; Eisen, 1994; Eng and Parker, 1994; Israel, Checkoway, Schulz and Zimmerman., 1994;
Labonte, 1994; Robertson and Minkler, 1994; Ovrebo, Ryan, Jackson and Hutchinson, 1994; Plough and Olafson
1994; Purdey, Adhikari, Robinson and Cox, 1994, Wang and Borris, 1994; May, Mendelson and Ferketich, 1995.
identify the range of strategies that they need to employ if they are to reduce or ameliorate
inequitable social conditions. (Fig. 2).

Community
Organization

Group Coalition
Development Advocacy

Personal Political
Care Action

Fig. 2. Empowerment Holosphere Model

Empowerment is a process that occurs on many levels. Of utmost importance is the

concept that empowerment is not simply an individual act, rather, it is fundamentally a
process of collective reflection and action, in which previously isolated individuals become
protagonists in shaping society according to their shared interests. Empowerment involves
analysing ideas about the causes of powerlessness, recognising systemic oppressive forces,
and acting both individually and collectively to change the conditions of life (Lather, 1986;
Grace, 1991; Bernstein, Wallerstein, Braithwaite, Gutierrez, Labonte and Zimmerman, 1994;
Skelton, 1994). It is a process one undertakes for her/himself and not something done 'to' or
'for' someone. It is therefore a "social-action process that promotes participation of people,
organizations, and communities towards the goals of increased individual and community
control, political efficacy, improved quality of community life, and social justice”
(Wallerstein, 1992: p. 198).

The basic assumptions underlying community organization identified by Quesada

(1992), indicate its empowering process. These assumptions include the following: 1) People
can develop capacity to deal with their own problems; 2) We assume that people want change
and can change; 3) People should participate in making, adjusting or controlling the major
changes taking place in their communities; 4) Self-imposed and self-developed changes in
community have meaning and permanence than imposed ones; 5) Holistic Approach; 6)
Democracy requires cooperative participation and action in the affairs of the community; and
7) People need help in organizing to deal with their needs just as many individuals require
help in coping with their individual problems.

According to Corcega (1992), community development workers must help people

believe in themselves and in their ability to bring about change and gain pride and confidence
in themselves. Community workers must allow the people to act on their own, and learn
from their failures and successes. This can happen when the people are allowed to participate
in aspects affecting their lives. In the process of helping disadvantaged people work together
to increase control over the events that determine their lives, community development
workers are empowering them.

Community competence is closely related to the concept of empowerment. It was

coined in the 1970s in reference to a community's ability to engage in effective problem
solving (Iscore, 1980 cited in Minkler, 1990). A more detailed definition is provided by
Cottrell (1983, p.403) as "one in which the various component parts of the community are
able to collaborate effectively on identifying the problems and needs of the community; can
achieve a working consensus on goals and priorities; can agree on ways and means to
implement the agreed upon goals; and can collaborate effectively in the required actions".

There are principles and approaches identified for increasing community competence.
One is to identify natural or indigenous leaders within the community and involve them in
undertaking their own community assessment and developing actions to strengthen within the
community. The leaders are then developed to be able to stimulate people to think critically,
identify problems and solutions, and be able to provide a process through which the group
discuss the most productive way. Thus, the community worker enhances the problem-solving
ability of the community leaders and members.

The concept of community participation or "starting where the people are" is

rediscovered with international movements such IPRA, PHC, PHM, etc. Success is more
likely to be experienced when the community worker begins with the individual's or the
community's concerns rather than with the organization’s agenda (Hope, Timmel and Hodzi,
1984; Minkler, 1990; Werner; 1987; Eng, et al., 1992; Lara, et al., 1993; Rudd and Comings,
1994). This entails experiencing the life situations of the people through integration into the
community; and allows the community worker to feel and see the same conditions as the
people do.

Arnstein presents eight levels of participation, the highest being citizen of people
power. Each rung in the ladder shown in Fig. 3 reflects the amount of citizen power
exercised.
8 Citizen Control Degrees of Citizen
7 Delegated Power Power
6 Partnership
5 Placation Degrees of
4 Consultation Tokenism
3 Informing
2 Therapy
Non-Participation
1 Manipulation

Figure 3: Rungs of Participation in Terms of Activities Involved

 Manipulation is a case of non-participation which distorts participation into a public
relations vehicle by powerholders. Citizens are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees
which emphasize “information gathering”, “public relations”, and “support”. This is
illustrated by the Citizen Advisory Committee where officials educate, persuade, and advise
the citizens, not the reverse.
Therapy views powerlessness and apathy as mental illness, therefore people need to
“participate” in group therapy or other activities that can cure their pathology. It does not
attempt to change the conditions or factors that create people’s “pathologies”. This is
illustrated by beautification and cleanliness drives which divert the attention and energies of
people from real problems of unemployment, low productivity or lack of access to irrigation
facilities.
Informing is token participation because it provides only one-way communication.
There is no mechanism for feedback and negotiation. Informing is done through public
address systems, mass media, and responses to inquiries.
Consultation is token participation done through the use of attitude surveys,
neighborhood meetings and public hearings, offering no assurances that citizen ideas will be
taken into account. Participation is measured in terms of attendance of meetings, responses
to questionnaires, brochures received, and the like.
Placation is the third kind of tokenism, which can be described as “meetingitis” and
“projectitis”. It allows citizens to advise or plan ad infinitum but no legitimacy of feasibility
of the advice. There is no mechanism for insuring continued participation during the
implementation stage.
In partnership, power is redistributed and this is done through negotiation between
citizens and powerholders via joint planning boards and other mechanisms for resolving
impasses.
In delegated power, more citizen power is exercised than in partnership because
citizen vote is provided for if differences of opinion cannot be resolved through negotiation.
Citizen control represents that rung of participation where citizen or people’s power is
greatest. It guarantees that participants can govern a program, be in charge of policy and
managerial aspects, and negotiate the conditions under which “outsiders” may change them.
The neighbourhood corporation with no intermediaries between it and the source of funds
exemplifies citizen control.
Indeed, many development practitioners have been pondering over community
participation for the last three decades. In fact, the 1980s have been called the decade of
participation. All these years, obstacles and impediments as well as guidelines have been
culled from extensive experiences of GOs and NGOs. Botes and Van Rensburg (2000)
attempt to expose nine (9) “plagues” of impediments and obstacles to community
participation.
One plague emanates from the fact that majority of development projects are initiated
by outsiders, thus, the paternatlistic role of the development professionals. They claim to be
“development experts”, knowing what is best for the community and therefore their function
is to transfer knowledge to the communities whom they see as having less knowledge. This
leads to their dominance in the decision making process. Development process ends up to be
manipulated instead of facilitated. This undervalues the input and experiences of non-
professionals or the community as a whole. The inhibiting and prescriptive role of the state
is another plague. Community participation is often used by governments as a means of
legitimizing the political system and as a form of social control. State level partisanship,
funding limitations, rigidity, the resistance of local and national bureaucrats, and the state’s
inability to respond effectively to the felt needs of the populace impedes participation
(Morgan, 1993, p.6, in Botes and Van Rensburg 2000). This is due to the fact that
government bureaucrats as the instruments of the nation states are very much in a hierarchical
mode of thinking which inhibits participation and undermines the people’s own governing
abilities (Rahman, 1993, p.226 in Botes and Van Rensburg 2000). The over-reporting of
development successes as a plague to community participation clouds the realities of
community development. This leads to the lack of understanding of lessons learned and in
improving the process. Selective participation becomes a plague to community participation
especially so when development professionals allow the more visible, vocal, wealthier, more
articulate and educated groups to be their partners. These runs the risk of determining the
wrong or inappropriate needs and issues. Hard issue bias on technological, financial,
physical and material development projects perceived to be more important over “soft” issues
such as community involvement, decision-making procedures, the establishment of efficient
social compacts, organizational development capacity building and empowerment relegates
community participation to the sideline. The conflicting interest groups within end-
beneficiary communities oftentimes result as a plague to community participation.
Development initiatives often introduce marginalized communities to limited scarce
resources and opportunities, leading initiatives to be a divisive force. Developments result
from decisions which require choices about whose needs are to enjoy priority; often, some
interests can be accommodated only at the expense of others resulting to conflict among
different interest groups of the community. Indeed, the stratified and heterogenous nature of
communities poses as an obstacle to community participation. Although it is an accepted fact
that projects favoured by the community has greater chances of success than when opposed
by leaders, gate-keeping by local elites, have deprived the weaker and more vulnerable social
segments of participation in community affairs. The excessive pressures for immediate
results that accentuates the product at the expense of process is another plague of community
participation. Table 1 captures this debate. While some development projects tend to
emphasize process and fail to deliver product, others are product-driven that neglect
community processes. Both approaches are detrimental because process without product
gives the feeling that noting is being done while product without process runs the risk of
doing something the people do not want or need or cannot sustain. The lack of public interest
in becoming involved is a major obstacle to community participation. Although development
professionals question whether people really know what they want and what is likely to be in
their best interest, often people do not participate because of past experiences of involvement
where expectations were not fulfilled.
Table 1: Process versus product in community participation
Process Decision-making
versus dynam Underlying assumptions Emphasis
product ics
Process less Developer-centered Rely on formal know-how and Time and
important than approach: expertise to resolve development product
product characterized by top- problems in the shortest possible
down decisions taken time
by development elite
Process more People-centered The immediate resolution of a Participation,
important than approach: development problem is less consultation and
product characterized by important than the way in which process
bottom-up decisions the process of problem-solving is
taken by community taking place – even if it requires
members or their a longer time. Builds on the
 legitimate leaders saying “it is the approach rather
than the outcome of the message
that spells success”
Source: Botes and van Rensburg, 2000, page 52.
Quesada (1992) postulates that if development is for the people, then they must be the
center of the development process, not merely the object of change efforts by others.
Community based programs would be useless if they are not based on people’s needs and if
they do not encourage the active participation of members of the community.

Based on the identified plagues to community participation, Botes and Van Rensburg
(2000, p. 53-54) propose twelve (12) guidelines for promoting community participation.
They claim that those who want to get involve in participatory development should:

- Demonstrate an awareness of their status as outsiders to the beneficiary community and

the potential impact of their involvement.
- Respect the community’s indigenous contribution as manifested in their knowledge, skills
and potential.
- Become good facilitators and catalysts of development that assist and stimulate
community-based initiatives and challenge practices, which hinder people from releasing
their own initiatives and realizing their own ideals.
- Promote co-decision-making in defining needs, goal-setting, and formulating policies and
plans in the implementation of these decisions. Selective participatory practices can be
avoided when development workers seek out various sets of interests, rather than
listening only to a few community leaders and prominent figures.
- Communicate both programme/project successes and failures – sometimes failures are
more informative.
- Believe in the spirit of “Ubuntu” – a South African concept encompassing key values such
as solidarity, conformity, compassion, respect, human dignity, and collective unity.
- Listen to community members, especially the more vulnerable, less vocal and
marginalized groups.
- Guard against the domination of some interest groups or a small unrepresentative
leadership clique. Encourage co-operative spirit and watch for oligarchic tendencies
among community leadership.
- Involve a cross-section of interest groups to collaborate as partners in jointly defining
development needs and goals, and designing appropriate processes to reach these goals.
- Acknowledge that process-related soft issues are as important as product-related hard
issues. Any investment in shelter for the poor should involve an appropriate mix of
technological and social factors, where both hard-ware and software are developed
together. In this regard many scholars recognize the importance of a multi-disciplinary
approach to project planning and development. The inclusion of a social scientist, and
someone with the appropriate skills from within the community, to work together with
planners, architects and engineers is very important. A multi-disciplinary approach will
only succeed if technical professionals recognize and include the contributions of their
social scientist partners in the planning process.
- Aim at releasing the energy within a community without exploiting or exhausting them.
- Empower communities to share equitably in the fruits of development through active
processes whereby beneficiaries influence the direction of development initiatives rather
than merely receive a share of benefits in a passive manner.

For the concept of issue selection, it is important to identify and differentiate the
problems or the things that are troubling the people from the issues or the problems that the
community feel strongly about (Miller, 1985; Minkler, 1990). If the people feel strongly
about issues, it facilitates concerted or collective, meaningful resolutions and actions. A
variety of methods could be used to help a community acquire the information needed for
issue selection. The problem-posing dialogical methods proposed by Freire (1973) may be
utilised to assess community needs while increasing participation in the process.

Paulo Freire's concept of concientizacion or creating critical consciousness is a

method derived from his experiences of teaching illiterate peasants to read while at the same
time teaching them to "read the political and social situation in which they found
themselves”. This method stressed the relationship of equality and mutual respect between
group members ("learners-teachers") and the facilitators ("teacher-learners"). The facilitators
engaged the people in a problem-posing dialogue designed to assist them to elucidate the root
causes of the problems they identified. Working in small groups, the people were assisted in
exploring the interconnections between situations and to devise action plans, based on critical
reflection, to help transform those situations (Freire, 1972). Hope and Timmel (1984) argues
that the levels of awareness of community development workers reflect their responses to the
community situations and the attitudes and actions towards the situation. Thus, the types of
assistance and their responses to poverty are dependent on the level of awareness. (Table 1
and 2).

Freire (1973) calls for the use of critical reflection, revolutionary praxis, and continual
dialogic commitment with those who are oppressed in order to promote freedom and the
transformation of the current social reality. It is well to reiterate Freire’s basic premise that
emphasizes man’s distinct capacity for critical thought and decision-making – enabling him
to contextualize realities, make choices and execute changes.

The goal of critical thinking according to Freire is to move beyond perception towards
social action. When people develop action plans for their own communities, they
simultaneously develop a belief that they can make a difference in their own lives and in the
lives of those around them. Empowerment therefore evolves from the interaction of
reflection and action, or praxis that can transform social conditions. It is this critical thinking
based on action, or conscientization in Freire’s terms, that links personal and community
empowerment. Critical thinking about the social context unites people as members of a
common community to transform inequitable social relations.

The significance of the Freire method for community organising lies in providing an
effective methodological refinement through problem-posing dialogue and on the
understanding of the root causes of problems and issues being addressed. Development
workers need to break away from their preoccupation with adaptation and coping and become
leaders in the struggle for emancipation from the oppressive forces within which most of its
clients are bound.

It is therefore important that a common understanding and appreciation is shared on

the philosophy, principles and process of community organizing in relation to development
work particularly community work in the various selected barangays/communities. The
intent is to help development workers avoid the tendency or the temptation to dole-out goods
and services. Rather, they should attempt to inculcate self-reliance and empowerment of the
people by: involving them actively in development work; transferring or sharing appropriate
technology in solving problems; and establishing or strengthening existing local groups that
would initiate/sustain social actions to address the people’s priority community problems.

As community organizers, Quesada (1992) advocates among development workers

the need to be guided by the following principles:

1. Principles of Felt Needs

 Felt needs are problems/issues the people recognize.

They are conditions which disturb people and are causing general discontent.

These are differentiated from needs which development workers and do-gooder
groups or agencies have determined based on their perceptions.

The community organizers’ task is therefore to discover what these felt needs are and
to channel these and the people’s discontent into organization and action. It is also
easier to organize and mobilize people for addressing felt needs which are widely
shared.

2. Principle of Leadership

Leadership is a key to successful community organizing.

It is important that the leader is: accepted, well respected, has a charisma or influence
to a number of people, is democratic, has a track record of working for the common
good, and demonstrated capability of making things work. One must therefore be
careful in the selection of leaders in the community organizing process.

3. Principle of Participation

People affected by the problems must be actively involved in all phases of the
organizing process: needs identification, capability building, resource identification
and utilization, other decisive actions to solve the problems, and evaluation.

Genuine C.O. aims to enable people to be in control in management of projects or

programs designed to address their problems, in which they were involved in the
decision making process.

Community organizers must veer away from token participation such as information
giving, consultation and placation efforts. (See Arnstein’s Ladder of Community
Participation).

4. Principle of Communication

Open lines of communication must be established and maintained among community

organizers, local leaders and community members.

Individual and group deed backing is an important communication process. In

addition to verbal communication, the COs can utilize mass media such as printed and
broadcast media.

People are motivated when they hear or know that development is taking place in
their community.

5. Principle of Structure

C.O. should develop an organizational structure that is simple and functional based on
the needs of the organization.
 It need not follow the structure of formal organizations. Instead, the COs may set up
working committees that would address the need for information, education, research;
ways and means of logistics; membership and mobilization; and liaison/negotiations.

6. Principle of Evaluation

Assessment is an on-going process in C.O.

Efforts should be made to assess the gains of any mobilization or social action, its
strengths and weaknesses and to sum-up the lessons learned. This process is also
referred to as ARA or action, reflection, action.

Evaluation:

With the literature that you have reviewed, identify a theoretical framework and or develop
your conceptual framework that will guide your research topic.

References