Dr. Pap’s dissertation work identified land-ethnicity-faith- identity-belonging (LEFIB) relationships that led to a theoretical analysis and development of the RIDD THEORY (religious institution driven defragmentation). The theoretical foundation brings us to a planning approach that seeks collaboration and understanding between secular and non-secular agencies, professionals and community members. Recognizing the power of faith in non-professional community development and planning was a key driver for Dr. Pap’s study.
Dr. Pap’s doctoral study identified key processes and relationships for fractured regions. Below a brief outline of the approach can be found along with a discussion of the related academic literature that contributed to the development of a new planning approach.
Faith-based community development (FBCD) is frequently carried out by religious and charity organizations independent from professional planning agencies. Faith-based organizations (FBOs) take on many activities that aim at providing resources for members of communities. In many places, independent from geographic locations, FBOs may serve the unofficial role of the planner. Further, their work become decisive whithin regions where complex historic, ethnic and religious identities are linked to land attachment that may cause such regions to “fracture.”
Historically, planning, as an act of linking knowledge to action in the public domain (Friedmann 1987), has been a democratic process. It has established procedural and legal frameworks in developed countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. In these countries, the development of the planning profession has deep roots in eighteenth and nineteenth century Industrialization and consequent urbanization processes and challenges (i.e. lack of potable water, affordable housing).
Community development, as a form of professional or non-professional planning activity, has a broad application by various entities from churches, neighborhood organizations through national state programs (see more in Andrews et al. 2012). Despite CD’s wide application, Wilson (2015b) argues, that “the relationship between identity, culture and community development is immeasurable” (1) and “planners and practitioners of community development often ignore these connections in their homogenizing development initiatives” (1). Identity, regardless of whether it is based on national, ethnic, locational or professional character, plays important roles in development project outcomes. In these contexts, culture and identity are not separated (Ibid., 1). One of the commonly used approach is Kretzmann and McKnight’s (1996) ABCD model, an asset-based approach where the
“community development strategy starts with what is present in the community, the capacities of its residents and workers, the associational and institutional base of the area – not with what is absent, or with what is problematic, or with what the community needs. ” (27)
The central argument of the “asset-based community development” (Ibid., 27) that it is “relationship driven” (27) and communities need to be built from the inside out. Further, the challenge for CD professionals is to continuously build and rebuild relationships among members of the community and their institutions (27). Kihl (2015) adds to the asset-based approach and brings territorial approaches to community development into focus. This “territorial approach,” (Kihl 2015, 13) is needed where there is a strong local culture, and the social bonds that are created between community members are significant community assets:
“Community development practitioners need to understand the importance of local culture and the existing social bonding capital as very strong community assets. These assets should always be considered and weaved into proposed projects to ensure the strongest opportunity for success. This approach – a territorial approach – is gaining increased recognition as a best-fit model to support “bottom-up” approaches to community development.“(Ibid., 13)
Social bonds form through
“race, economic status and nationality…. Social bonds create a platform for interest and engagement in community development activities. Uncovering a common area of interest for change within these communities requires the practitioner to develop their own social assets with community members, to be seen as someone with a genuine interest in change within that community.” (Ibid., 12)
Planning as cultural-religious practice
Porter (2010), a contemporary critique of the (secular) planning profession, voiced that the democratic institution-based planning profession is a “cultural artifact” of the colonial states and their colonials. Planning practitioners, who work with community development programs, need to be well equipped to understand the sensitive nature of ethnic and cultural meanings and interests. Understanding planning as a cultural practice extends the conceptual boundaries of planning by considering cultural and historical scenarios and contexts where planning meant to unfold. The first half of the 20th century was dominated with positivists’ rational and systemic planning approaches that placed control and prediction forefront to value and belief, including religion (Friedmann 1987; Allmendinger 2009). Dr. Pap’s research laid out theoretical stepping stones for incorporating land-ethnicity-faith-belonging (LEFIB) relationships into planning.
In Porter’s (2010) conceptualization of planning as a cultural practice, she builds on Lefebvre’s theory of “perceived-conceived-lived triad” (Lefebvre 1991, 40). Lefebvre (1991) explained this triad “in spatial terms” (40) where “perceived” relate to “spatial practice,” “conceived” to “representations of space,” and “lived” to “representational spaces“ (40).
Porter (2010) used the triad as an analytical tool for conceptualizing “the social production of (social) spaces” (45) and planning as cultural practice. “Perceived space” (Lefebvre 1991, 38; Porter 2010) relates to physical space and patterns (Ibid.); “conceived space” (Lefebvre 1991, 355) to “mental space” (Ibid., 3; Porter 2010), the remaking of space by “scientists, planners,” (Ibid., 30) or “by knowledge and power,” (Lefebvre 1992, 50; Porter 2010) and the “administering [of such] spaces” (Porter 2010 15). “Lived space” (Lefebvre 1991, 362) relate to the “everyday lived experiences, and the expression of the social in spaces” (Ibid., 1521). Porter (2010) defined planning as the “social practice of spatial ordering, and more specifically, the modern form of that practice in the West: state–based land use or spatial planning” (2).
Note: Libby Porter cites “cultural artifact” from Sharma and Gupta (2006, 5). Sharma, Aradhana and Akhil Gupta. 2006. “Introduction: Rethinking Theories of the State in an Age of Globalization.” In The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, eds. Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta. Malden, MA: Blackwell. However, the argument should be attributed to Porter (2010).
The RIDD Approach
The RIDD approach is theoretically based in Dr. Pap’s work that led to the development of the Theory of Religious Institution Driven Defragmentation (RIDD).
The RIDD theory captures a form of community development (ethnospiritual figuration) that is practiced through cultural (ethnic) and religious (spiritual) means. These practices, in the context of the RIDD theory, were captured as defragmenting activities in terms of ethnic community and space, among others. In essence, ethnospiritual figuration is a form of community development that is performed through cultural-religious practices.
The RIDD theory’s contribution to planning can be captured through Porter’s (2010) argument that planning is not universal, but rather is “an active cultural agent in space: ‘cultural’ in the sense that it inhabits particular (rather than universal) explanatory schemas, structures of meaning” (151). Thus, in communities “planning as an active cultural” (151) and religious “agent in space” (151) can be captured through ethnospiritual figuration [as people enact it, codify it in traditions etc.].
The RIDD approach likely can be used where communities have the following key attributes:
- Spatially bounded struggles of ethnic self-determination and governance,
- The threat of decay and disappearance as an institutional body, congregation, and ethnic group.
- “Land-Ethnicity-Faith-Identity-Belonging” (LEFIB) relationships can be observed
- Have experienced collective trauma (i.e., historic losses, wars, ethnic cleansing), and
- Are bounded by a historically fragmented ancestral land.
A complete discussion of the theory can be found in the original source and study of Dr. Pap through OakTrust.
References
Andrews, Nancy O., David J. Erickson, Ian J. Galloway, and Ellen S. Seidman, eds. 2012. Investing in What Works for America’s Communities. San Francisco, USA: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco & Low Income Investment Fund.
Kihl, Tania. 2015. “The Effects of Globalization on Community Development Practice in Remote Indigenous Communities in Australia.” In Identity, Culture and the Politics of Community Development, edited by Stacey-Ann Wilson, 10-16. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kretzmann, John, and John P. McKnight. 1996. “Assets-Based Community Development.” National Civic Review 85 (4):23-29. doi: 10.1002/ncr.4100850405.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain : from knowledge to action. Princeton, N.J, Princeton University Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK, Blackwell.
Porter, L. (2010). Unlearning the Colonial Cultures of Planning. Surrey, England, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Wilson, Stacey-Ann. 2015b. “Introduction: The Importance of Identity and Culture in the Politics of Community Development.” In Identity, Culture and the Politics of Community Development, edited by Stacey-Ann Wilson, 1-8. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Timsel27 LLC 