The levels of analysis for your paper, using communities/liberal democracy as example:

Micro-level
Theoretical approaches to civil society, notions of citizenship [book: Civil Society]. Connection/relation of individual to the group.

Philosophy as a religion, belief system based on faith. Broader philosophy informs expectations at both levels. This will inform what you believe about liberal democracies and why you think it is (or isn’t) superior)

Mid-level
Example: citizenry in a liberal democracy (in the sense of valuing the individuals). Look at liberal democracy, start pulling out individual ideas. What’s the relationship between liberal democracies and how we in the US work? In terms of social institutions (e.g. government, market for ordering and setting framework of relationship between individuals and group). Three regulating entities in US liberal democracy—state/government, market/capitalism, civil society/community. Looking at the different philosophies of how these regulate, and how they regulate specifically to us. One obvious idea: individual as the unit of value. So our rules/regulations try to capture that.

EG: Bill of Rights and Constitution. (Side note: Some same concepts similar in all modern societies; difference may be in how they are instituted versus where you’re studying, in this case, the US. Think compared to the USSR, which also valued the individual in theory).

Micro-Level
Looking at the key practical questions when differentiating between modern societies.

Example of key terms/working definition: “Individual.” How is this conception embodied in the institutions?
Key ideas: Find normal standards, both ideal and in practice. Context is important (time period an important part context, as someone brought up the fact that the ideas of equality in the constitution were penned at a time when slavery was the norm)...

Constitution: open to interpretation. It specifies process, guilt-in standards about debate, discussion, making a collective decision of some kind.



How do you sharpen your focus?
Be able to move comfortably between narrow focus and abstract theoretical level. Start with your own clear definition of community=further from geographical boundary, think longer term sustainability. So, place and process important. Then think: what are the factors of success that make a difference. Rank these factors and variables as more or less important by your own or others’ standards. More key terms: Sustainability, capacity, resilience.

Ways to search for literature
Some terminology: community, community development, community organizing, social capital, community competence, empowerment. Keep in mind different aspects of these terms when reading literature.

EG: LR’s definition somewhat place-bound, also captures community-building, which is a particular process beyond simple growth. At macro view, what are you looking for? Involve people in decisions that affect their lives. So, some faith in ability of people to come together and solve their own problems. How is the capacity used for change and restructure?

Measuring success of community-building: impact on place, individual, process. So, moving in directions of practical questions…individuals: e.g. Resources, what do they feel, value, believe? Not always able to capture individuals’ talent to create collective community. [Discussion of Austin vs. Temple’s merits].

Allegiance and commitment—trust in the process, even if a given decision not consistent with what I want. Reciprocity—if that process works more likely to participate. Process dimension—what can you look at described as variables, speaking to this trust people place. Characteristics of community, community building process and of organizer/catalyst/activist—the person mindful of what’s necessary for the other two things to happen.

Things to think about in each of these three areas:
Community characteristics: Involves some conceptualization of what a health community looks like, “should” be. How or were where is the community? (Generally, and around a specific issue.) [Jefferson(?) insisted on an informed citizenry). Awareness, motivation. Is there a geographic dimension? Do people identify with the place, organization? Get sense of existing cohesion? If so, around what? Indication of existing capacity to adapt, respond? Assess whether there are already mechanisms in place for members to come together and discuss? Issue of leadership. Is there any? What is its nature? How did it emerge? Any track record in terms of solving problems? In part, LR’s same idea as building community.

Process of building community characteristics: Gauge degree of participation. Ideally, you want widespread participation, having the means (procedure-wise) to participate. Interactions between organizations, individuals in community, need good communications system in place. Faith in process, seeing value as individual in being part of the community. No use substituting other’s judgment for the common people (elite). People can decide without entire technical knowledge. Institutions allow people to come together to make important decisions (schools, universities, activist groups). Are there processes in place that allow leaders to emerge or to be identified? Are there things in community allowing to practice leading? E.g... Over-supervised children’s play not always helpful.

Activist’s characteristics: Do they understand the community? How decisions do or don’t get made? Can you determine the commitment of other catalysts? An element of trust between individual and community at large? Community builder experienced? How? How relevant? Are they eligible, adaptable, patient?

Remember the key areas at the micro levels, and the practical questions you would ask to assess them? In research, think more “what are my research questions” what are hypotheses? What are variables that capture the research questions? How can I asses/observe these variables?

Faith/believe vs. reason/logic (i.e. “Truth”) are they mutually exclusive? Some argue science only way. Or, possible common-sense, experience. Experienceàthis leads to “truth,” what work in the sense of keeping you moving. Keeping improving the human condition as that definition continues to evolve. Learning by doing vs. studying not mutually exclusive.

“Third Places”—gathering places; bowling alleys, bars, churches.

Next week: reading for summit; more on East Austin.