Community and Community Strength - Essay Example

Community and Community Strength Student Name Institutional Affiliation Community and Community Strength Community and Community Strength Indigenous individuals can be found in several countries around the world amounting to an estimated 370 million individuals. Aboriginal communities in Australia are part of these indigenous communities. They are fewer than the non aboriginal community and they practice unique traditions and they also retain their own political, social economic and cultural traits that are unique from those of the dominant societies they live within (Taylor, Wilkinson & Cheers, 2008). The traditional definition is that they inhabited Australia before the later arrival of individuals of different ethnic backgrounds who have now become superior socially, politically and economically. Communities have been described generally described as individuals sharing institutions and values. The share a locality, are a social group that is interdependent and have interpersonal relationships amongst them which are expressed through social networks,. A community can be described as a group of individuals who live in the same defined borders, sharing similar interests, organizations and values. Communities do not exist exclusively and they can contain numerous smaller communities within them (Weeks, Hoatson & Dixon, 2003). For instance, Australia as a whole is a community of individuals sharing the border that is the country Australia. However, owing to historical, social, political and economic factors, communities have emerged within the country with the most common classification being aboriginal communities and non aboriginal communities (Mawson, 2008). Both aboriginal and no aboriginal communities are informally organized entities whose members harbour a sense of identity. Australia’s population is a community, since they are focused on a specific geographic location, but the community is also a social entity that has a corporate purpose and local collective identity. Community strength has been defined in different ways by different scholars. It is the extent to which individuals support each other through family and friendship bonds (Maton et al 2003). In addition, it is also the extent to which individual engages in wider networks amongst themselves crossing boundaries of ethnicity, gender, religion, education, social class and age (Taylor et al 2008). The conclusion of whether it is better to cross these boundaries or not cross them is dependent on the nature of the outcome of this crossing. Schools are examples of communities that benefit from crossing these boundaries. The aboriginal and non aboriginal communities in Australia are characterized by their ethnicities which is also informed by their shared histories. Greater community strength is seen within the connections that individuals have with different organizations as well as the ability that individuals within this community have to successfully negotiate ad get access to services and resources of expert systems and organizations (Edga r, 2001). This access does not only depend on the skills and knowledge of individuals, but also on the responsiveness and transparency of systems and organizations. In this case, the major organization and system is the government since its allocation of resources as well as historical injustices have depended the rift between aboriginal and non aboriginal communities. This implies that if the Australian community is to strengthen itself, the boundaries between aboriginal and non aboriginal communities need to be negotiated in an effective manner. Without genuinely engaging indigenous individuals, it will be harder for the nation to meet the target of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The UN, declaration pertaining to the rights of indigenous people calls upon states to ensure that they obtain prior, informed and free consent of indigenous individuals through their institutions (representative communities) before they adopt administrative or legislative measures that may affect them (Taylor et al 2008). These rules set by the UN provide the world with an international framework for best practice of engagement. Hence, it helps in the negotiation processes between indigenous and non indigenous communities. Successful engagement also requires that the relationship between the two communities be built on integrity and trust. As two parts of a larger community, non indigenous and indigenous communities need to have a sustained relationship between characterized by their working toward achieving their shared goal. The relationship may shift depending on the nature of what is discussed (Edga r, 2001). For instance, complex issues need a higher level of participation from both communities while lower level issues can be solved at a lower level of the community as well. Efforts by the Australian government to improve relations between the communities, and hence, strengthen the Australian community have indicated the need for greater funding flexibility and more effective approaches toward capacity development and accountability systems that reflect the government taking a whole inclusive approach. Strengthening the Australian community requires the engagement of indigenous communities by non indigenous communities (Muirhea d, 2002). This entails them appreciating and having the cultural competency to respond to indigenous contemporary social dynamics, history and cultures. The diversity of these aboriginal communities should be appreciated as well as their cultural skills, knowledge and their social organization (Muirhea d, 2002). Long term relationships of honesty, respect and trusts should be established in addition to ongoing and accessible information and communication flow between the two. Governance within aboriginal and non aboriginal communities should be effectively developed and implemented. The strength of indigenous communities may be based on different issues. Research has – in some cases – found that some indigenous communities are stronger than others. This often determines their success in keeping crime rates low. There is indication that crime rates may vary depending on the geographical location of these communities. Aboriginal communities in particular parts of Australia have a lower crime rate than others (Taylor et al 2008). At the national and state level, it has become a trend to work toward building a strong indigenous communities, this is in relation to promoting strong governance, asset mapping, capacity building and strong leadership. There is no single definition for what a strong indigenous community should be like. Definitions are based on the requirements that the community within which the indigenous community exists in has set. Strong communities are considered to be inclusive, resourced and cohesive. Hence, strong aboriginal communities should provide its members with a supportive, caring and protective environment (Weeks, Hoatson & Dixon, 2003). These are measured by rates of repeat offending, children under the protection and care of others, access to health care institutions, participation in organized community events such as art and sports and the proportion of aborigines with access to their traditionally claimed lands. Incidences of low birth weight, child abuse, child injuries, low birth weight, unemployment, incompletion of the year 12, imprisonment and early leaving of school indicate weakened communities. Strong communities are those that are seen to have adequate resources and reduced social problems (Weeks, Hoatson & Dixon, 2003). There are disparities in Australia between non aboriginal communities and aboriginal communities in terms of access to healthcare and quality education. Several systems are used in community diagnosis as they inform the very nature that these communities will manifest. The cultural system pertains to the ways of life and the basic beliefs that individuals have, including the technologies they use (Ke nny, 2006). Non aboriginal communities have differing cultural systems from aboriginal communities. Their technologies may differ as well as their basic ways of life. The economic system is the resource base of the community, which includes how they earn their living and their resource distribution. Fewer resources translate to less community strength (Ke nny, 2006). These resources are also determined by the geography of the region pertaining to the use of space as well as the location of possible values resources within the location. This also includes the interactions and flows of goods, information and people. The Australian government is facing challenges as they attempt to strengthen aboriginal and non aboriginal communities simultaneously. Evidence based practice guides are yet to be established conclusively (Taylor et al., 2008). Hence, the government has a harder time deciding on the right course of action when dealing conflict within indigenous communities or when the community has weal leadership and fractured governance. There is also little to no evidence about engaging aboriginals living in urban areas as well as Torres Strait Islands. The government of Australia has been looking toward addressing these issues in order to strengthen government partnerships and engagements. In order to ensure that economic resources within aboriginal societies, the Australian government has been working toward ensuring greater cohesion between the government and the indigenous communities (Edga r, 2001). Communities and workers have been experiencing tensions in relation to community project goals and procedures used in achieving them. This is particularly relevant when there are external entities and funding bodies. While there are numerous activities that are referred to as community development, certain external requirements tend to restrict aspects of authority, time span and pace (Ife & Tesoriero, 2006). Strengthening communities is rooted in community development (Edga r, 2001). This is based on the idea that people are able and should be allowed to take a more active approach in the collective ownership and control of their resources and in deciding their future directions. Community development workers are governed by the economic, political and social systems that facilitate and constrain them within their community context (Mawson, 2008). Community development is used to empower communities to take more responsibility and control of their development (Ife & Tesoriero, 2006). This control requires that there are ongoing processes and structures through which communities can develop, address and identify their own problems (Ife & Tesoriero, 2006). Aboriginal communities in Australia as well as non aboriginal communities use different languages. While the latter uses English, aboriginal communities are mostly bilingual and have terminologies that are specific to their community. Language changes and changes how people view the world (Taylor et al., 2008). Language is part of the process of strengthening communities. These processes and patterns that strengthen communities are inclusive of social participation including interaction with strangers, friends and family (Maton et al 2003). Civic participation also contributes to community strength. This is inclusive of activities that aboriginal communities can world cooperatively toward achieving a goal to help the community as a whole and also for the sake of others. Communities are a collection of individuals who share similar values, interests and beliefs. Aboriginal and non aboriginal communities in Australia exist within similar geographical context but they differ in cultural specifics. Owing to historical injustices visited upon aboriginal communities, they exhibit greater disadvantages in social, economic, political and health areas. A strong community is one that has a reduced rate of social disadvantage with less crime, better access to economic, social and geographic resources. Strength of a community can be increased by the government implementing community development programs in the respective communities. References Edga r, D. (2001). The Patc Hwork Nation. Rethinking Government - Re- Building C ommunity. Sydney: Harper Collins Publishers. Ife, J., & Tesoriero, F. (2006). Community developme nt: Community Based Alternatives In An Age Of Globalisation (3rd ed.). Frenc hs Forest, NSW: Pearson Educ ation. Ke nny, S. (2006). Developing C Ommunities for the Future. South Melbourne, Vic .: Thomson. Maton, K., Sc hellenbac h, C., Leadbetter, B., & Sola rz, A. (2003). Investing In Children, Youth, Families and C Ommunities: Strengths-Based Research and Policy. Washington DC: Ame ric an Psyc hologic al Assoc iation. Mawson, A. (2008). The Social Entrepreneur: Making C Ommunities Work. London: Atlantic. Muirhead, T. (2002). Weaving Tapestries: A Handbook for Building Communities. Perth: Loc al Gove rnme nt Community Serv ic es Assoc iation of WA. Taylor, J., Wilkinson, D., & Cheers, B. (2008). Wor King With C Ommunities In Hea Lth And Human Services. South Melbourne: Oxford Unive rsity Press. Weeks, W., Hoatson, L., & Dixon, J. (2003). Comm unity Prac tic es in Australia. Frenc hs Forest, NSW: Pearson Educ ation. Read More