Search

This paper highlights the transformative potential of place-based community organizing as a theory and practice of progressive social change and as a critical approach to the social purpose of community engagement in Higher Education Institutions. The aim is to expose power asymmetries and civic renewal "from below" through a focus on community engaged learning, specifically community organizing on the curriculum for geography undergraduates. The empirical focus is an English university, but the issues and observations are widespread. Around the world, students are coping with disruptions following a global pandemic, austerity, and loss of trust in local democracy – participating in climate emergency and racial justice movements. This paper advances community organising and community engaged learning as a mutually co-constitutive challenge to conventional notions of the student as a passive consumer of recruitment, learning, and individualised notions of civic responsibility. Methods of community organising are based on the theory that if you want change, you need power: change ultimately traces a motivational journey from anger to agitation and action. Empirical vignettes explore the transformative role of emotionally stirring "political theatre" and direct action, while exposing tensions that arise due to the transitory status of students in place and time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature on city-regionalism can be criticized for neglecting the mundane ways that cities and regions are socially reproduced (and contested) through processes of household decision-making and routine coordination. Moreover, dominant debates on macro-scale governance and economic competitiveness rarely question the way strategic city-regional partnerships equate notions of ‘liveability’ with marketability. However ‘smart’, these initiatives persistently fetishize growth, allowing little scope for collective endeavour or an ethic of care — values which Linda McDowell (2004 ) points out are fundamentally undermined by neoliberalism. This paper challenges the ‘top-down’ discourse of city-regionalism both on the grounds of what it examines (economic efficiency and governance) and how this is viewed (partially and globally). The case is made for raising awareness of the structural inequalities which restrict the ‘choice of choices’ actually available to households competing for public services on the basis of uneven resource entitlement. This calls for an understanding of a ‘whole’ economy, recognizing the full value of unpaid care-giving, volunteering and ‘free’ environmental resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Planners and policy makers in the UK and the USA widely believe that negative attendants of growth, such as congestion, pollution and sprawl, can be stemmed by mixed-use 'urban village' design solutions. It is assumed that concentrating jobs, housing, shops and schools within compact communities reduces individual recourse to energy-consuming movement. This paper critically examines this assumption. It draws on detailed observation of dual-earner household decisions concerning where and how to live, focusing on the two west-coast US cities of Portland and Seattle. The question is asked whether co-ordination of home and work is more manageable for working parents living in a compact city such as Portland. Contrary to popular belief, urban living is not synonymous with more localised modes of living. Residential preference does not hinge on job location or household structure alone. Equally, job location, child care and shopping practices do not hinge on residential location. For dual-earner households, tensions exist not only between individuals balancing the demands of competing careers but also between mutually exclusive tastes and identitities. Preferences associated with children's education, attachment to place, local social networks and moral cultures effectively cross-cut those of housing choice, journey to work and personal environmental ethos. The resulting 'compromises' profoundly shape the profile and quality of the built environment and its associated ecological footprint. Understanding this requires further development of a household approach to urban social and environmental sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]