Making Meaning Differently
Policy Briefing - Community governance in
the context of decentralisation
Steve Connelly, Gordon Dabinett,
Stuart Muirhead, Kate Pahl and
Dave Vanderhoven
Films and artistic advice: Steve Pool
April 2013
Contents
Section 1. Introduction ............................................................................... 1 Outline of the core argument .................................................................... 1 Structure of this report .............................................................................. 3 Section 2. Methodology ............................................................................. 4 Overview................................................................................................... 4 Literature review ....................................................................................... 4 Colloquia................................................................................................... 4 Telling Cases ............................................................................................ 5 Section 3. Literature review ....................................................................... 5 The social science account of representation and its problems ............... 6 Seeing ‘representation’ through an arts and humanities lens................... 7 i) Representation and the making of meaning ...................................... 8 ii) Aesthetics.......................................................................................... 9 iii) Modal choice and multimodality ..................................................... 10 iv) Values, authority and embodied practice ....................................... 12 v) Literature discussion ....................................................................... 15 Section 4. The telling cases and the colloquia......................................... 16 The colloquia .......................................................................................... 16 Troyeville ................................................................................................ 17 Rotherham .............................................................................................. 19 Manor Farm Youth Group ................................................................... 19 Rawmarsh School Council .................................................................. 20 Sheffield.................................................................................................. 20 Kingston.................................................................................................. 23 Multistory ................................................................................................ 24 Section 5. Guidance for practice.............................................................. 25 Seeing representation differently ............................................................ 26 New ways of engaging ........................................................................... 26 Reflective practice .................................................................................. 26 References .................................................................................................... 28 Making Meaning Differently
Policy Briefing
decentralisation
-
Community
governance
in
the
context
of
Section 1. Introduction
This final report is intended to assist DCLG in supporting local government
and communities to better understand informal processes of representation as
decision-making powers are decentralised. Specifically we provide guidance
on how to enhance the capacity of communities, local authorities and their
partners as they develop innovative forms of community governance. These
forms include neighbourhood community budgeting and local neighbourhood
planning, enhancing the role of town and parish councils, and exercising the
new community rights with respect to building, bidding and challenge. Our
aim is to demonstrate how arts and humanities perspectives can provide both
insights and means for enhancing democratic processes.
The guidance is backed by conceptual and case-based material, which draws
strongly on ideas derived from the arts and humanities and links these to the
ideas drawn from the more familiar social science approaches to governance,
which tend to inform research and policy making in this field1. The basic
rationale for this is that the arts and humanities offer different ways of thinking
and acting which can support the kind of innovations needed to deal with
longstanding challenges in local governance, some of which are set out
below. These challenges are intensified by the current combination of policy
imperatives towards decentralisation and the budgetary constraints at all
levels of government, which jointly drive the search for new approaches to
community involvement in governance and the coproduction of services.
Outline of the core argument
The detail of the argument, the literature and case-based evidence which
support it, are given in later sections of the report. Here we set out the basic
argument to guide the reader through the remainder of the document.
In order to achieve effective and legitimate governance and co-production,
communities and individuals need to be engaged more broadly and deeply
with local authorities and other partners than previously. This often proves
difficult, with many initiatives marred by either insufficient engagement
(pejoratively seen as ‘apathy’) or the participation only of a small group of
1
A very broad collection of disciplines, the ‘arts and humanities’ perspective can be
characterised as one which “explores forms of identity, behaviour and expression, and seeks
out new ways of knowing what it means to be human in different societies” (from AHRC’s
current Strategy, The Human World: The Arts and Humanities in our Time' (2013-2018), p. 4.
1
people, often from a limited demographic background, (equally pejoratively
seen as ‘the usual suspects’). Both the problems with engagement and the
commonplace, pejorative descriptions undermine decentralising initiatives’
legitimacy in the eyes of communities and local authorities. We see this as
fundamentally a set of problems with representation, its practices and
limitations: of so-called ‘community representatives’ who are not seen as
obviously representative; of the effective non-representation of marginal
people and viewpoints; and of conflict with the long-standing claims of elected
councillors to sole representative legitimacy.
Our argument is that part of the problem is the dominance which formal types
of representation have on our understanding, expectations, and practices, and
hence on the judgements which flow from these. We argue for a more
expansive understanding which engages better with people’s everyday
experiences. This would inform and justify new practices of interaction
between government and the public which could help avoid the obstacles
such as ‘apathy’ and the ‘usual suspects’ and provide a framework through
which to consider representation and legitimacy anew.
This alternative understanding of ‘representation’ draws on a long tradition
within the arts and humanities which sees:
‘representation as an essential part of the process by which meaning is
produced and exchanged by members of a culture’
(Hall 1997: 15)
The crucial shift here is from a narrowly ‘political’ understanding of
representation as the process of giving ‘voice’ to interest or demands, to the
much broader one of creating meanings of all kinds within a ‘culture’, a group
with shared life experiences. Practices of representation are fundamental to
the ways in which communities and individuals create and sustain identities,
develop norms of behaviour, and develop and articulate ideas. Such
practices can take many forms. Some of these are language-based, but
many of them are not, as representation can take place though a range of
other forms of expression, many of which are loosely thought of as ‘arts’:
drawing, dance, drama and so on. We therefore emphasise that the
relationship of art to representation is not purely instrumental or ancillary (e.g.
as a useful way to get the ‘hard to reach involved’, or simply ‘fun’ to make
people feel good) but is fundamental, particularly with groups who might be
less comfortable with more formal, spoken or written forms of representation.
It is part of how people represent themselves – to themselves, to each other,
and (if it is made possible) to the state. The ways in which they do this, their
‘modal choice’ that is, the forms that they choose to use to represent ideas
carry meaning as an important part of the representation and the message.
These processes of representation, in the broader sense of how people
continuously make sense of their lives and their communities, are closely
linked to the ‘political’ processes of representation. The point here is that
2
communities don’t have stable, fully-articulated, and conscious needs and
wants which are simply transmitted to the state through the formal
representative system. The process of working out what these are and how
to articulate them is bound up in the everyday processes of meaning- and
sense-making. It is from these that representation may emerge, in the sense
of a community voicing to the state its desires and demands and articulating
its own capacity to act. But this also depends in part on the capacity – the
ability and willingness – of local authorities and other formal institutions to
‘see’ non-traditional forms of representation as representation, and accept
them as both meaningful and legitimate. This has profound implications for
people and institutions of ‘formal’ local governance.
Structure of this report
This report is based on:
•
•
•
a review of relevant arts and humanities and social science literature,
focusing in particular on research carried out as part of the AHRC-led
Connected Communities programme;
the extensive prior practice and academic experience in the fields of
local and community governance of all members of the research
team;
original empirical work comprising two colloquia and engagement with
five ‘telling cases’ of innovative forms of community involvement in
governance.
A brief description of the methodology (Section 2) is followed by the
development of the key concepts and ideas, which inform our argument
through a review of the literature (Section 3). Some of the language used
may be unfamiliar to some readers, given the aim of introducing a different
and distinctive theoretical perspective to understanding governance. We
have thus tried to frame it in ways which make the argument comprehensible
to the non-specialist. The section starts with a brief discussion of the
traditional and more contemporary understandings of representation from
political science, as a way of setting out why current trends in governance
pose a problem for understandings rooted in this discipline. It then moves on
to discuss a range of concepts drawn from across the arts and humanities.
The empirical material generated during the project – derived from the
colloquia and telling cases – is introduced in Section 4. This gives practical,
real world flesh to the abstract concepts, both in order to clarify the literature
and our ‘core argument’, and to provide tangible examples of engaging
communities in governance.
The report concludes (Section 5) with guidance for practice. These suggest
ways in which the conceptual shift we suggest can be put into operation.
3
Section 2. Methodology
Overview
As noted above, this report draws on a combination of literature, empirical
research (to some extent drawing on broader current research activity) and
the prior experience of the team in both research and community
development practice. The overall strategy can be considered as multiple
iterations of a review and reflect cycle, necessitated by the commitment to
bringing together and working for a synthesis of social scientific and arts and
humanities theorising on representation. This was also supported through
repeated conversation with other experts (both from academia and practice)
to prompt and develop our own thinking.
Before, during and after each telling case, we had discussions to work
through the findings, our learning and its application. We submitted an interim
report and gave a presentation to colleagues from DCLG to capture some
thoughts and also to consider the impact of our findings for our audience. We
also produced a series of short films to convey some of the details from our
telling cases that are not best suited to textual forms. Finally, we have drafted
this report and created a bespoke DVD which can be used like a website, to
summarise our thoughts thus far and stimulate further debate.
Literature review
The literature review draws on our varied knowledge and understanding as
experts in the fields of literary theory, representation, multimodality and
everyday creativity, (Pahl), interpretative social and political science and
community development (Connelly, Vanderhoven) arts practice (Pahl, Pool)
community theory, ethnography and social anthropology (Muirhead, Pahl) and
urban and regional planning (Dabinett). In addition, Muirhead undertook a
review of the Connected Communities (CC) research reports that the team
considered relevant, paying particular attention to the arts and humanities in
this process.
Colloquia
An initial colloquium brought together artists, local authority representatives
and community practitioners from across the Sheffield City Region to engage
with the project team and help us shape the direction and focus of the study.
We presented the remit of the project, as outlined by the AHRC, and also
indicated where we viewed the project as developing. The views shared here
assisted us in recognising both the synergy and the divergence between
political and artistic forms of representation. The contributors also discussed
their own framings and understandings of representation and where they
recognised themselves as either representing others, or representing
themselves to others. This helped us in identifying key areas which we
wanted to investigate within the literature and within the specific ‘telling cases’
that we worked with.
4
To follow-up on this and prior to the final presentation to AHRC/DCLG on 12th
March, we held a second colloquium to report back to these same
contributors on the progress we had made throughout the project. Again, we
used their feedback on this day to inform and shape our final presentation and
report.
Telling Cases
We augmented our analysis with five ‘telling cases’. Our aim here was to
explore how arts practices have been deployed in a range of different settings
and to provide a critical reflection on how these have been used to enhance
community governance. The telling cases are not intended to be exhaustive
or representative in a statistical sense, but illuminating.
Troyeville - Johannesburg, South Africa is a vibrant multi-racial area,
renowned for its mixed population as much as its artistic community, who
through investment in art infrastructure have created ‘bits of fastness’ in the
otherwise chaotic city.
Rotherham Children and Young People’s Services. The work in
Rotherham focused on two young people’s groups (Rawmarsh School
Council, Manor Farm Youth Group) and aimed to explore ways in which
alternative forms of representation can inform local government.
Multistory – West Bromwich. A community arts charity that devises and
delivers socially engaged community art projects to effect positive change.
Lowedges/Batemoor/Jordanthorpe Local Integrated Services project Sheffield. Here a range of state agencies led by the local authority are
experimenting with ways to integrate services for elderly and vulnerable adults
which involve the community in governance and promote individual and
community resilience.
OneNorbiton Neighbourhood Community Budget project – Kingstonupon-Thames. Here a new community governance organisation has been
created - a community commissioning board - as part of the national Local
Integrated Services (Cabinet Office) and Neighbourhood Community
Budgeting (DCLG) pilots.
Section 3. Literature review
The central argument of this briefing is that the arts and humanities provide a
lens from which to understand the mechanisms by which people come to
know and understand the world. This lens can help identify ways of
encouraging and developing new frameworks for practice, particularly in
relation to representation and encouraging and developing more people to
become active in communities and to recognise the diverse nature of these
engagements. This is not to deny the importance of social scientific
approaches to governance, and in particular the emerging field of ‘interpretive
policy analysis’ (Wagenaar 2011), but we argue that to some extent these
5
foreclose possibilities for engagement. In this section we set out the basis for
this argument from the social science and arts and humanities literature,
drawing in particular on authors from the fields of literary theory, aesthetics,
philosophical and relational theories that illuminate everyday life and practice
with a focus on representation, multimodality and embodied practices.
The social science account of representation and its problems
In political science, representation has traditionally been seen as the process
by which someone ‘re-presents’ the interests of, or speaks on behalf of
another (Pitkin 1967). Pitkin emphasised the ‘re’ to highlight the necessary
aspect of the relationship between representative and represented, which is to
re-present something relevant that already exists. In the classic, ‘standard
account’ representation has traditionally been considered to be dependent on
a strong, visible relationship between represented (constituents, electors) and
representative (Mansbridge 2003; Pitkin 1967). While the exact nature of this
relationship has been deeply contested, in practice these assumptions have
been given institutional and legal form in the familiar processes of elected
representative democracy i.e. ‘the Westminster model’ of an elected
assembly, whose members gain their legitimacy to represent their
constituents from their electoral majorities, and to whom they are accountable
through the ballot box.
However, this simple, powerful and extraordinarily influential model fails to
capture the complexity of representative processes met within modern
governance (particularly as decentralisation multiplies the settings in which
individuals represent others in decision making processes). Even so-called
‘participatory’ processes involve people acting on behalf of others. As Plotke
put it:
‘the opposite of representation is not participation. The opposite of
representation is exclusion. And the opposite of participation is abstention’
(Plotke 1997: 19)
The problem facing researchers, practitioners and decision makers is how to
unravel the potentially contradictory practices that constitute legitimate ‘representation’. Here the standard account is unhelpful, as it conflates the
definition of representation with one criterion for judging its legitimacy. In this
account to be a representative at all is to be a democratic and legitimate
representative, thus making it impossible to ‘see’ other forms of
representation as representation, or explain how apparently illegitimate (or at
least undemocratic) representation can exist (Rehfeld 2006).
Recent political science re-theorising of representation has tackled this
problem on a number of fronts, sharing a common approach of divorcing the
concept from the notion of legitimacy - representation is considered to be an
empirically observable set of practices, regardless of whether they produce
legitimate representatives or not. For Rehfeld (2006) the key issue is that
6
being a representative rests on ‘audience’ not on electors – to be thought by
people who matter to be a representative is to become one. Urbinati and
Warren helpfully summarise much of this recent work, stripping back
representation to basic components of accountability and authorisation,
regardless of the institutional forms through which these are delivered
(Urbinati and Warren, 2008), while Mansbridge (2003) and Disch (2006)
argue that an even wider range of relationships between people and their
representatives can exist, to the extent that any of us can be represented by
an ‘agent’, without our knowledge or consent. In Johannesburg, Friedman et
al. 2003 go further and argued that being ‘pro-poor’ in policymaking is not
enough. They argue that in doing so policymakers both construct ‘the poor’ as
a homogenous group and promote the assumption that these implied singular
set of unified needs can be conveyed by a single representative.
Closer to practice in the UK, Marion Barnes and her colleagues have shown
how in a range of modern partnership governance settings the process of
creating representation has ‘called into being’ the represented public –
constituencies form around issues, rather than being pre-existing and ready to
have their views channelled through an elected representative. This last point
is crucial – ‘informal’ (i.e. non-electoral, often scarcely-noticed, relatively nonorganised) forms of representation are increasingly important in the
interactions between state and citizens (Barnes et al. 2008). In another
setting this is echoed by Connelly (2011) who showed the complexity of the
informal processes by which the ‘community representatives’ running
neighbourhood regeneration organisations create and sustain their legitimacy.
Conceptually the point is that formal processes are only a special case of
representation, particularly valued in representative democracies but far from
the only form of representation which takes place (Rehfeld 2006; Barnes et al.
2008). The rest, ‘informal’ representation, takes place in settings which
stretch from the well-organised, such a neighbourhood forums, through to
informal interactions between front-line local authority officers, through to
casual encounters between community leaders and members of ‘their’
communities. But there is more going on: vital components of representation
are the myriad interactions within a community which take place before the
state, or a formal ‘representative’, ‘touches’ the community and visible
representation takes place (Pitkin 1967).
Seeing ‘representation’ through an arts and humanities lens
While acknowledging their importance, contemporary social science does not
have a well-developed account of such interactions and their relationship to
more visible and familiar kinds of representation2.
Certain ways of
2
Though see Vanderhoven (2010) for innovative first steps into this field. Also note that while
this report brings together an argument and evidence about these processes, at a conceptual
level this is still ‘work in progress’ and we cannot present a fully-fledged account here.
7
representing tend to be privileged – through the spoken word, particularly in
rather formal settings (such as meetings, or letters and petitions) – and other
ways in which people express themselves are not even recognised as
relevant to representational processes. In contrast, these are fields in which
the arts and humanities have very well-established bodies of theory, which
start from a different understanding of representation and its location at the
heart of everyday life.
i) Representation and the making of meaning
The starting point is to consider the insights from linguistic and cultural theory
that the creation of meaning through interaction is the central characteristic of
society, and of the importance of the representation of reality as a necessary
aspect of these interactions. To reiterate Hall’s words, ‘representation is an
essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged
by members of a culture’ (1997: 15). He writes that various representational
systems – pre-eminently but not solely language - use signs to symbolise
objects, people and events, in both real and imagined worlds. Representation
is not a simple mirror whereby the world is reflected, but rather, meaning itself
is produced within representational systems. These systems are culturespecific ‘codes’, which shape and construct the way representations are
conceived of and understood within any particular society or sub-group which
shares a common culture. Representation is therefore something active and
emergent and constantly part of a cultural process.
Pearce (2011) discusses the processes and levers of influence that sit within
the community and how the juxtaposition of the ‘powerful’ state and the
‘powerless’ community can often be limiting and unhelpful. She highlights that
often those who exercise the other forms of power in society (the non-state
related forms) either choose to be on the periphery, or are forced to take a
longer view of how their action may enforce change.
This draws attention to the importance of the process of performing
representation. For example, Thomson et al. (2011) suggested in their CC
report that the real effects of a community arts project are likely to be taking
place throughout the process. This recognises representation as being part of
the end product of these arts projects, but it also encompasses the affective
and embodied representations that are woven through the process. One
argument that runs through the Thomson et al. paper is that community arts
performance can create a space where local knowledge and storytelling can
become significant. A new identity can be formed, free from larger socially
constructed identities that disadvantage these communities. This advantage
also has the ability to reach beyond those taking part, to the multiple
audiences of those who view the performance. Ultimately, according to the
argument of Fraser (2000), this gives the opportunity for the community to
reclaim identity and ascribe meaningful value and significance to their own
representation of themselves. This is further explored in the following
8
sections, initially using the lens of aesthetics to understand how meaning can
be understood in this context.
ii) Aesthetics
Aesthetics as a term and as a concept is one with a complex past. Aesthetics
was born originally as a discourse of the body and in its original usage by the
German philosopher, Alexander Baumgarten, the term refers not in the first
place to art, but, to the whole region of human perception and sensation. In
further sections we will go on to describe the importance of the body and
‘embodiment’ but here we want to focus on our broader understanding of
aesthetics, as a term that can help us understand and envisage the meaning
underpinning arts practices.
This field takes as its premise a situated concept of the arts, which relies on a
dialogic understanding of meanings within sites. Here, the concept of
conversations within sites and spaces, that then unseats relations of power,
provides an understanding of local communities that is relational. This
perspective engages with the flow of power that runs through arts practice.
We draw on these fields when thinking about change within communities and
consider how an arts practice approach to creating change can open up new
possibilities within communities.
‘The peculiarity of aesthetic discourse, as opposed to the languages of art
themselves, is that, while preserving a root in this realm of everyday
experience, it also raises and elaborates such supposedly natural,
spontaneous expression to the status of an intricate intellectual discipline.’
(Eagleton 1990: 3)
Eagleton (1990) is beginning here to elaborate on how aesthetics can both be
a practical tool for viewing expression and meaning, but can also be an
extremely challenging discourse with social, cultural and political
connotations. Rancière (2006) talks of two ‘politics of aesthetics’: the politics
of the ‘becoming life of art’ and the politics of the ‘resistant form’ and he
argues that these always exist together. In the first politics, the aesthetic
experience resembles other forms of experiences and as such, it tends to
dissolve into other forms of life. In the second politics of aesthetics, the
resistant form, the political potential of the aesthetic experience derives from
the separation of art from other forms of activity and its resistance to any
transformation into a form of life. In these two forms, the aesthetic can often
merge with other forms of representation on one hand, or it can very
deliberately make a statement on the other. What we would like to argue, is
that both these forms of representation should be made visible and seen as
legitimate.
Rancière (2010) then moves this notion of aesthetics to something that it is
shared in the ‘fabric of common experience’. This perspective rejects
partitioning of times and spaces, sites and functions. This then creates a
9
permeable space, one that can be awakened and take on new life in various
ways. Rancière is concerned with invisible worlds that are unseen and argues
that aesthetics moves beyond the sensible and offers a transformative and
creative space of action. He talks about the freedom of the aesthetic, and its
link to the hope of change, which implies a more nuanced engagement with
spectatorship and an exploration of other ways of learning and knowing are
possible. There is a great opportunity to connect these debates with
organisations concerned with democracy and participation.
When making meaning, people make aesthetic as well as modal choices to
then shape their representations (Rowsell 2013). A modal choice is simply the
form in which an individual or a group of individuals choose to express
themselves. Young people who are not traditionally heard in communities,
such as girls from the British Asian communities, might employ different
aesthetic choices from the mainstream, but use these effectively to make
representations about racism and lived experience in new ways (Hull and
Nelson 2009). When we talk about ‘art’ we see art being used in the everyday,
in a way that can be both inherent or deliberate, and aesthetic practices
shape these processes.
We therefore argue for a valuing of the everyday as an aesthetic category that
shapes representation. In terms of creating action within communities, art
theorists such as Rancière (2010) warn of the dangers of dismissing ‘the vast
majority to shadowy silence or inchoate noise’ (Corcoran 2010:7). Instead ‘art
may create a new scenery of the visible and a new dramaturgy of the
intelligible’ (Corcoran 2010: 19). This valuing of the unseen is a process that
also requires a process of listening to the world of common experience to reframe political engagement. The through line from art to politics is thus
articulated, for Rancière, within the everyday and often within the visual arts.
For example, we found evidence that visual arts and non linguistic forms can
help young people explore and express difficult feelings, those that they
struggle to articulate verbally (Macpherson et al. 2011 – CC Study).
Therefore, practically, aesthetics matter and these forms of representation
often take on varying cultural forms that must be recognised and engaged
with.
iii) Modal choice and multimodality
The field of multimodality develops from the writing of Gunther Kress (1997,
2010). Kress uses the examples of language to make his point about modal
choice. As languages are different across the globe, shaped and defined by
cultural meaning, then so are modes of representation. Humans make signs
in which form and meaning stand and these signs are made with very different
means, and in extremely different modes (Kress, 2010). It is essential to pay
attention to the mode of the representation as these meaning-making systems
are intrinsically shaped by individual and community culture and experience.
10
The process of representation is located within everyday life and interactional
processes and when individuals make meaning they do so by drawing on a
number of different modes (Kress 1997). In other words, the choice of the how
something is represented is central and meaningful. Individuals and groups
have particular connections with modes of expression, and these may be
visual, gestural, aural and other forms of artistic representation. These modes
go beyond the written, go beyond the voice, and open up the vista to diverse
forms of representation.
Leander and Blotz (2013) argue for an understanding of meaning making that
is grounded in diffuse and embodied experiences of the world. This
unbounded nature of communicative practice can include multilingual and
digital forms, often unrecognised within traditional governance structures, but
recognised within contemporary society and local spaces.
Hull and Nelson (2009) talk about the online, narrativised self through
exploring digital stories by young people. They described the ‘intuitive sense
of the meaning making affordances and aesthetic properties of the mode of
the visual image’ (p. 221) in young people’s digital stories – which were
designed to create change in their communities. They argue that this is a kind
of ‘imaginative vigilance’ that reconfigures the multimodal textual architectures
of individual life-worlds and social communities. Often young people will
communicate through informal modes and methods, using personal and
meaningful forms of expression, such as music, to represent themselves. To
capture these forms, or even to recognise them as forms in themselves, gives
individuals agency.
The ‘Keeping in Touch’ CC report (Dovey et al. 2011) is the first iteration of a
series of questions that look to support the development of a digital
communications strategy for communities of interest or place. They highlight
the need to build on people's everyday practice, demonstrating the
importance of this everyday to the sustainability of any project. They state that
their respondents did not talk about community strengthening but about
connecting to people, sharing information and joining in events and activities.
Community life was described in terms of activities, encounters, collaborations
and meetings. This weaving together of modes builds a map of how people
engage with their community, one that is linked to their own experiences and
ways of knowing.
Rowsell (2013) looks at individuals’ felt connection to mode and how modal
choice can be traced back to their own histories and pasts. By identifying
parts of the habitus in text making processes, moments of agency can be
uncovered (Rowsell 2013). Habitus, as defined by Bourdieu (1977, 1990),
describes ways of being, doing, and acting in the world across generations,
time, and space. Rowsell, like Pahl (2002, 2004), argues for a theory of
meaning making that sees texts as inscribed traces of social practice (Rowsell
and Pahl 2007). Therefore, text making is strongly linked to identities. It is
rooted in ideological dispositions of power. The role of the meaning-maker is
11
to make sense of these modal choices in an ideologically laden world. We
have used this thinking as a tool to understand the importance of how
individuals express their views and the reasons for using that particular form
of articulation.
We draw on the arts and humanities when thinking about questions of voice,
value and identity to inform ways of understanding legitimacy as well as
listening structures in communities. We consider how people come to be
identified with particular value systems and acknowledge the often intuitive
and non-rational forms of meaning making that go alongside more visible
forms of representation and may lead to local decision-making.
We have also drawn on particular understandings of how people in
communities come to have a voice and get listened to. This rests on concepts
of representation as contingent, in process, and fractured by identity and
infused with narrative, tellings, re-tellings and articulations that are not always
clear (Georgakopoulou 2007). Processes of representation are sometimes
articulated and heard, but often not, particularly when people do not share the
same languages, modal registers or aesthetic frameworks.
This links to the work of Denzin (2003) who describes cultures which draw on
epistemologies of performance for governance structures. Performance
foregrounds cultural meanings and becomes a way of articulating experience
and shaping critique of situations that are problematic. Denzin explores
performance as an act of intervention, a method of resistance, a form of
criticism. Performance becomes public pedagogy when it uses the aesthetic;
the performative then comes to foreground the intersection of politics,
institutional sites and experience. In this way performance is a form of
agency, a way of bringing culture and the person into play and can be used as
a mechanism to publically express views.
iv) Values, authority and embodied practice
The concepts of authority and legitimization were explored by Blencowe et al.
(2011) in their CC report. They explore the term of ‘immanent authority’ as a
specific type of power that can be examined through the lens of community
creation, vitality and empowerment. There is a focus here on pluralism and
the need to understand what constitutes objective and formal knowledge and
where there is scope for conflicting views on what comprises and enacts
community life. This leads to the authors arguing that future research on
community empowerment should focus on the production of this authority and
should have the capacity to include studies of community performance,
narration, history, imagination and community-led design. We have
endeavoured to address this challenge in this project, to try and recognise
some of these aspects, and to communicate how these link across the telling
case groups that we have worked with.
Siebers and Fell (2011) in their CC report explore the relationship between
the concepts of ‘community’ and ‘future’ from a philosophical perspective.
12
They highlight that ‘the active orientation on the future is at the heart of the
present life of the community (2011: 7). This temporal perspective attributes
greatest meaning to the aspirational notion that there is more value in
communities imagining what ‘can be’ rather than what ‘will be’. Understanding
aspects of what has went before, and what may still come, helped us to
develop our own thinking on the role that community and arts representation
plays across the telling cases – especially in relation to attributing meaning to
artistic and embodied practices that seek to enact change.
Within our project we have examined community empowerment and the
importance of aspiration that are revealed through community arts
performance. This recognises that authority and power (and subsequently
representation) can become monopolised by a few supposedly correct ways
of thinking, or ways of seeing. What we seek is to challenge is this view and
make other forms of representation visible.
Embodiment is a concept that assumes the experiences of the individual are
shaped by the active and reactive entity that is their body (Parr, 2005). This is
one central part of why non-formal and non-linguistic modes of representation
are so important.
‘Our first and foremost, most immediate and intimately felt geography is of the
body, the site of emotional experience and expression. Emotions take place
within and around this closest of spatial scales.’
(Davidson and Milligan 2004: 523)
This bodily experience, in conjunction with the emotional, personal and social
processes and meanings that imprint the individual, are central to
understanding and interpreting individuals’ experiences and interaction with
representational processes.
A constructive view of embodiment is expressed by Phelan (1997), who
describes the acts of live performance as being art with real bodies. Phelan
sees this performance as having an integrative, healing potential with direct
relevance to the cultural moment in which it is being enacted. To supplement
this link to both human feeling and cultural connection, Callard and Papoulias
(2010), working within the field of memory studies, record the increasing
interest in “affect” alongside “embodiment” in the humanities. This approach
rejects the Cartesian mind/body duality and moves beyond just cognition, to
an area of feeling and meaning. This development stresses immediate
engagement and connection with the world that has the potential to re-frame
how individuals interact with the world around them.
Buser and Arthurs (2011) in their CC report, echo this call to understand affect
and emotion, and the role this plays in motivating artists and activists to
engage. They argue that investigations into emotional and affective
experiences could help draw out notions of place, community and identity
within activist/performative environments. Work by Pink (2009) and Ingold
13
(2011) explore using sensory and ‘in place’ modes of anthropology, examining
the lived experience of people within communities. This acknowledges that
the process of working with people in communities involves an embodied and
engaged practice in itself.
The form in which those stories are presented could also be framed via
accounts of representation drawn from performance studies. Brecht (1978)
and Diamond (1998) both highlight the fact that no theatrical or stage
representation is ever literally “realistic”, even if it aims to reproduce reality,
and that different techniques of production may use the same story to produce
different impacts. Any account of the impact of community theatre must
consider whether seeing their represented past on stage made the audience
feel proud, angry or motivated to change things, as this will affect the larger
social impact the performance produces. This will also help distinguish
between the effects produced by being part of the representation, and those
produced by being part of an audience watching narratives which intersect
with their experiences. There is therefore a relational aspect to these
performative and embodied forms of representation and one that depends on
the filter of the audience (and this audience includes policy-makers as well as
those who are being represented on stage).
Our study also recognises that there are different kinds of ‘doings’ and to
value ‘everyday interactions, practices and feelings’ as key elements in
diverse representational practices which might fall under a broad heading of
social participation (Jupp 2008: 341). Much of these doings, the actions of the
telling cases, are expressed in an embodied way. These deliberate choices of
representation include expressions that are enacted through bodily
expression and action.
We also actively wanted to explore the emotions that are present within the
research. These emotional experiences are concerned with the association
between feelings themselves and the representations and accounts of these
feelings that are experienced through the body and within particular spaces
(Davidson and Milligan, 2004). To be able to do this, a more nuanced
approach was used in the research, using and examining artistic methods of
expression that contribute to more personal understandings of lived
experiences (Parr 2005). We felt that examining representational processes in
this way was essential to recognise the meaning of what was being
expressed:
‘the process of valuing things in the world is inseparable from the emotions
and feelings they induce in us; without these emotions and feelings there
would be no value.’
(Milton 2002: 100)
This links to recent works, from across the social sciences, in the fields of
emotions in both governance and the policy-making process (Durnova 2013;
14
Hunter 2012; Gottweis and Prainsack 2006). Often taking a cue from feminist
approaches but also more recently non-representational geographies of
affect, some accounts challenge straightforward descriptions of the working of
the state and other agencies, showing how spaces of interventions often
frame much ‘more than’ (Horton and Kraftl 2009) policy rationalities,
producing ‘enlivened’ (Smith et al. 2010) accounts of encounters between
citizens and the state and its agencies. This move in analysis sits alongside a
new mood within governmental practices themselves which explicitly seek to
capitalise on emotional interactions or govern through affective, non-rational
behaviours, raising questions about the role of the state and its relationships
to citizens. Examples would include new interests in ‘emotional intelligence’
within education (Humphrey et al. 2010), new paradigms of ‘co-production’
and localism in public services and community or neighbourhood interventions
that we look to speak more directly towards.
v) Literature discussion
Alternative representational forms require modes of listening and engagement
to make sense of them. Artists provide a lens for seeing things differently but
also arts practice disrupts taken for granted practices that assume that
representation can only take place in particular places and in particular ways,
and makes these a more meaningful and encompassing. This enables the
process of representation to be taken beyond the process of voice that is well
documented in the social science literature, to a more nuanced area of
meaning making. Using the theories from aesthetics, multimodality and
everyday and embodied practices we see that creating agency for
communities involves harnessing their representational forms. And by seeing
representation as performed and constructed it is possible to recognise and
engage with these forms in meaningful ways.
Creating representations of life is something people do, bringing aesthetics
into the moral space as well as the beautiful space – using intuitive insights
(Hull and Nelson 2009). Art can be located within the everyday, making it
central to lived experience. The use of this art by individuals and communities
may either be overtly political and focussed on enacting change in formal
structures of governance, or it can be more incidental, an expression that is
not deliberately politicised, but still just as important. Representation can be
taken for granted but it is important to listen more carefully to people’s modal
choices and their meaning making processes, online or off-line, material or
immaterial. This is not just the output of an arts representation (a show, a
piece of art, a dance, some imaginative text) but it is also the processes of
how this was produced. The story of the production is significant, both in
terms of the motivations behind the process, but also the very real
connections and meanings that are made throughout.
15
To appreciate the importance of connection and dialogue between those
representing their meanings, and those who have to translate these meanings
and incorporate them into policy and practice is central, and we look to use
our telling cases to illustrate some of these connections.
Section 4. The telling cases and the colloquia
The central thrust of our argument here is that new perspectives on
representation in practice are possible through recognising arts and
humanities theory and practices that are at play in community processes. The
principal shift is from an understanding of representation as voice that is
grounded within social science theory, to the broader conception of
representation as meaning-making. Much of the literature explored above
shows what this means in practice. We emphasise though that these are not
disconnected: that in the ‘real world’ everyday practices of representation
(meaning-making) are the basis of dialogue (i.e. representations) between
community and state. Everyday representations may carry voice, but may
also portray emotional engagement with issues and places, be deployed
through different ‘modes’ and may echo resistance or consensus and carry
aesthetic qualities. If this enhanced understanding is to have any utility in
linking ‘the state’ and communities then the former (local authority officers,
councillors, civil servants etc.) will need to ‘see’ these unfamiliar forms of
representation and learn know how to interpret and engage with them. In this
section we draw on our engagement with communities through the cases and
the colloquia to illustrate and elaborate on these ideas, presenting examples
both of communities making sense through representation, and innovative
ways in which the state has engaged with these.
The cases are arranged in a rough ordering of the level, or ease, of
engagement of the state with the community in question, from the case in
which the state was virtually absent (Troyeville) to that in which the local
authority and community were working most closely together in familiar ways
(OneNorbiton). (More description of the cases can be found in the DVD.)
To accompany this section we ask readers to watch the related films as the
two modes communicate different things, and so should enhance the
reader’s/viewer’s understanding by juxtaposing the immediacy of engagement
through the films with the more abstract analysis in the text. In this we also
demonstrate the importance of multi-modal communication, and provide an
opportunity for readers/viewers to reflect on how they interpret different forms
of engagement with the complex realities of local community settings.
The colloquia
In the first colloquium the community activists and arts practitioners
emphasised the central issue for the research: that communities engage in a
wide range of different practices to represent themselves in different ways. In
particular they strive to interact with the state, and often use ‘artistic’ means to
16
do this. However, their common experience is of the state’s failure to see or
hear their representations, or of successful engagement with front-line staff,
which then goes no further and is made ineffective. The central message was
for officials and councillors to be more open both to other forms of
representation and also to value these differently – to change the criteria
which led them too easily to label representations as illegitimate.
The dialogue also brought out an important, unresolved struggle around this
issue, common to arts and social science academics as well as practitioners.
For both, there is a crucial question of how to judge whether a representation
should be taken seriously, be persuasive: a question framed by social
scientists and the more political activists in terms of legitimacy, and by arts
theorists and practitioners in terms of authenticity. Given the need to find
non-electoral criteria for legitimate representation in the neighbourhood
governance context, this could be a fruitful avenue for further exploration –
can the artistic concept of ‘authenticity’ help establish whether a particular
community representation should be taken as legitimate? We also questioned
the function of such deliberations and concluded that, at least in part, this
struggle was part of a strategy to reduce uncertainty in complex judgements
and informal selection processes.
Our broader preliminary analysis, as presented at the second colloquium and
included below, was validated by the community-based participants. It ‘rang
true’ and spoke to their experience, their concerns and their understandings of
how representation ‘worked’ (or not).
Troyeville In this uniquely multi-racial inner-city neighbourhood, we observed a
community which was largely self-organising – a diverse range of initiatives
have been entirely citizen-led, with no state involvement. This partly reflects
decades of weak or absent connections with formal democratic structures.
The apartheid state gave no space for democratic community involvement,
and following the ‘transition’ to democracy the mainly African National
Congress-voting population of Troyeville had no means of ‘elevating’ their
concerns through formal political channels. Until recently, the ward included
an adjoining neighbourhood dominated by huge migrant worker hostels, which
guarantee that local councillors are from the opposition Inkatha Freedom
Party – a minority on the overwhelmingly ANC-dominated city council.
Further, local state planners have consciously not engaged with the Troyeville
community, even though there are city policies in place which purportedly
encourage public participation in a broad range of planning and service
delivery issues. As a result of this long-standing disconnection, Troyeville
residents have developed alternative means to ‘be heard’ and ‘be seen’ in the
city. Art and politics are inseparable – community activists are largely
involved in arts practice, and much of what they do is ‘political’ and oriented
17
towards community development and representing the community in
new/positive ways.
One fundamental meaning-making process is evident in the way the
community represents itself through its built environment. In a city in which
most residents live behind walls – in the wealthy suburbs for security, in the
townships to mark property boundaries - Troyeville has fewer walls and even
the relatively wealthy have little protection from otherwise ubiquitous private
armed response security companies. Underpinning these manifestations lie a
set of values and conceptions of the ‘other’ that are re-presented in physical
form. Living in the city without high walls is a direct challenge to the widely felt
fear of crime that makes security ‘essential’ for those who can afford it. This
is more than just a way of living: it carries meaning for the residents and is a
statement to the rest of the city that a different way of living based on
collective surveillance of open streets rather than private protection in walled
homes is possible. It creates different forms of public space with interaction on
busy streets that generates a collective attachment to place.
Rare in the suburbs but commonplace in the townships, residents have
created restaurants, shops, cafes, a cinema, art galleries and other local
amenities. There are a number of community-based projects in the area, such
as childcare centres, youth groups, food-growing and dance projects. Most
have been achieved without state involvement and formal funding strategies
or business plans. Individuals and groups have emerged to pick up different
issues that the state cannot solve and have been largely self-funded.
These creative and social activities have been central in giving previously
marginalised groups a voice and have provided a space for the community to
deal with conflicts – striking examples of a community taking a creative
approach to its own governance. Thus, for example, a group of women came
together (through funding to support World Cup 2010) to create employment
opportunities by learning how to make mosaics to sell to football fans. They
were employed to help a local artist to prepare a large mosaic to
commemorate the massacre of striking miners by armed forces in 1925. The
women were recruited from a local charity supporting victims of domestic
violence and conflict. Women reported regaining a sense of humanity from the
project, because they had the opportunity to talk to other women who had had
similar experiences and find mutual support. ‘While their hands were busy
they talked, really talked…’ The artist was so impressed by their engagement,
‘it was one of the most moving experiences I have ever had, at work…’ He
widened their role, extended their contracts and they made the mosaic
collaboratively. Prompted by making an image of a violent repression, the
women spoke of hidden details from their lives and in the process they were
heard by others that understood.
Another conflict-solving example is a food-growing project which started as a
way of occupying young residents in a tenement block, plagued by rather
familiar problems. ‘We [adults] are outnumbered three-to-one. They [kids]
18
bored, people get upset with noise, tempers are lost… it was madness’. Since
engaging the young men in particular, graffiti is non-existent, relationships
between residents are not as fraught, food has been grown and a group of
young people have learned how work together and be more self-sufficient in
ways which go beyond simply growing food.
In the chaotic and sometimes risky environment of Johannesburg creative
practices provide a form of governance that enable people to come together.
As residents find ways of managing conflicting perspectives, their practices
expose the artistry (Schon 1992) in governance.
Rotherham
Manor Farm Youth Group In the case of the Rotherham Children and Young People’s Services youth
groups, a youth worker from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, an
artist and a University of Sheffield academic worked with young people from
the former pit village of Rawmarsh on a film-making project. Unlike in
Troyeville, arts practices provided the means of channelling ‘voice’ in ways
that involved ‘outsiders’ including the local state – but as in Troyeville, the
context was one in which the community as a whole, and these young people
in particular, are marginalised and many have little sense of being
represented in local governance. The issue is partly about ‘re-representing
Rawmarsh’ (which suffers repeatedly from negative representation in the local
and national media) and partly about engaging young people at risk from Far
Right organisations, which locally are threatening to provide alternative routes
for people to channel their frustration and reassert their identity. Beyond this,
the young people themselves took the opportunity to develop through the arts
a language to speak to decision makers about the issues that concern them.
The film emerged from a two-month process of discussion and negotiation
with the youth group – initially about politics and ‘voice’ and then about how to
express their voice to those in power. It took place in a setting in which the
young people could choose whether or not to engage, could move in and out
of discussions, and could also choose to start other activities, such as
dancing. The process as a whole, from inception through to the showing of
the film to the young people and DCLG embody aspects of sense and
identity-making through to shifting government practice.
It exemplifies the importance of process in representation. The film could not
have been created quickly as a standalone idea – it emerged from the
dialogue and different stages in the young people’s expression. In part the
issue here is the importance of human relationships and the development of
mutual trust in enabling representation to occur. We see the young people
choosing different ways to express themselves, in a sequence in which each
‘modal choice’ builds on the one before. Thus they started with music and
dance – the least obviously ‘intelligible’ but powerful in expressing emotions
19
and reinforcing a collective identity, and one in which the young people feel
comfortable. Shadow puppetry was their choice to start expressing their
ideas more explicitly: chosen because although unfamiliar it was secure, in
that they could use their voices without their faces being seen. Making a film
of the area and the play was a way of reaching out, and making their voices
heard; a film for which they finally wrote the text ‘captions’ which give the
clearest expression of ‘voice’ but were only possible because of the preceding
creative steps. Representation in the political sense then happened through
the showing of the film to DCLG thus demonstrating the intimate connection
between the processes of artistic representation and a political process.
Moreover, these events further shaped the young people’s capacity to
express their needs and take collective action – they are now a group seeking
ways to get a youth centre for the area. One can also see changes in state
practices here: the civil servants were willing and able to engage with these
unfamiliar forms of representation and begin to make sense of them.
There is also a more subtle lesson here, which is crucial to changing practice.
Going beyond accepting and engaging with unfamiliar and powerful
representations there is a need to seek the meanings, the messages,
embodied in the choice of mode of expression. The choice of a medium in
which young people don’t have to show their faces implicitly yet powerfully
conveys something meaningful about their lives and their relationship with
authority.
Rawmarsh School Council As a contrastive example we also present a film made by Rawmarsh School
Council, which was shown to the local MP and the headteacher of the school.
Here, the film making process was about the School Council, elected as
representatives of the school, using film to express the need for the senior
management to take seriously their request to wear trainers in school. By
making their voices heard through the film, a dialogue was opened up
between the school council and the senior management team, and a political
process of engagement developed with the local MP. Here, elected
representatives (the School Council) made a film as part of a process of
dialogue and engagement. The choice of medium to present the message
was again a key part of this process.
Sheffield The Lowedges, Batemoor and Jordanthorpe project – managed by Sheffield
City Council and originally a Cabinet Office Local Integrated Services pilot – is
aimed at the effective and democratic integration of service commissioning,
design and delivery. A project within the city’s wider suite of ‘Learning by
Doing’, its development is very ‘organic’ and incremental, guided by a broad
aim but with very few preconceptions about what institutional forms are
required. It is consciously experimental, and also consciously experimenting
with how to learn from the experiments, working alongside members of the
20
research team in ways inspired by a synthesis of humanities and social
science methods (action research methodology and realist evaluation
approaches). A small component of the project is also using ‘the arts’,
including drama and dance, to stimulate community involvement, which is the
principal subject of the film.
The unfamiliarity – and ‘artiness’ – of the dance event was challenging to
most of the officers involved, apart from two senior officers who championed
the approach. Afterwards this scepticism was significantly reduced, and the
event was seen to have yielded sufficient gains. It built trust and opened up
avenues for future work with a previously unengaged TARA – who were
onlookers not directly involved in the drama – and also demonstrated the
power of dance to engage individuals who would not involve themselves in
more formal ways of engaging with the local authority. Follow up interviews
also showed how it broke down the isolation of some of those involved, and
how in meeting and thinking about how to engage people in meaningful
dialogue, they found themselves thinking about a wide range of relevant
issues, shared ideas, found new confidence and practiced speaking out. More
generally, the event can be seen as a way in which the community started to
make new sense of its green open spaces – as places in which new,
enjoyable activities could take place over which they had a measure of
control, rather than being (as at present) barren spaces between homes
which are the responsibility of ‘the Council’ and little valued by the community.
This new representation is perhaps a precondition for a more hopeful future,
in which local authority and community can work together more productively
(and cheaply) in managing these spaces. One can also clearly see here how
the experience of working in this new way shifted officers' assumptions and
their practice of engaging with the community.
This is very typical of the project as a whole. Its first phase, which has been
increasingly influential on other service provision in the city, was driven by
concerns for adults aged over 85, considered ‘at risk’ but not currently
supported by the local authority or NHS, and in particular aimed to reduce the
number of unscheduled winter admissions to hospital. The strategy focused
on one-to-one work, with community support workers going into individuals’
homes to jointly create a ‘winter plan’ to ensure people know how to access
support if necessary. The outcomes were often apparently ‘small’ things like
shopping in snow or changing a light bulb, but they reveal a side to peoples’
lives that are usually hidden: loneliness, isolation, cold. These details represent people’s needs meaningfully and for many officers this new personcentred focus has been an emotional journey into what are quite often
desperate lives. As a result of seeing the meaning in these representations
within an action research setting, officers have had an opportunity to try to
enact necessary changes in practice and policy and now understand the need
to integrate services, but with greater emphasis on the needs of service users’
perspectives. For the older people, this engagement has not only enabled
21
them to express their needs – and have them met, often in very simple,
inexpensive ways – but also has had significant benefits in reducing isolation
and giving them a sense of both agency and belonging.
Two further aspects of the project emphasise how in the contexts of
developing new forms of governance, widening participation and creating
coproduced services, that arts and humanities methods have much to offer.
The first is the value of action research as an approach to creating a learning
organisation. Outside of social science for much of their development,
methods such as action research, action learning and inquisitive enquiry are
mainstays in the arts and humanities toolkit.
When the process started, officers were keen to describe the major task
ahead of them as better communicating their role to the wider public; so the
public would appreciate the issues facing the council. As they went out into
the community of LBJ, officers were surprised by the impact that connecting
with people’s lives had on them. They developed an increased awareness of
how departmental and sector boundaries hindered the potential to solve some
enduring problems. Senior management have given officers a licence to
experiment with new practices in order to find solutions to such problems.
Using an action research approach has enabled officers to learn how to
intervene more effectively, particularly with partner organisations, where
allocation of resources is beyond their own line management control. The
alternative would be for individual management teams to provide a blueprint
for solving issues. Our experience of this process suggests that the
organisations were not fully conscious of the nuanced needs of service users
from a multidisciplinary perspective, so any restructuring of services would
have been inadequate in the early stages.
A structure that enables learning, reflection and redesign, implies learning for
all participants. However, the assumption is often perpetuated in the early
stages of interaction that change belongs to the ‘other’. Be it attitudinal
change in residents that seems to demand a new communication strategy or
forms of governance that expect newcomers to know how to behave,
implementation tends to reveal the shortcomings of these early depictions of
the problem. Getting the design right first time is unlikely given the need to
work across sectors and the wide range of management permissions and
policy shifts that may be necessary.
The second aspect is the power of narrative in representation processes. A
conspicuous feature of the project has been the representation of individuals
in the community through the stories of their problems and the (sometimes)
successful intervention by the project in solving these. These stories have
been reiterated many times, and have become representative of the
community as a whole, its problems and of the project approach to integrated
solutions, making easily-communicated sense of a complex and messy
process. These narratives have become powerful in the sense of mobilising
action, and in particular in tackling the problem identified in the colloquium of
22
the ‘blockage’ of communities’ representations within the state’s policy-making
processes. In LBJ we have observed these representations of individuals and
the project being repeated far from the ‘front line’, building the case for
integration as well as promoting specific actions to tackle problems.
Kingston
The OneNorbiton project has much in common with the Sheffield work in
terms of aims and context: it too is a pilot for service integration, with very
significant local authority involvement, which has been set up within the
context of national pilot schemes (the LIS and latterly DCLG’s Neighbourhood
Community Budgets.) In contrast, however, the innovative approach taken
has been to establish at the outset an independent community-based
organisation which is intended to take on the role of commissioning services.
Of all five of our cases it is the most grounded in a traditional approach to
governance, in that although innovative in its aims it has started with an
institutional change, reflecting common assumptions within central and local
government that creating new organisational forms are the most appropriate
way of addressing the desire to decentralise commissioning to communitylevel. The value of this approach is that it has very quickly achieved the
creation of a genuinely community-based organisation. What has become
apparent, however, is that this does not in itself solve issues of representation
and legitimacy, and the community members themselves are now addressing
these issues from within the constraints of the new structure – conscious that
they have neither electoral legitimacy nor are they (demographically)
representative of the Norbiton community, and so questioning the possibility
of taking on the commissioning role. The group is largely made up of the
kinds of people who usually get involved in such organisations – articulate,
confident, and familiar with the ways of local government – and while this
enables it to function it also poses for them very real problems in reaching out
to the more marginalised (poorer, minority ethnic) communities in the
neighbourhood.
The case lends itself to a social scientific analysis, exactly because of its
familiarity as an approach to governance innovation. However, an arts and
humanities lens, and the contrast through this lens with the other cases,
brings other insights which are very widely relevant. Firstly, it draws attention
to the absence from this case of any use of ‘the arts’ as a tool for community
engagement, and to the relationship between this and the presence of a
narrow range of people in the new organisation. Further, this absence is
rooted in cultural assumptions about appropriate forms of representation and
governance shared by those involved, which (so far) has locked them into
reproducing methods of working very reminiscent of formal (local authority)
processes and which effectively exclude the less articulate and confident.
Secondly, close observation of these methods of working – in particular of
meetings – shows how even in the most conventional settings (as seen in the
film) there are complex processes of representation going on.
23
‘Representation’ in this sense is not just about who is there, and the explicit
issues of representativeness and legitimacy. As in the literature reviewed
above, we draw attention both to how the community is portrayed
(represented) and also to the aesthetic and performative aspects of a
meeting. These do not simply comprise objective presentations and rational
argument, but also the manner in which points are made: the language used,
the tone of voice, who’s points are addressed and so on all have an equally
important role in the process of deliberation. This is a crucial lesson for
understanding all governance processes: they are collective processes of
sense making and meaning is carried through mode and manner of delivery.
These aspects as well as substantive content have to be observed and
interpreted if the full nature of what is being represented is to be understood.
Multistory
The Multistory case was rather different from the others, in that our
engagement was with them as an organisation which facilitates and supports
a number of arts-based community development projects, rather than directly
with the projects themselves. They thus acted to some extent like the
colloquium participants, providing a sounding-board and an alternative
perspective on the arts-governance connection, and also giving examples of
projects exemplifying their approach.
One such example is a community arts initiative, Stirchley Prospects, by
Place Prospectors in Stirchley, West Midlands, attempted to use the
arts/creative interventions as a mechanism to mobilise the existing resources
of the local community and identify solutions to problems that are perceived
too big or difficult to change. The project started through ‘doing’ rather than
talking. Hamdi, in his book ‘Small Change’, writes about how,
‘…skilful practice can trigger the emergence of novelty and organisation… it
can help build an architecture of opportunity for rediscovering community,
building networks and stronger organisations, and making money – for
communication and learning to flourish, and for new partnerships to be
explored.’
(Hamdi 2004: xxiv).
This ‘relational model’ starts with practice. By opening a shop on the high
street and through visible interventions in the local community Stirchley
Prospects attracted community members who had grown tired of conventional
routes to community representation to get involved. An event in the local park
led to the development of initiatives to improve the lighting and entrance ways
to the park and commission a graffiti wall for young people. Citizens were
integral and influential members of their projects and were given the space to
express their views and ideas in open and refreshing ways. As a result of
these small change interventions local people became self-organised,
initiating a Friends of the Park group and a Stirchley Urban Resource
24
Network, exploring the assets and resources the community already has to
inspire change. Place Prospectors united community groups and members
and channelled a new way of thinking in the community of Stirchley, to see
the ‘bigger picture of change’ and how thinking, acting and networking more
creatively can challenge the consensus and make a difference. In the recent
Stirchley Festival (http://stirchleyprospects.wordpress.com/) community
events created different kinds of spaces for participation and belonging to
occur using dialogic arts practice and collective conversations (Kestor 2004).
Section 5. Guidance for practice One of the key issues emerging from all the telling cases and colloquia is that
representational processes within communities are far more diverse than
formal governance structures can comprehend or engage with. Much is
simply overlooked, or (if noticed) treated as ‘noise’ surrounding otherwise
legitimate signals (Vanderhoven 2010: 72). What is ‘heard’ (for example by
front line staff) is often filtered by departmental or disciplinary boundaries and
disappears. The value of informal representation is lost in this process. That
groups of people go out of their way to express different values through their
actions, and work towards particular visions for their communities, are
important details that can be used to understand communities. Seeing such
collective sense-making as representation could improve both informal and
formal practices of engagement between state and citizens.
It seems important to recognise that people seem to seek the certainty of ‘the’
legitimate or authentic ‘voice or object’ in preference to complex and/or
ambiguous ‘noise’. This has profound effects for policy makers and
practitioners. In seeking ‘the voice’ to listen to, ‘the group’ is constructed who
ought to have clearly representable needs. Finding the legitimate or authentic
voice would help enormously to target resources, to be more effective and to
make services more democratically accountable. However, such an ideal
may be a mirage, and we appear to need to find new ways of integrating a
range of voices into decision-making processes. In so doing, it is important to
recognise that some voices and meanings will most likely be unrehearsed,
complex, contradictory and may be in need of translation. There may be
challenging conclusions to draw, but democracy and service delivery would
be enhanced.
Therefore, our central messages draw attention to the importance of ‘hearing
the noise’ and the need for strategies to be developed that can do this
hearing. This approach, and its supporting arguments, are relevant across
the entire range of policies associated with decentralisation, rather than being
specific to any one of them. Whether the concern is with neighbourhood
community budgeting, local neighbourhood planning or exercising community
rights, understanding and engaging with the complexity of community
representation is fundamental. It will be for practitioners in each specific field
and local context to work out how to apply these principles.
25
These principles are:
Seeing representation differently This requires a different approach to what counts as representation, which is
relevant to defining and building new relationships between citizens and
government:
•
•
•
Recognising that meaningful and relevant representation can take place
in different modes (including ‘artistic’ forms such as drama, drawing etc);
Giving consideration to what is being represented and why, rather than
focusing solely on who is the representative;
Seeing that the aesthetic and performative aspects of representation are
important, alongside the substantive content.
New ways of engaging •
•
Experiment with different ways of engaging with communities: use a
range of arts practices as ways of supporting groups, particularly
marginalised ones, to represent themselves in ways which they feel to
be effective and legitimate;
Recognise the mediating role that skilled individuals can play (visual
artists, theatre practitioners, community organisers, storytellers) – it is
not necessary for local officers to become expert in community arts
practice.
Reflective practice There is artistry in practice, not simply the following of formal procedures,
particularly in complex practices like engaging with communities. We need to
learn how to learn from the experiences (Schon 1992), so we can develop the
necessary skills and competencies:
•
•
•
•
Be aware that representation is an ongoing and developmental process
that may be ‘political’ and strategic, rather than a single consultation
event from which ‘the’ answer may be extracted;
Action Research is proving to be a powerful tool and could be more
readily deployed in discovering how to redesign governance to capture
the processes and meaning in governance
Be self-aware: as with any ‘performance’, audiences interpret and
shape the production, and this applies equally to representation.
Together, all players co-produce the outcome;
Engage in conversations, create listening spaces, open up a dialogue
and embrace uncertainty as being important in this process.
Resolving the range of representations is always going to be challenging, and
involve thinking through how to turn inchoate representations of identity into
meaningful representational claims. Given the above, the only practicable
approach is for practitioners to exercise judgements of the relative legitimacy
26
and authenticity of representations, always keeping such judgements
provisional and open to revision and challenge.
We recognise that these changes are not easy and may seem non-essential,
but continuing with obviously ineffective forms of engagement carries risks of
perpetuating and reinforcing the marginalisation of some groups in society,
and undermining attempts to decentralise in a democratic and inclusive way.
We argue that the greater risk lies in not learning – and so re-presenting the
state as unhearing and/or excluding.
Our policy review has demonstrated the need to engage with people’s lived
realities and argued for the need to make sense of a variety of
representational practices as part of the process of making change happen
within local governance structures. By listening to a more diverse range of
representational practices, through a wider range of channels and media, civil
servants will be able to engage more fully with local communities and in turn
representatives will be better able to support the people they represent,
whether they have a formal mandate or not.
27
References •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Barnes, M., Skelcher, C., Beirens, H., Dalziel, R., Jaffares, S. and
Wilson, L. (2008) Designing citizen-Centred Governance, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Beetham, D. (1991) The Legitimation of Power, London: Macmillan
Press.
Blencowe, C., Brigstocke, J., Dawney, L., Amaral, A., Kirwan, S.,
Millner, N. and Noorani, T. (2011) Immanent Authority and the Making
of Community, AHRC Connected Communities Scoping Review.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) trans. Nice, R., Outline of a Theory of Practice,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990) trans, Nice, R., The Logic of Practice, Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Brecht, B. (1978) Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic,
edited and translated by John Willett, London: Eyre Methuen.
Buser, M. And Arthurs, J. (2011) Cultural activism in the community,
AHRC Connected Communites Scoping Review.
Callard, F. and Papoulias, C. (2010) ‘Affect and embodiment’, in
Memory: Histories, theories, debates, Radstone, S. & Schwarz, B.
Fordham University Press, pp 246-262.
Chanan, G. (1997) Active citizenship and community involvement:
getting to the roots: a discussion paper, European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, and Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Connelly, S. (2011) ‘Constructing Legitimacy in the New Community
Governance’, Urban Studies, 48(5), pp 929-946.
Corcoran, S. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in, Rancière, J. (2010) Dissensus: On
Politics and Aesthetics, edited and translated by Steve Corcoran,
London; Continuum Press.
Davidson, J. and Milligan, C. (2004) ‘Embodying emotion sensing
space: introducing emotional geographies’, Social and Cultural
Geography, 5(4), pp 523-532.
Denzin, N. (2003) Performance ethnography : critical pedagogy and
the politics of culture, London: Sage.
Diamond, E. (1997) Unmaking Mimesis: Essays on Feminism and
Theatre, Routledge: London.
Disch, L. (2006) 'Rethinking “‘Re’-presentation”', paper presented at
American Political Science Association annual meeting, Philadelphia,
August 31- Sept 3.
Dovey, J., Fleuriot, C. and Miskelly, C. (2011) Keeping in Touch, AHRC
Connected Communities Scoping Review.
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Durnova, A.P. (2013) ‘Governing through intimacy: explaining care
policies through “sharing a meaning”’, Critical Social Policy, online
version,
http://csp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/24/0261018312468305.
Eagleton, T. (1990) The Ideology of the Aesthetic, Oxford: Blackwell
Fraser, N. (2000) ‘Rethinking Recognition’, New Left Review, 3, p107120.
Friedman, S., Hlela, K. and Thulare, P. (2003) ‘A question of voice
Informality and Pro-Poor Policy in Johannesburg, South Africa’, Urban
Development: Urban Research Symposium, Washington DC, World
Bank, Centre for Policy Studies, Johannesburg Development Agency.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2007) Small Stories, Interaction and Identities
Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gottweis‌, H. and Prainsack‌, B. (2006) ‘Emotion in political discourse:
contrasting approaches to stem cell governance in the USA, UK, Israel
and Germany’, Regenerative Medicine, 1(6), pp 823-829.
Hamdi, N. (2004) Small Change, London: Earthscan.
Hall, S. (1997) ‘The Work of Representation’ in, Representation:
Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, Milton Keynes:
Sage, pp 13-75.
Horton, J. and Kraftl, P. (2009) ‘What (else) matters? Policy contexts,
emotional geographies’, Environment and Planning A, 41, pp 29843002.
Hull, G. and Nelson, M. E. (2009) ‘Literacy, media, and morality:
Making the case for an aesthetic turn’ in, M. Baynham and M. Prinsloo
(eds) The Future of Literacy Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp 199-228.
Humphrey, N., Lendrum, A. and Wigelsworth, N. (2010) Social and
emotional aspects of learning (SEAL) programme in secondary
schools: national evaluation, research report for the Department of
Education, online access at:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFERR049.pdf.
Hunter, S. (2012) ‘Ordering Differentiation: Reconfiguring Governance
as Relational Politics’, Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 6 (1).
Ingold, T. (2011). Being Alive: Essays on Movement,
Knowledge and Description, Routledge: London.
•
Jupp, E. (2008) ‘The feeling of participation: everyday spaces
and urban change’, Geoforum, 39, pp 331-343.
•
Kestor, G. (2004) Conversation Pieces: Community and
Communication in Modern Art, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
29
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kress, G. (2010) Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to
contemporary communication, Routledge: London.
Kress, G. (1997) Before Writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy
Routledge; London.
Leander, K. & Boldt, G. (2013) Rereading "A Pedagogy of
Multiliteracies": Bodies, Texts and Emergence, The Journal of Literacy
Research, 45(1).
Mansbridge, J. (2003) ‘Rethinking Representation’, American Political
Science Review, 97(04), pp 515-528.
Macpherson, H., Hart, A. and Heaver, B. (2011) Building resilience
through community arts practice, AHRC Connected Communities
Scoping Review.
Milton, K. (2002) Loving nature: towards an ecology of emotion,
Routledge: London.
Pahl, K. (2002) ‘Ephemera, mess and miscellaneous piles: texts and
practices’, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2), pp 145-165.
Pahl, K. (2004) ‘Narratives, artefacts and cultural identities: an
ethnographic study of communicative practices in homes’, Linguistics
and Education, 15 (4), pp 339-358.
Parr, H. (2005) ‘Emotional Geographies’, in Cloke, P., Crang, P. and
Goodwin, M. (eds) Introducing Human Geographies, Hodder Arnold:
London.
Pearce, J (2011) Power in Community: A Research and Social Action
Scoping Review, AHRC Connected Communities Scoping Review.
Phelan, P. (1997) Mourning sex: performing public memories, New
York: Routledge.
Pink, S. (2009) Doing Sensory Ethnography, London: Sage.
Pitkin, H. (1967) The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, University
of California.
Plotke, D. (1997) ‘Representation is Democracy’, Constellations, 4(1),
pp 19-34.
Rancière, J. (2006) The Politics of Aesthetics, translated by G. Rockhill
London: Continuum Press.
Rancière, J. (2010) Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics, edited and
translated by Steve Corcoran, London; Continuum press.
Rehfeld, A. (2006). ‘Towards a General Theory or Political
Representation’, The Journal of Politics 68(1), pp1-21.
Rowsell, J. and Pahl, K. (2007) ‘Sedimented identities in texts:
Instances of practice’, Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), pp 388-401.
Rowsell, J. (2013) Working with Multimodality: Rethinking Literacy in a
Digital Age, London: Routledge.
30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Schon, D. (1992) ‘The crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit
of an epistemology of practice’, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 6(1),
pp 49-63.
Siebers, J. and Fell, S. (2011) An exploration of the relation between
the concepts of ‘community’ and ‘future’ in philosophy, AHRC
Connected Communities Scoping Review.
Smith, F., Timbrell, H., Woolvin, M., Muirhead, S., Fyfe, N. (2010).
‘Enlivened Geographies of Volunteering: situated, embodied and
emotional practices of voluntary action’, Scottish Geographical Journal,
1126, pp 258-274.
Thomson, P., Sanders, J., Hall, C. and Bloomfield, J. (2011)
Performing Impact, AHRC Connected Communities Scoping Review.
Urbinati, N. and M. E. Warren (2008) ‘The Concept of Representation
in Contemporary Democratic Theory’, Annual Review of Political
Science, 11(1), pp 387-412.
Vanderhoven, D. (2010) Seeing Informal Political Representation:
Lessons from Johannesburg, PhD thesis, Dept. of Town & Regional
Planning, Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
Wagenaar, H. (2011) Meaning in Action: Interpretation and dialogue in
policy analysis, Armonk, NY and London: M E Sharpe.
31