Matthew Cox and Dr. Ralph Brown, Sociology
Introduction
Within the field of community development, there are various opinions of what qualities or characteristics define a developed community. Each of these definitions varies depending on the academic or professional sector in which it is found. This research began based on the hypothesis inherent in Flora and Flora’s Community Capitals Framework (CCF), which posits that a community’s connections to resources such as people, organizations, and physical resources within seven capital areas endows it with greater potential for development. Therefore, this research attempted to outline the connections present in a handful of rural communities in central Mexico, in order to determine their potential for development. Following initial sampling activities and subsequent interviewing, though, this project found that leader presence and initiative coupled with community unity were more crucial elements in the development of these rural communities.
Methods
This research consisted of three months of fieldwork in a handful of rural villages in central Mexico during the summer of 2010. I lived with a local family while conducting data collection in these villages that are located outside the city of Irapuato in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico. Initially, data was to be collected through a set of surveys that would evaluate levels of community development in each community, and then also describe the amount and types of connections that each community had that were helping further its development. Through further pre-‐fieldwork research, though, the methods were adjusted to focus on the connections that individual community leaders had by interviewing only the leaders in each community. This followed previous fieldwork I had conducted in the area, which showed that it was the formal and informal community leaders that had connections to the resources needed for their community’s development. Formal leaders could be anyone in a formal leadership position in the community. Informal leaders could be community members that perhaps are not in a formal leadership position, but who have a strong influence in the community to be able to get things done or stop things from getting done on a community level. Both formal and informal community leaders were to be identified through a sampling activity in which community members would be asked the question “who in the community can get things done or stop things from getting done?”. This built on previous research that hypothesized that both formal and informal leaders are generally well-‐known within such small communities, and any typical community member would be able to identify them.
Findings: Cultural Terminology, Leader Presence and Initiative, and Community Unity
Before I began to sample community members to try to identify local leaders, I had an informal conversation with the delegado (a position similar to a town mayor) in a community called El Encino. He explained how he was acting as delegado for almost two years before his official three-‐year term started because the delegado at that time never did anything for the community. When referring to the fact that the previous delegado never did anything, he used the phrase “no se movía”, which directly translates to “he didn’t move”. Since he was the only one in the community that actually “moved”, he took over the responsibilities of the delegado and began working for the betterment of the community.
This idea of a leader “moving” provided a culturally appropriate term that was very different from the U.S.-‐tested-‐and-‐tried idea of a leader “getting things done”. From learning this term, I was able to begin asking people about leaders that moved instead of leaders that got things done. I quickly learned, however, that even the term “move” was not understood by everyone. Some individuals, typically those that were more involved in the community either formally or informally, understood the concept of a leader that “moved”. Still, others that interacted more with their own family than with the community at large would sometimes not understand the concept of moving. Thus, I learned that those that think on a community level are the ones that rise to both formal and informal leadership positions.
Through interviews conducted with those community leaders that actually do “move” for their community—and some that don’t—it became evident that these communities’ connections are not the primary factor in determining the communities’ development, or potential for development. Instead, one of the greatest factors is having a leader that actually moves and takes initiative. When there is a leader that moves present in the community, then they use the connections that are available to access needed resources. This was seen in each of the three villages that were studied. The three villages have generally the same socioeconomic characteristics, and have fairly equal access to people and resources that can help the community’s development. Two of those communities have resources coming into them because there are leaders that “move”. The third community has very few leaders that “move”, and thus resources coming into the community and being mobilized are sparse.
In addition to needing a leader that moves, these communities require some amount of community-‐wide unity in order to fully access and mobilize connections and resources for their development. Both sampling activities and interviews showed that in these three communities there is a general sense of distrust, selfishness, and criticism present. Beliefs in witchcraft being present within the community, in addition to general community backbiting and gossip, divide the community across smaller familial and friendship lines. As leaders access resources on a community level, often the lack of unity inhibits resources being distributed evenly.
In sum, having a strong leader that “moves” and a sense of unification within the community are necessary before these communities can fully benefit from the connections to resources that they have. The three communities have varying strengths in leadership, but all lack a strong sense of community unification, which hampers community development
References
- NCRCRD (North Central Regional Center for Rural Development). “Community Capitals,” June 23, 2008. http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/commcap/7capitals.htm.
- O’Brien, D. J., E. W. Hassinger, R. B. Brown, and J. R. Pinkerton. 1991. “The Social Networks of Leaders in More and Less Viable Rural Communities”. Rural Sociology 56(4): 699-‐716.