Neighborhoods have both official meaning and subjective meanings, defined by individuals. (a) What does your author, Ken Thomson have to say about the differences between these two meanings and also (b) the byproducts of focusing on one of the meanings as opposed to the other.
The concept of democracy brings with it a number of things. First, the philosophy itself stems from an understanding of the human psyche and the innate need for individuals to be allowed the right to choose. Choices are an integral part of human life, and thus, they shape an extensive portion of an individual’s life. Democracy which is the explicit right to choose extends to all aspects of human life and particularly when it comes to understanding. This means that there is an insatiable difference in opinion about virtually all aspects of human life. A number of factors drive the differences of opinion. First, at the very core, every individual is unique. This in itself emphasizes the continual existence of differences. Individuality which is at the core of every human being means that differences are unavoidable. Differences in opinion, however, do not mean that consensus is not sometimes achieved.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
With regards to the meaning of neighborhoods as per Ken Thomson, there exist official one and some subjective ones. These differences in the meaning are primarily due to different points of view shared by individuals (Thomson, 2009). However, the existence of an official one is a testament to the ability for an agreement to be achieved by rationale. However, he believes that the differences are valid. He claims that the differences between the meanings of the word stem primarily on the core differences between the individuals fronting them (Thomson, 2009, p.45). Despite a difference in opinions, the precise meaning of the term neighborhood is based on agreement on common grounds and thus is a product of compromise. He, therefore, goes as far to claim that there are uncanny similarities between the two meanings. He claims that the meanings are merely different views to the same point. He argues that the primary differences are primarily based on the context of an individual. The precise meaning of the term neighborhood is based on what is considered the universal meaning of the word whereas the subjective meanings are widely debated. They are debated based on the fact that subjective means that it relies on several other factors and thus it lacks continuity. As such, the subjective meanings are vast in number whereas the official meaning is singular (Thomson, 2009). As such, the official meaning is considered more authoritative when defining what a neighborhood entails.
Despite both the subjective meanings and the official meaning all providing primarily the same information of what a neighborhood entails, there is a difference in what the effects of focusing on any one given meaning (Thomson, 2009). This is in line with cause and effect. For every action, there is a consequence, and the effects of focusing on either the official or the subjective meanings are therefore discernable and clearly defined. For example, focusing primarily on the official meaning confers continuity which in turn boosts the credibility of the information given. The continuity stems from the fact that the definition is objective and thus the information used in crafting the meaning is constant and rarely subject to amendment (Thomson, 2009). This means that the likelihood of the meaning changing is slim to none. This means that any individual who relies primarily on this definition is bound to develop difficulty in conformity to any other concept with regards to the neighborhood. The stability of the definition cultivates a status quo and sense of security in what a neighborhood is, and thus there is difficulty in conforming to anything contrary to what has been stipulated (Thomson, 2009). This often leads to firm and hard to influence individuals. The same is contrary with regards to focusing on subjective meanings. As the word implies, subjective meanings are a product of a consideration of continually fluctuating factors. This means that the definition is open to interpretation and thus there is seldom any stability. This goes to imply that overdependence to the subjective meaning of what a neighborhood is a product of freedom to self-express. This means that overindulgence on subjective meanings is bound to yield a deeper understanding of the views of several individuals. This is bound to foster peace, unity, and community cohesion (Thomson, 2009).
What does your author, Ken Thomson, mean by neighborhood democracy? Explain the relationship between individual responsibility and the process of creating a democratic neighborhood environment.
To accurately define what neighborhood democracy is it is essential to understand the meaning of the words that make up the term. The term comprises of two words; neighborhood and democracy. According to Thomson, a neighborhood is the most basic framework of association and government comprising of socially defined entities controlled by historical or common boundaries localized defined community within a city, metro area, or town (Thomson, 2009). A neighborhood comprises of individuals who interact or associate by face-to-face interaction often. They make up the most basic constituent of cities and town and are considered the very primary system of association and governance at a personal level. Democracy, on the other hand, is a system of governance that allows the public to make decisions based on what is agreed upon by the community as a whole. It is often a system of governance that relies heavily on popularity and thus favors the will of the majority. Neighborhood democracy, therefore, refers to the explicit right for the individuals that make up a specific boundary stipulated area to make choices related to how they are governed and who gets to represent them. This is, in other words, is the right for a people comprising a given neighborhood to determine how and by whom they are governed.
Neighborhood democracy much like democracy itself relies primarily on the principle of allowing the people the right of choice. This right to choice is voluntary although the society and the community as a whole have the right to demand it in the event they feel that the right is being violated. Choice is a product of individualism meaning that as much as one can be influenced in their decision-making process, ultimately, the choices and their resultant consequences are the sole responsibility of the individual that makes them. As such, decision-making and the ultimate consequences that one is bound to suffer are individual responsibilities. Individual responsibility plays an integral part in determining the structure of governance. This is especially true when it comes to matters of democracy where every individual’s voice and opinion matters. Democracy is built on the principle of equality; every voice, life, and individual matters and is equally as important as the rest, meaning that everyone has the right in determining the system of governance and the ultimate direction that it takes.
Evidently, there is an existing relationship between individual responsibility and the existence of a democratic environment in any given neighborhood. This stems from the understanding of what democracy entails. Democracy entails a system of governance by the people for the people. This implies that the system itself is designed by the people for the people themselves meaning that their input is an integral factor in the existence and ultimate functioning of the system. As much as democracy is an approach to governance that primarily seeks to protect the rights of the people in power, it is not an automatic system and requires human input for its creation and ultimate sustenance. This means that the community as a whole has a crucial role to play with regards to democracy. Individual responsibility is an integral part of the process of creating a democratic neighborhood environment. This is because as of a number of reasons that shall be covered next.
First, the system is human-made meaning that its creation relies explicitly on the input of individuals. Those who seek to help establish the democratic neighborhood environment, therefore, do so understanding that they are responsible for the direction that the leadership and governance of their neighborhood and thus resolve to do something to ensure that it is in accordance with their wishes and those of other members of the society. Individual responsibility is essential in the process of developing a democratic neighborhood environment as it is the individuals who determine the structure of government (Thomson, 2009). This entails the crafting of policies and rules. The people tasked with the creation of the structure of government need to take it upon themselves to ensure that the system is sound and protective of their rights and those of any other member of the neighborhood. It is also the individual responsibility of the community to ensure that those they elect to adhere to the stipulations of their accordance of mandate to represent the people (Thomson, 2009). Finally, it is the individual responsibility of the governed people to ensure that the system is just an non-discriminatory of anyone that it seeks to protect. Ultimately, the creation of democratic neighborhood environment is meant for the benefit of the individuals living in the said neighborhood, and as such it is their individual responsibility to ensure its achievement (Thomson, 2009).
How do neighborhoods derive resources from larger government entities (for example: City, County, or State)? Does the relationship with these larger government entities challenge neighborhood autonomy; why or why not.
Social stratification and social hierarchy are principal parts of the makeup of societies. This is integral for a number of reasons including for planning purposes and for ensuring accountability (Thomson, 2009). These differences in levels and hierarchies also come with a difference in the responsibilities at every level. Neighborhoods are considered the most basic system of social grouping with the direct association between the individuals. However, the neighborhoods are a part of an even more significant entity that is the city, then the county and ultimately the state and country. This means that there are different levels that any given neighborhood represents in terms of government. As the most basic in the hierarchy, the neighborhood is considered the accurate representation of what the city, county, state, and country. This means that the neighborhood much like the federal government is tasked with providing for and protecting its citizens.
To properly understand how the neighborhood obtains the resources that it intends to use in the fulfillment of its agendas for its people, we shall liken the same to a child assuming that the neighborhoods, cities, counties, and states make up a family of individuals. Based on the sizes, the entities can be grouped in an ascending or descending order with the neighborhood being the least. Much like a family, the oldest of them all is responsible for taking care of the very least of them all with the parents being in charge of the children. The children also have a hierarchical grading system with others being accorded more responsibilities than anyone else. The same is the same with neighborhoods, cities, counties, and state with the neighborhood deriving resources from larger government entities.
The neighborhoods derive their resources from larger government entities via a number of methods. Some of the methods by which the neighborhood derives resources from the larger government entities include through annual budgetary allocations, through grants, and through government subsidies (Thomson, 2009). As part of the administrative structure put in place by the government, the neighborhoods make up an integral part of ensuring proper governance and citizen satisfaction. The government is granted the mandate by the people to protect their rights as per the constitution. As the principal holders of the sovereign powers that the government has the neighborhood is the most suitable platform for ensuring that every individual is accorded their freedoms, rights, and liberties in accordance with the constitution. For this reason, the entire system of government ensures that it is most felt at the most basic level which in this case is the neighborhoods. Neighborhoods, therefore, acquire the majority chunk of its resources from budgetary allocations that the central government makes. However, in accordance with the chain of command the same resources are distributed down from the central government to the neighborhood hierarchically. The government entities above the neighborhoods in the hierarchy then transfer the allocated resources progressively until they reach the neighborhoods.
Secondly, the neighborhood can obtain resources from the government entities in the form of governmental grants. Government grants are government funding for products that seek to help improve the well-being of the community and further improve the quality of life of the individuals. These funds which are nonrefundable are given to those who qualify to fund projects. Neighborhoods can obtain grants to fund their projects. Finally, neighborhoods sometimes obtain resources from government entities in the form of governmental subsidies. This occurs when the neighborhoods are given discounts and other subsidies for purchases and other monetary transactions (Thomson, 2009).
There is always the contention as to whether the credibility of an entity or individual is in question when they are being funded by someone else. This is based on the notion that a person does not slap the hand that feeds them. In this context the fact that neighborhoods are being funded by the government entities and as such there is likelihood that they can be influenced by them. Based on my understanding of influence I believe that this sentiment is correct. We live in a society that quantifies everything. The entirety of sociology is based on the quantification of everything. A deeper understanding is on the immense influence of money and power. Based only on the hierarchical placement we can see that the remainder of the government entities is above the neighborhoods and thus they are at a position of power and therefore they can assert their way if there is a need to. Additionally, the fact that the neighborhoods’ majority of the funding comes from the government entities means that they can use the resources to control the neighborhoods should need arises.
What is neighborhood strength? What types of neighborhood structures or processes help build neighborhood strength. To what extent can neighborhood strength counter decision-making at the level of the City?
Neighborhood strength is the ability of a society to agree on a particular aspect and seek out its fulfillment together (Thomson, 2009). In a layman’s definition, neighborhood strength is the unity of the community. A neighborhood with very high neighborhood strength is one where the unity is unquestionable among the residents of the area. The neighborhood strength of any neighborhood is a direct determinant of the likelihood of the community to be influenced by external forces such as other government entities. When the neighborhood strength is high, then the society is well poised to resist dictation by other external entities. A great example of how the unity of a society can be a great tool against oppressive power is how the Egyptian people decided to take it to the streets to fight an unfair regime ultimately forcing the stepping down of the president.
Several neighborhood structures and processes help to build neighborhood strength. An understanding of the fact that neighborhood strength is primarily a matter of unity and togetherness it is easy to conclude that any event or process that fosters unity ultimately helps to build neighborhood strength (Thomson, 2009). These events and processes ought to primarily entail team building exercises and exercises that involve teamwork. These events are numerous, but for this paper, we shall review the few significant examples. First, events that entail the banding together of individuals are a great platform to nurture interaction. A great example is exercises such as the neighborhood watch. The program involves the banding together of various individuals to seek out one objective that is common for all the residents, and as such, it can act as a catalyst for interaction and possible future association. This is essential to building neighborhood strength. A second process that helps to foster neighborhood strength is the celebration of public holidays as a community. The good vibes of the occasion and the resultant interaction help the residents to know each other better which in turn helps to foster neighborhood strength (Thomson, 2009). School events and religious events are other events that help to build the neighborhood. The social structures help to boost neighborhood strength because religions have their own internal unity and loyalties that extend even outside the places of worship (Thomson, 2009).
The importance of neighborhood strength cannot be emphasized beyond the emphasis on the fact there is strength in numbers and as such, I strongly believe that neighborhood strength is a powerful tool against oppression from the city and other government entities that are above the neighborhood. This sentiment is based on the understanding that each structure of government is put in place for the service and the ultimate benefit of the people. As the true wielder of the sovereign power that is accorded to any office of government, the people have the explicit power to control. As such, if a neighborhood boasts of high neighborhood strength, then the likelihood of the neighborhood being oppressed by the city is minimized for several reasons. First, the city is made up of representatives from the various neighborhoods. In the case that the neighborhood strength is high, it means that there will be able to hear and represent well the needs of the people they represent. Additionally, the high neighborhood strength means that there is a possibility of the community banding together to petition against any policy they deem unfit for them passed by the city meaning that there is a definite ability for them to counter decision-making at the level of the city.
References
Thomson, K. (2009). From neighborhood to nation: The democratic foundations of civil society . UPNE.
