How Grassroots Communities Develop From The Bottom Up And Form New Types Of Power Relations

The organizational structures of political and economic systems cause and sustain the sort of hierarchical relations that enable dramatic differences between and across sectors of societies. Within these hierarchies, the people at the top have privilege, wealth, and power, while those at the bottom of the hierarchy are dominated, oppressed, and exploited (Christie, 1997). People are harmed and killed as a result of structural violence but, unlike direct violence, it occurs more slowly. The harm or death of oppressed people may come about because “some people are deprived of food, shelter, healthcare, and other resources” (Christie, 1997). Because structural violence is embedded in a society’s way of being, over the long-term, groups of people may not be able to meet their basic needs to the degree that normal development and growth is impacted.

In Power and Social Change, Richard Healy and Sandra Hinson explore the term power in social change between the world and people. The topic about power was interesting because there are two distinct perspective of power. The most common view of power is power-over. The less common view is power-within. In organizing for social justice, it is important to realize that using power-within will lead to successful achievement to instigate compliance of demands listed by the minorities. Furthermore, there are three criteria of power implement in organizing for social justice, which are direct political involvement, organizational infrastructure, and ideology with worldview. Each criterion plays an important role to the success of establishing a

In a period of complete change beknownst to us as the Neolithic Revolution, some groups of nomads deserted their “normal” way of life and began to settle down in villages and use agrarian methods to make a living for themselves. Two examples would be the Chumash of Southern California and the San of South Africa. Although the Chumash and the San both led a gathering and hunting way of life, they are ultimately two completely different civilizations, embodying unique political organizations, social structures and hierarchies, distinct economic foundations and individual sets of differing values.

When the members of a dilapidated and impoverished community are complacent with their current position within society, they are highly unlikely to see any positive change. To gain the attention of the government, one must care about improving oneś community. If a community wants to improve, they must employ the help of representatives that wish to immediately ameliorate them of their problems. However, a community taking this action is quite sparse, for many people are complacent or apathetic towards their current position within society. If people want to improve their material conditions in their community, they must take

communities have also dealt with their rights being violated and are treated unfairly in their

Social movements are continued, intestinal efforts to foster or retard broad legal and social changes, primarily outside the normal institutional channels endorsed by authorities (Jasper 2014). Movements’ persistence often allows them to develop formal organizations, but they also operate though informal social networks (Jasper 2014). Movements have purposes, even when these have to do with transforming members themselves rather then the worlds outside the movement (Jasper 2014).

In this paper, I compare and contrast two women-based organizations, Nellie’s Women’s Shelter and North York Women’s Resource Centre and provide a critical analysis of their structure through community engagement concepts. The paper focuses on critiquing the mandate of the two organizations, how they are similar and differ in their mandate, as well as identifying the problem that lies within. Additionally, I also critique the organizations’ source of funding and how it can be detrimental to their existence. Organizations are often seen as a catalyst for social change but they can also be problematic, which can hinder the occurrence of a revolution that is aspired.

As the notion of autonomy demands a more participatory role in a sub state national communities affairs, it is important to include the concept of justice. Which, for Fraser, “has a single principle, the capacity to participate as a peer with everyone else, that can apply as a single principle to other demands such as the economy” (D’Arcy, October 28). This idea of justice, also encompasses the segment that justice has a reflexive nature, which is to say that it can “correct itself and be corrected” (D’Arcy, October 28) when need be. There is a political dimension of justice that Fraser describes as concerning “the scope of the state’s jurisdiction and the decision rules by which it structures contestation” (Fraser 2010, pg.17). This is much more than solidifying a sense of self belonging within the community that a member feels or establishing the criteria to become a member of these communities, but of “the circle of those entitled to a just distribution and reciprocal recognition. Establishing decision rules […] set the procedures for staging and resolving contests in both the economic and cultural dimensions” (Fraser 2010, pg. 17). Most importantly, is that “it tells us not only who can make claims for redistribution and recognition, but also how

James Scott argues that the weapons of the weak can be seen as a movement which operates socially without any organizational formality, no manifestoes, no dues, no name, and no sign. I agree with this statement because of the reasons herein discussed. This is so because a lot of attention has been given to protest movements that are large scale and organized in nature. Only appear for a moment in the disguise of posing some form of threat to an entire government. There are several reasons why this kind of bearing keeps on prevailing. It is visible that the excessive attention that is being devoted to peasant revolution was brought about by the Vietnam War and by what is now considered a vanishing left wing academic

In Michèle Lamont’s review, of Saskia Sassen’s “Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy,” She explains the issues and concepts that makes her arguments flawed and ultimately not as strong to reach her intended audience. Before analyzing Lamont’s contribution, we should look at her scholarly background and disciplinary field. Lamont is a professor of sociology/African and African American studies/ Robert I. Goldman professor of European studies at Harvard University. In addition, she has received the 2017 Erasmus prize for her advancement in the social sciences in Europe and other Global Countries. She mainly studies the inequalities, social change, and societies of these developing countries. The main review of this piece

Community development around the world is being practised by various entities, addressing various socio-economic issues that are unique to different communities worldwide. According to Bhattacharyya (2004), community development initiatives are dominant in democratic countries. There are various initiatives that have led to significant shifts in the wellbeing of communities using different development tools to develop communities around the world. South African, which is a democratic country has one of the highest income gabs in the world. The country’s income difference is evident in many townships/rural areas around the country’s underdeveloped communities. The positive impact of community development may be seen in the fields of public health, micro-macro development, food and violence (Bhattacharyya, 2004).

Over the years Marxist theory has not only informed community development but it has also provided one of the most resonant critiques of it. To Marxism, the biggest critique of community development is that it is a mechanism for control to keep the working class in their place and in reserve for when their labour is needed. I will discuss the Marxist theories of alienation and struggles over mode of production and resource allocation, as well as how Western Marxism has shaped community development. In this essay I will also discuss how Marxist theory has identified that the working class are to be exploited by the

Community is established locally but community development is a process that includes actors from inside and outside of the community to achieve sustainability. My previous essays have addressed the progression of community development from place-based attachment, organizing and advocacy to addressing the need and effect of government involvement. The final stop on the continuum of the community development is to analyze market-based approaches to community development. This paper will look at how a market based approach to community development is an important component of community development because it is the appropriate response to the current socio-economic, and political context that our country is in. A market-based approach provides a mechanism to define relationships and allocate economic resources to create systemic change within communities. increasing opportunities for social inclusion and economic sustainability

The ‘Community Architecture’ is kind of architectural practice between architects and users. Also, it can be described as architect follow the wish of users or community to design the building fit the requirement by using local materials and helps the residents to build the structure. Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) described ‘Community Architecture’ should follow the idea about "The aim of community architecture is to improve the quality of the environment by involving people in the design and management of the buildings and spaces they inhabit." () In general, architect call ‘Conventional Architecture’ product, nevertheless ‘Community Architecture’ represents the process rather than the product and most proponents claim that the built product of ‘Community Architecture’ is often better than the product of conventional architecture. “Community architecture means that the personal who inhabit it are involved in and may even be instigators of, its creation and its management as well. The inhabitants are the clients; and the architect works for, or at least with them--in contrast to the typical situation where architects and user never meet.” () The ‘ community architecture’ was the newly invented notion that user participation in the environment is more important than any of another architectural concept, especially in contrast to ‘conventional architecture’. The reasons of that could be limited resources, materials and

The fact that traditional societies were small in size, made possible for anyone to participate with an active and direct way in the government of his community. “Every one is urged and invited to attend public meetings, and everyone is urged to vote not as a duty but as a privilege” (Vidich: 229). In modern