Futures 35 (2003) 253–265www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Essay

Resurrection of traditional communities inpostmodern societies

Manohar Pawar ∗

School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 678, Wagga Wagga2678, NSW, Australia

Abstract

Modern societies seem to have recognised the importance of communities and the com-munity capacity to be self reliant, and to reduce burden on the state, at least to some degree.Thus it is hardly surprising that several western countries’ current policies have been reverber-ating with the idea and vision of community responsibilities, participation and decision making.What kind of communities do these policies envision? Can western societies resurrect tra-ditional communities in postmodern societies? To address such questions, this paper argues thatthough highly challenging, it is possible to rebuild some elements of traditional communities inpostmodern societies. In fact, such creation is an ideal world to live in. For that to occurwestern societies should give adequate time, resources and commitment to it, as they did tocreate modern societies. Most importantly, they also need to somewhat alter their ‘life style’:“When you throw ‘individuals’ from the window, communities rush in through the door”. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: policy emphasis on communities

Towards the end of the 20th century, several countries’, particularly the western,social policies and programs have reverberated with the idea of communities andcommunities’ capacity to carry on social responsibilities in a self-reliant manner.For example, the Australian Commonwealth Department of Family and CommunityServices (DFCS) in its strategic plan states that:

∗ Tel.: +61-02-69332497; fax: +61-02-69332792.E-mail address: mpawar@csu.edu.au (M. Pawar).

0016-3287/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00058-7

254 M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

‘Stronger Communities’ is one of the three strategic outcomes for FaCS. Buildingon the capabilities of communities, the department will:

� encourage the development of community capacity to self-help;� help ameliorate the effects of pressures on and within communities;� facilitate partnerships between business, community groups and governments

to achieve well-targeted and tailored solutions.

The Stronger Communities Outcome encompasses rural and regional issues, hous-ing and homelessness assistance and related support, the particular needs ofIndigenous communities and people from diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds, and issues around pressures within communities and their capacity torespond positively to changing circumstances and emergency situations. It alsorecognises the importance of ensuring that, as far as possible, service deliveryarrangements do not disadvantage people, by virtue of their location, in theiraccess to government programmes and services [1].

Our Prime Minister, John Howard’s mutual obligation formula appears to pervadeevery nook and cranny of the government’s departments and policy documents,though what it means, when it is operated, to those affected by the formula is notclear at this stage. The final report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform[2]is replete with the letter and spirit of social/mutual obligations, community responsi-bilities, partnerships, etc. The reference group states:

Communities by their informal nature tend to have expectations of themselvesand their members. To the extent that these expectations are shared, the com-munity may be regarded as having strong social capital especially if commonunderstandings of social obligations are held within strong networks of communitymembers...Yet, in a very real way, it is the community itself that has to takecollective responsibility for its own well being. The members of the community,individuals, are expected to: Provide assistance to friends and neighbours in need(informal social assistance); take an active interest in matters that affect our neigh-bourhood, state and country; work with others to address matters of shared concern(and not waiting for someone else, perhaps the government, to ‘do something’);through gifts of time and money, support other members of the community work-ing to address issues that impact upon all; and to look after the needs of theirchildren and their frail aged parents [2].

The UK government’s annual report 1999–2000 [3] states that “The New Dealfor Communities programme provides intensive and coordinated support, and putsthe local community itself at the heart of the process of regeneration”. To encouragepeople to participate in community activities, Prime Minister Tony Blair has offeredto give every member of the Number Ten staff the chance to have a day’s paid leaveto take part in voluntary charitable activities. Mr. Blair’s views clearly emphasise

255M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

volunteering and community development efforts to be essential to the goal of cre-ating an inclusive, cohesive and mutually supportive society [4].

Etzioni [5] points out that recognising the importance of community, George Bushevoked the image of a ‘kinder, gentler’ society as a central theme for his first presi-dential campaign in 1988 and Bill Clinton made the spirit of community a themeof 1992 campaign. The US President’s Council on Sustainable Development statesin its executive summary:

Flourishing communities are the foundation of a healthy society. One importantmeasure of America’s potential for long-term vitality will be the emergence ofcommunities that are attractive, clean, safe and rich in educational and employ-ment opportunities. According to the Council, Sustainable communities are citiesand towns that prosper because people work together to produce a high qualityof life that they want to sustain and constantly improve. They are communitiesthat flourish because they build a mutually supportive, dynamic balance betweensocial well being, economic opportunity, and environmental quality. The conceptof sustainable communities should be viewed as an ideal for communities to pur-sue—an ideal whose possibilities are enormously exciting [6].

The idea, the vision, the practicability and the spirit of community living appeals toalmost everyone. Who does not like self-help, self, reliance, mutual support, friendlyneighbours, fearless walks on safe and clean streets, peers for children and the eld-erly, the community involvement in individual and family crises situations and mutu-ally sharing and caring partnerships? These sound aspects of the community are notnew to people, though some people and societies have gradually and completelyalienated themselves from such valuable community practices and community lifeover a long period. A good outcome of this alienation is that a time has come torealise and recognise the strengths of community life and go back and embrace it.Since the alienation from the community life has occurred over a long period offour to five centuries, it is important and useful to look at traditional communitiesand their community life, which we are trying to emulate now, at least some ofits aspects.

2. Traditional communities

Traditional communities and their ways of living through sharing and caring existeven today in some traditional villages and indigenous populations throughout theworld, despite the waves of modernisation. If we are really committed to rebuildingcommunities and community life, we should look at the traditional communitiesand study the mechanisms of their self-reliant and supportive operation. Sociologistsseemed to have understood traditional communities through the spectacles of modernsocieties. They described traditional societies in terms of five pattern variables. Theseare: Affective relationship, particularistic approach, collective orientation, ascribedstatus and functionally diffused (see [7] and [8]). Although this description is partly

256 M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

true and may be convenient to distinguish traditional communities from modernsocieties, it does not demonstrate realistic understanding of traditional communities.Traditional communities were much more than those five pattern variables.

For example, for rural education purposes, I took a group of urban students to anarea which indigenous people inhabited. We walked from one village to another asready transport was not available. We had not carried any food with us and I washungry. I spotted a boy, perhaps of 13 or 14 years age, who seemed to be carryinggooseberries in a piece of cloth. I asked him to offer the fruit to me by using nonver-bal communication. The boy readily gave a handful of the berries. In turn, I offeredhim two rupees. The boy looked at the note with an unexpressive face and did notshow any interest in taking it. This encounter helped me realise that currency wasnot a dominant force in traditional societies. They had a limited barter system, thoughthat may be unfair in some respects.

People in traditional communities were ecologically friendly, they were living inharmony with nature. They attached significant value to self-sufficiency and the qual-ities of craving and greediness had remained far from them. They had no conceptof full-time 12 months paid employment and the way time pressure operates on usdid not operate on them. With an approach of self-sufficiency and limited desire,their meaning, goal, quality and spirituality of life seemed to be mostly satisfactory.It was true that their relationships, social bond, loyalty and sense of obligation waskinship and clan based. On the other hand, it is important to note that all thesequalities extended beyond kinship and clan. Otherwise, we would not have seen orread about huge forts, monuments, churches, tanks, roads, bridges, and public utilitiesof earlier centuries. Traditional communities were both functionally specific and dif-fused. They had carpenters, blacksmiths, goldsmiths, masons, rope makers, leathermakers, cobblers, farmers, traders, educators, warriors etc., who were specialised incertain functions. They were functionally diffused in a sense that they had developedmulti-skills to survive and succeed in life. The ruled and ruler, whether formal andinformal, were mutually loyal to each other, though there may be some exceptions.Under such a social, economic, political and historical context social and communitycapital was generated and regenerated in abundance.

Undoubtedly, there are several strengths and replicable models in traditional com-munities and equally there are several weaknesses. Traditional communities haveeffectively practiced racism, sexism, castism, classism and patriarchy/ matriarchy.Even today these ‘isms’ erupt their ugly heads and so called modern societies strug-gle to overcome them. Thus traditional communities were insular, mean spirited,superstitious, religious, constraining, authoritarian and backward. Are these tra-ditional communities’ strengths and weaknesses inseparable?

During the part of 19th century and the most of the 20th century, to achieve rapidindustrialisation and modernisation, and as a consequence of that industrialisationand modernisation process, the traditional community strengths and weaknesses havebeen dealt with through two different approaches. One approach has gradually andeffectively eroded community strengths. The disintegration of primary groups, thedecline of community and mutual caring and sharing, the growth of individualism,contractualisn and rationalism and the development of more impersonal social

257M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

relations in complex, urban, industrial, modern societies have featured in the workof a number of sociologists (see [9]). Through another approach, several significantand remarkable steps have been taken, certainly on paper, to overcome or fight com-munity weaknesses, the unwarranted ‘isms’, which continue to survive both in tra-ditional and modern societies, with different degrees. Our history repletes withexamples of individual and community efforts to overcome racism, castism, classism,sexism and so on. For example, several United Nations instruments and covenants,and many countries’ constitutions and policy documents, which aim to promotehuman rights and non discriminatory practices.

3. Four assertions and three questions

From the above analysis, it may be reasonable to make a few assertions:

� Due to the industrialisation and modernisation process, we have lost traditionalcommunity strengths in our modern societies and we have been trying to fightwith the weaknesses.

� This losing and fighting process has taken a long period, a few centuries.� Realising the limits of industrialisation and modernisation in meeting peoples’

needs and aspirations, we would like to strengthen our current and future com-munities and their capacity to self-help.

� Like molecular biologists trying to create a perfect healthy baby by transferringartificial chromosomes into a human embryo to offer protection against such dis-eases as Parkinson’s, AIDS, diabetes and prostate and breast cancer, and by mani-pulating genes to boost intelligence or improve memory (see [10]), we need tobuild stronger communities in post modern societies by taking the best elementsof traditional communities so that suffering and want can be taken care of bycommunities themselves and they can facilitate healthy participation of all individ-uals in social, economic and political affairs of the society.

These assertions lead to the following three questions:

� Can we resurrect best elements of traditional communities in postmodernsocieties?

� What is our comprehension of and vision for a postmodern society?� What are the policy implications for creating such a society?

4. Can we resurrect best elements of traditional communities in postmodernsocieties?

To address the first question, I would like to argue that we can resurrect someelements of traditional communities in postmodern societies. To develop this argu-

258 M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

ment further, I would like you to look at two examples of recreating the past andalmost lost elements.

Example 1: Although steam locomotives were popular until about 1940, they wereabandoned due to subsequent development of diesel-electric locomotives andefficiency and economic factors. These locomotives were rusting in railway shedsand some were kept in parks and historical museums as they became largely obsolete[11]. In the later part of 20th century, several interest groups have been successful inrestoring, preserving and running steam locomotives (see [12–14]). The restoration,preservation and running of steam locomotives appears to involve the followingmechanisms: A group of people coming together with a specific and common pursuit;mobilising other people who are interested in the same pursuit; identifying the sys-tem—steam locomotive—to be restored, preserved and used; examine the system tosee the present condition; identify the parts which need to be and can be repaired;identify the parts which must be replaced; repairing the parts; replacing the parts;testing the system; running the system; negotiating and seeking necessary permission;meeting the requirements of external agencies; disseminating the restoration andpreservation process to the public; mobilising human and material resources to achi-eve the above; and constructively using the system for human betterment. Irrespectiveof the purpose of restoring and preserving the locomotive, the point I am trying todraw home here is, old and lost things can be restored, preserved and applied forenhancing our quality of life.

Example 2: To identify a suspect or a victim, when no clues are available exceptsome skeleton bones and skull, forensic anthropologists attempt facial reconstructionas a last resort. Recreating appearance during life from the features of the skull isa difficult task. Although not accurate, facial reconstruction is done by calculatingthe average tissue thicknesses, by following bony contours and by a two-dimensionaldrawing or three-dimensional sculpture built on the skull itself or an exact replica.Although there are no absolute rules, the interrelationship of the face and skull hasbeen studied extensively to predict some features and to reconstruct the face(see[15]). By using certain calculations, parameters and hunches, scientists attemptto recreate the face that might resemble the original.

The two examples demonstrate that there are well-developed methods and success-ful attempts to recreate and preserve the things we have lost or are on the verge oflosing. We may find several such examples in our milieu. Although the limitationsof the examples stem from their mechanical and laboratory experimental aspects andthe absence of dynamic human element in them, except that humans are attemptingthe recreation, some lessons can be drawn from them to resurrect some elements oftraditional communities in postmodern societies.

To support the argument that it is possible to resurrect some elements of traditionalcommunities in postmodern societies, I will make the following three points.

First, recreating lost elements is not new, it is already occurring, out of necessity,around us in an isolated or a small way. The above two examples amply demonstratethis. As stated in the introduction, the current policies clearly emphasise rebuildingof strong communities and community capacity to self-help. By taking advantage ofsuch a policy climate, systematic efforts may be made to develop effective methods

259M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

to identify and develop best elements of traditional community practices. Learningfrom the isolated and replicable examples, the resurrection process can be expandedat a larger level, though it may be a challenging and exciting task. I think our situ-ation is better than forensic anthropologists. We have not lost the face: before itbecomes skull we should preserve and sustain it. Perhaps our situation resemblesthe restoration and preservation of steam locomotives. Although modern societiesseemed to have lost the spirit of community and mechanisms of traditional com-munity operation, these are very much in existence and operation with differentdegrees in traditional and indigenous communities and villages in all the continents.We need to carefully study and make appropriate plans to replicate them.

Second, sociological studies have found two contrary processes of industrialisedand modern societies. On the one hand some have reported the erosion or the deathof traditional community lifestyles due to industrialisation, urbanisation and modern-isation (see [16,17]), and on the other hand, some have reported the continuing exist-ence of communities of urban ‘villages’ with strong social ties within particularneighbourhoods (see [18–20]). While the two findings appear to be true processes,they miss the third dimension to it. My observation brings out that in the midst ofmodernisation, traditional community lifestyles are neither dead nor in existence.They are simply suppressed in modern people. The modernisation, intentionally orunintentionally, has developed a social expectation to remain impersonal, anony-mous, self-centred, not to be bothered about what is happening to neighbours andso on. Subsequently, people have simply suppressed their innate feelings, desires,emotions and meaningful relationships and instinctual social quality. Even under thecircumstances of bereavement, they are expected to hide their tears, display an articu-lated and composed person in them and cry only privately. This suppression hasresulted in many manifestations. For example, some people watch whatever is poss-ible from their window about their neighbours, visitors and neighbourhood. Theycannot simply control it because it is so instinctual. But they will hesitate to talk orshare about it as maintaining privacy is a civilised social expectation. It appears likecaging a social animal, a cellular imprisonment. Who does not like to break out ofthis modern cage? I think we need to simply turn the key, it will ignite, the moderncage will fall. Thus there is great potential to resurrect traditional communities inpostmodern societies.

Third, industrialised, urbanised and modernised societies have developed a culturein which three things are highly valued. These are: innovation, newness and oldness.Modern society values innovation. There is social expectation and craving forinventing something new. At times, even it is not an invention, it should appear so.Thus we see many inventions in industrialised, developed and modernised societies,which should be appreciated and encouraged. Modern societies value newness,change, almost everything to be updated and appear new. Anything which is notnew suddenly loses its value. For example, purchase of a new car or a new computeror new furniture or any other such item costs well in the market. After purchasingan item, when you want to resell it in a short time, its value substantially reduces,simply because it is not new. On the other hand, modern societies value very oldthings. If you preserve the same item for 100 years or so and open for marketing,

260 M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

its value will be very high, it costs more than the same item new. It becomes anantique. At times, new products are manufactured in such a way that they look oldand yet affordable. In this society, if you cannot invent something new, then yousubstitute the gap with the extreme old, which appear to generate the same incomeby escalating the cost of it. I would like to apply this analogy to modern societies’welfare provisions. Since welfare provisions are costing more, becoming a burdenon capitalist and modern societies and governments, relevant inventions appear tobe far from sight to deal with this challenge, modern societies are going back tostrengthened communities, community self-help, etc., which has become extreme oldfor them. Thus the established culture of valuing the extreme old and recreating itgives rise to hope that some of the best elements of traditional communities can beresurrected in postmodern societies.

5. What is our comprehension of and vision for a postmodern society?

With this hope, now I will look at the second question. Postmodern society canbe understood from several perspectives. I will not enter into a detail and confusingdiscussion or discourse on postmodernism as that is not the purpose of this paper,though some of its elements will be drawn into the discussion. (It is hard to employthe complete framework of postmodernsim, (it may not have one) as it has its owncontradictions and its dust has not yet settled, and perhaps that is not its aim.) Forthe subject of this paper, postmodern society may be understood as follows.

We had pre-modern or traditional societies in which feudalism, autocracy, religion,magic and superstitions were dominant forces. Based on certain fundamental tenetssuch as rationalism, positivism, humanism, democracy, individualism, liberalism, andsocial progress, modern societies evolved with revolutionary changes due to severalnew discoveries and tremendous progress in science and technology and consequentindustrialisation. Modern societies are a kind of revolt against evils of pre-modernor traditional societies as they made a significant departure from traditional societies.Perhaps, that is why we do not call them post-traditional societies. On the otherhand, postmodernity or postmodern societies are not a revolt against modernity ormodern societies. Without completely rejecting the bases of modernism, postmodernsocieties introspect and reflect our past (pre-modern), present (modern) and future(postmodern). Through this introspection, reflection and future direction, postmodernsocieties will develop certain ideas and thereby bring change in attitude and behav-iour to modify and correct relevant fundamental bases of modern societies (see [21]).For example, Elkind argues:

The modern belief in the unmitigated benefits of scientific and technological pro-gress did not anticipate the use of advanced knowledge to create ever more power-ful weapons of destruction, nor did it take into account the contribution of techno-logical progress to the degradation of the environment. Modern beliefs (bases ofmodernity) were not entirely wrong, but they were often idealised and blind to

261M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

the dark side of human nature, of scientific discovery, and of technological devel-opment [21].

Similarly, modern societies did not anticipate the impact of modernisation andindustrialisation on human relations, feelings, emotional wellbeing, community liv-ing, community informal care and welfare systems. Although modern societies havetried to account for these damaging consequences through piecemeal efforts, welfarestate and welfare provisions with a clear interest to uphold capitalism, they havetaken a very short time (about 50 years) to conclude that their efforts are not sus-tainable. Now, they are pleading to communities to rescue them. Postmodernsocieties need to examine this phenomenon to prevent it in future. To undertake suchan examination, postmodern societies may draw from postmodernism. By analysingthe stances towards postmodernsim, Seippel [22] has identified two contrary develop-ments in the wake of decreasing authority of the institutions of industrial society andthe corresponding individualism. These are: Individualistic postmodernsim, which isbased on depthlessness, indifference, lack of commitment, hedonism and narcissism.Humanistic postmodernsism, which is based on human orientation, reflective attitude,a greater sensitivity for the aesthetical, the particular, the excluded, those not takencare by the universal ethical codes of modernity. For the examination, we need touse humanistic postmodernism as it will help to identify, modify and correct thedark side of modernism. Through that modification and correction it will diminishindividualistic postmodernism. Postmodern societies recognise the strengths of andwill not be blind to the dark side of traditional communities, modernism and psotmo-dernism. Postmodern societies will not be swayed by only one ‘ism’ like modernism.Postmodern societies will be far from traditional metanarratives and will recogniseboth universal and unique, and objective and subjective to create a better society tolive in. With this understanding of postmodern society, the following vision may bedeveloped for it.

One of the great challenges for postmodern societies is constructively correctingthe undesired consequences of modernism and postmodernism. Postmodern societieswill never go back to the old and nor they will reform into an absolute new form.They need to search a new meaning for and goal in life. This needs to beaccomplished without compromising the current quality and standard of life. That is,community members’ affordability and access to quality food, water, shelter, healthmaintenance and human resource development systems, transport and communi-cations and effective waste management systems.

Revolutionary advancements in science, technology and information technologywill result in new economic and occupational structures. Postmodern societies willproduce more and more by involving fewer and fewer people. Information tech-nology will play a crucial role in these revolutionary changes. Like traditionalsocieties, many people will be functionally diffused as they will be forced to undergoreskilling and multi skilling processes. Consequently, many people will remain homewithout paid work for 12 months. The concept of employment, job security etc., willchange. People will have a lot time to engage in personal interactions, social relation-ships and for building community capital.

262 M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

Increasing production of consumables across national borders will reach saturationpoint and so will corporations’ profit making proportions. Accumulation and concen-tration of wealth will reach utter saturation and will become directionless. Thosewho are involved in utter profit making and their sympathisers such as governmentand other institutions will realise that the real pleasure lies not in acquiring wealthbut in constructively redistributing it. Communities will be called to participate indetermining quantity of production.

Communities will increasingly question world trade organisations and their socalled free trade policy. ‘Free trade as long as I make profit’ policy will come to anend. Free trade and global economy will be organised in such a way that both richand poor countries equally benefit. Discriminatory currencies and their values willbe questioned and there will be movement towards one global currency. The US$1will become US$1 everywhere.

Pressure of environmental movements will be respected and products which thre-aten the environment and human health will be banned. People’s participation in suchmovements will enhance. A movement towards practical consumerism will grow.

Politicians, governments, bureaucracies, corporations and managements will bemore loyal to their people and communities. People and communities will participatein decision-making processes in a more responsible manner.

Without compromising liberty and freedom, the ideology of individualism andself-centredness will reduce. Concern for fellow beings will increase with a differ-ence. The concern will not be dominated by a charity perspective, but with anenabling perspective.

Although science, technology, particularly information technology and innovationwill continue to grow, postmodern societies will be dominated by morality, ethics,spirituality and philosophy which will directly contribute to the wellbeing of peopleand communities. People and communities will be more humane, considerate, toler-ant, egalitarian. People on their own will be involved more in art, literature, thehumanities and community capital building exercises.

Several codes developed to uphold social justice and human rights at local,national and global levels will be refined and uniformly implemented by involvingcommunities. These will not be used to benefit some countries and exploit others.

By employing computer and communication technologies [23], a different kind ofgroup and community solidarity [24] will be developed with and without geographiclimitation. Although traditional forms of mass protest will not disappear, new formsof protest will emerge. Extreme forms of these protests may include blocking superhighways or sending a ‘love bug’, which will be devastating. Particular groups mayclaim responsibility for doing such things on certain common local as well as glo-bal issues.

As a consequence of the above developments, strong and sustainable communitieswill emerge. In such communities people will develop trust, satisfying interpersonalrelationships and constructive social networks, and thereby foster community infor-mal care and welfare systems. Isolation and loneliness will diminish, so will drugand alcohol problems and other deviations.

Threats to such communities in postmodern societies are likely to come from

263M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

alternative visions of postmodern societies and their actualisation. Although I do notsubscribe to such an alternative vision, it is important to be aware of it so thatnecessary steps can be taken to deal with obstacles [25] by preventing the actualis-ation and dangers of alternative visions of postmodern societies. The real threatscome from the individualism ideology and its practice. This might result in self-inflicted genocide and the slow death of success (see [24]). The ecosystem may bedestabilised (see [26]) to such an extent that it cannot be recovered. In fact, Slaughter[27] predicts the future of complete annihilation and a terrifying prospect that thosewith the relevant money, resources, choices will, en masse, generally opt for thecomfort of images, unreality industries, 3DTV, instead of the work of facing up toit. These and similar alternative visions seem to suggest a future with neither individ-uals nor communities! Do we want to create and face such a future?

6. What are the policy implications?

To create the postmodern societies I have carved earlier, and to prevent the actu-alisation of alternative visions, fundamental changes are needed in our outlook andsocial policies. Thus I will now address the third question. First, we must stop blam-ing people. Victim blaming is self-destructive. The message ‘mutual obligation’seems to convey blame. If we want to build stronger communities and bind peoplewith self-help and trust, our policies must respect people and their communities andtreat them with worth and dignity. As stated earlier, due to structural changes, theconcept of work and employment will change; people will learn to live withoutpaid work and they will channel their energy towards building better families andcommunities. Second, we should lay a strong moratorium on an extreme form ofindividualism, though without compromising individual liberty and freedom. Indi-vidualism and community living cannot go together. If we throw a little bit of indi-vidualism through the window, communities rush in through the door.

Third, governments, institutions, corporations and other instrumental agenciesshould provide long-term commitment to building strong communities. Buildingcommunities is not like sending an e-mail from Sydney to Sussex. Communities canbuild churches, temples, roads, tanks and so on overnight. We cannot build communi-ties overnight. It has taken two to three centuries to shatter communities and com-munity life through the process of modernisation. Similarly, building communitiesis a gradual process. It will take time. Here we will not be dealing with machines,but human beings. Initiating and establishing relationships and trust among peopleand communities requires adequate time and ongoing reassurances. We cannotemploy genetic engineering technology to yield faster results in this arena. Fourth,long-term commitment should be accompanied by commitment of adequate resourcesto building strong communities. In a way, modern societies were responsible forshattering communities and therefore, postmodern societies are responsible(‘obligation’) for building them. In the absence of strong communities, the policyof partnerships between business, community groups and governments appears lopsided and is less likely to work.

264 M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

Fifth, flowing from the above commitments, we need to train adequate numbersof community organisers, social workers, welfare workers, community leaders ani-mators and facilitators, who will take significant steps with people to build strongcommunities. Sixth, while building postmodern communities, instead of starting fromscratch, we have an important option to reflectively look back at the traces of tra-ditional communities and pick some of their best elements. We need not throw thebaby out with the bath water.

7. Conclusion

This paper, in light of current policy emphasis on community building, has lookedat traditional communities and modern societies’ impact on them from the two per-spectives. Based on this analysis, the paper has raised three basic questions. Thequestions have been addressed by arguing that it is possible to resurrect someelements of traditional communities in postmodern societies. By developing someunderstanding of a postmodern society, the paper has carved a vision for the post-modern society and has pointed out some policy implications for achieving such asociety. Importantly, it has suggested an option of recognising some of the bestelements of traditional communities and meaningfully practicing them to create abetter life for all of us. Readers may please note that the ideas and the argumentsconsidered in this paper need to be refined and well developed. The purpose of thispaper is to stimulate that process.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks peer reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

[1] Department of Family and Community Services. FaCS strategic plan. Canberra: Department of Fam-ily and Community Services, Commonwealth of Australia, 2000.

[2] The reference Group on Welfare Reform. Participation support for a more equitable society. Can-berra: Department of Family and Community Services, Commonwealth of Australia, 2000, 39–41.

[3] The UK government’s annual report 99/00. A section on communities. 2000. Retrieved September22, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/communities/index.htm

[4] Prime makes a plea for more community involvement. (02 March 2000). Retrieved September 22,2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.number-10gov.uk/news.asp?NewsId=616

[5] Etzioni A. The spirit of community. New York: A Touchstone Book, 1994.[6] President’s Council on Sustainable Development—Sustainable Communities. Retrieved September

22, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.whitehouse.gov/PCSD/Publications/suscomm/suscoexe.html

[7] Parsons T, Shils EA. Values, motives and systems of action. In: Parsons T, Shils EA, editors.Towards a general theory of action. MA: Harvard University Press; 1952.

[8] So AY. Social change and development. CA: Sage, 1990.

265M. Pawar / Futures 35 (2003) 253–265

[9] Mayo M. Communities and caring: The mixed economy of welfare. London: Macmillan, 1994.[10] The quest for a perfect society. Awake, September 22, 2000, 4–11.[11] Locomotive, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia, 2000. Retrieved September 26, 2000, from

the World Wide Web: http://encarta.msn.com 1997–2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rightsreserved.

[12] Friends of Locomotive #35, Inc. Retrieved September 26, 2000, from the World Wide Web:http://memebrs.aol.com/belpaire/loco3.htm

[13] Soo Line Pacific #2719. Retrieved September 26, 2000, from the World Wide Web:http://www.2719.com/pages/soo2719a.html

[14] Glenreagh Mountain Railway Inc. Retrieved September 26, 2000, from the World Wide Web:Http://www.gmr.org.au/restoration.html

[15] Iscan MY, Loth SR. The scope of forensic anthropology. In: Eckert WG, editor. Introduction toforensic sciences. Boston, MA: CRC Press; 1997. p. 359–60.

[16] Bell D. The Theory of mass society. Commentary, July, 1956.[17] Toennies F. Community and society. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1957.[18] Young M, Willmott P. Family and kinship in east London. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957.[19] Gans H. The urban villages. New York: Free Press, 1962.[20] Bulmer M. The social basis of community care. London: Allen and Unwin, 1987.[21] Elkind D. School and family in the postmodern world. Phi Delta Kappan 1995;77(1):8–14.[22] Seippel O. Political environmentalism: Class interests, modern values or postmodern feelings? Inno-

vation 1999;12(2):129–53.[23] Sardar Z, Ravetz JR. Introduction: Reaping the technological whirlwind. In: Sardar Z, Ravetz JR,

editors. Cyberfutures: Culture and politics on the information superhighway. London: Pluto Press;1996.

[24] Inayatullah S. Deconstructing the year 2000. Futures 2000;32:7–15.[25] Sardar Z. Introduction: Waking up to new century. Futures 2000;32:1–5.[26] Ravetz J. Fault-lines of globalised civilisation. Futures 2000;32:27–42.[27] Slaughter RAA. Personal agenda for the 21st century. Futures 2000;32:43–53.