The term 'community' is used far too easily, and that is not without risk

For years, I have noticed that the term 'community' is used in contexts in which people actually mean something else. Throwing 'community' in there, while we mean something along the lines of 'together' and 'group' is not smart and not innocent. Especially since most people in our free and civil society no longer know what a community exactly is. Add the fact that people tend to romanticize the phenomenon of 'community' nowadays.  

How many times have you had a conversation in which ‘community’ meant something along the lines of ‘together’ or ‘group’? In other words, along the lines of what I call communal? How many different, concrete meanings and nuances have you been able to distinguish in all those conversations? How many of those nuances were actually generalizations? For example, how often do you hear ‘community’ when someone means one individual only?

When you think of the ancient phenomenon of 'community', do you know what that means? Or do you just have an idea of a couple of aspects that belong to a community? When you use or hear the word 'community', do you have a positive, negative, or neutral feeling about it? What feeling comes up the most?

These are extremely important questions to be able to reflect on collectively, and to make people aware of how we deal with language use, concepts, and sociopsychological, philosophical, cultural, organizational, and spiritual dimensions. Especially, since more and more people romanticize the phenomenon of 'community' today, including the times of the pillarization of the Netherlands.

Demands, where there should have been choices

When those glorifying lines start running in our brains, before we know it, we end up with the idea that everything used to be better. Thinking of the past, as in the days before globalization and digitization. Of the ubiquitous Dutch cuisine and language. Of the period before woke.

Thinking of those in power who had a firm place as authority, because obedience invariably trumped security (and freedom, of course). Thinking of those in power who came up with demands, where it should have been about choices. And with that, continued to act against the core moral beliefs of many individuals structurally.

In the past, as in the time when people dared to speak out less easily, and the interests of others were not only ahead of, but regularly at the expense of, their own interests. Thinking of personal blueprints that have always existed, but sometimes have never been discovered for a lifetime. This reality check is essential.

In short, we could say that when we use the word 'community' nowadays, we are referring to sometimes hazy, positive elements of the past with nostalgia, which only applied to some at the time. That the positive may not outweigh the negative in the word 'community', also when we take a closer look at the current (closed-up) communities. Could it well be?

I want to argue that the misuse of 'community' is indeed not innocent and not smart. For convenience, you could compare it to the word 'narcissist'. We throw that word around all the time, while narcissism is a horrific phenomenon. Let me deepen this.

Outlines of 'Community'

Fortunately, live and let live is generally still a rock-solid pursuit in our free and civil society today. Many 'do their thing' within the coordinated frameworks of jurisprudence and moresprudence. Unfortunately, live and let live is still a privilege. We still have a lot of people in our society who live within imposed and organized constructs, and are restricted in their freedom in every possible way.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, many people today have an incomplete picture of what 'community' really stands for. If you ask people about the meaning of the word, they can only name a number of aspects within such a community.

So let me first outline the word 'community'. Because without contours, balancing the positive versus the negative of the phenomenon of 'community' becomes a difficult task. Naturally, it then becomes almost impossible to estimate the risks of integrity violations associated with communities – in literally every community, and in every country.

When you think of the real meaning of the phenomenon of communities, do you think of the classical definition of a group of people living or working together in a planned manner? Or of a part of society, consisting of people who have a characteristic in common, for example, origin or religion? A characteristic that is given a lot of weight within the group, and by which clustering is possible? I suspect so.

My definition of the phenomenon of 'community' is as follows: a community is an organized structure that rests on three pillars, namely family systems, belief systems, and institutional systems (@ Dina-Perla Portnaar, 2023). The good thing about this is that you can probably imagine better a structure with extremely complex lines, connections, and proportions. I am going to show this by using my starting-point in life, thus my childhood.

Family systems, belief systems, and institutional systems

Family systems refer to the construct I was born into, including the biological and related relationships, and their physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual characteristics. I consider the roots of the various origins, and the associated world histories of those involved, to be part of the family system. In my case, North-Africa, France, Ukraine, Russia, and Italy. The regimes of Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin, the decolonization, and the fragmentation of scattered emigration.

Belief systems are about being Jewish and Jewish living as an overarching whole, along both Ashkenazi (father's side) and Sephardi (mother's side) lines. Later Hasidic, and even more specifically Lubavitsch, Chabad (mother’s side). Within all those categories, I can make another distinction, namely ultra-orthodox as classification, hierarchy, and matrix. Belief systems are also about which synagogues I was affiliated with as a child. In the Netherlands, that variation is quite limited, but that aside.

Institutional systems refer to organizations that are central to a community, namely psychiatry, care, cemeteries, museums, media, educational institutions, and so on. And to matters such as interests, stakeholders, reputation, and resources.

In all three pillars, the principles of freedom, equality, diversity, heterarchy, and democracy can be limited or even nonexistent. All three pillars have their own written and unwritten rules and interrelationships, which can deviate from civil society – sometimes profoundly. And on which civil society has little or no impact. This is what is meant by closed-up community (@ Dina-Perla Portnaar, 2023).

In this day and age, 'closed-up' is no longer about a tangible separation from the rest of society, such as a ghetto, but about the coordinated frameworks of jurisprudence and moresprudence.

Moral mismatches

There can be (enormous) moral and legal mismatches within, between, and outside the three pillars. Between the community and the collective, or individuals from the collective. Between individuals within the community and the community. And so on with the lines. Also consider the impact of sociopsychological issues and transgenerational patterns, including trauma, at its mildest. And honor-related crime, at its most ominous.

In short, sometimes a mismatch leads to (huge) personal suffering, also known as moral injuries. Certainly in the case of a form of trauma, for example, due to forms of coercion, the behavior of other community members, the same (think of abuses), and differences in views between the individual and the community. Also, the top three reasons for people to leave communities.

Other times, a mismatch leads to prejudice, unease, and other forms of misunderstanding, inequality, and exclusion. In other words, racism and discrimination.

Problems of today

Now that you know this, there is no doubt that you can understand that no one should necessarily be against so-called communal features, for the sake of being against something. A classic example of ‘communal’ is a gathering, from which many can draw strength. However, you can imagine that you could ask at all times whether a communal characteristic brings forth connection and curiosity, or has control and power as its leading goal. You should always want to investigate what is actually the case.

Now that you understand a little more about the substance of the term 'community', by imagining the possible risks of integrity violations in which the three pillars play a central role, there is no doubt that you can understand that we should not blind ourselves to the good of the past either.

Blind to how we have gone too far in certain areas, thus losing valuable elements for the arts of living. Just look around you, and it is clear that balance is hard to find sometimes. That new problems have arisen. Similar to the glorifying lines in the brain when thinking of the pillarization of the Netherlands, this is just as worrying.

The only question is whether the new problems are in proportion to the past. For now, I don't think so. I find the movements that are going on, pushing us back towards the bad of the past, much more worrying. Moreover, the problems in some communities in the real sense of the word are even worse today than they used to be.

In addition, I think that it is too generalizing and narrow-minded to assume that everyone has difficulty with individualization nowadays. Assuming that people continue to float on the surface with their lives rudderlessly, and are not able to take responsibility for themselves. For example, in the context of meaning, connecting with others, or offering help to others. That may be true for some, but certainly not for everyone. And for those who do deal with that, there are plenty of options to be found in the domain of 'communal'.

The beauty of 'communal' still continues to live on, or it is arranged in other ways. From international communities for knowledge sharing such as Substack or Skillshare to local and physical meetups. From scientific to spiritual gatherings and discussion groups. Even digitally, church services as food to combat the prevailing spiritual poverty. Communal is not gone. Communal will never go away.

Doing better when we know better and can do better

So, why be careful about misusing the term 'community' and remaining critical of communities? Because the long-term consequences for individuals, generations, and the collective of moral mismatches can be disastrous. Sometimes irreparable. That is not innocent, indeed.

Just think of all those lives that have been pushed in a certain direction by the peer pressure and group thinking of family systems, belief systems, and institutional systems. How people have conformed to the group negatively and behaved like others. Indeed, with all its consequences. Think of all the forms of abuse.

As I see it, we are given the space to learn from the past and to work on systemic changes in the here-and-now. We can choose to learn and move forward, even with the new problems that arise, or not to make it through this round of evolution and go back to the beginning. Game over. The choice is ours. Isn't evolution the whole purpose of our existence? Do better, when we know better and can do better?

Finally, talking about not innocent. Without further ado, we can trace the history of mankind and conclude that the control and power of the ‘construct’ community has always been part of 'the problem' by definition. In literally every battle and in literally every war that has been fought. Let that sink in if you want to use the word 'community' to indicate ‘communal’. See all possible directions of the lines in the case of battle and war.

Just give me concrete formulations, and always, always, in all possible directions of the human dimension.

The Dutch version of this article was published by BNNVARA, Joop.