seen as valid. Political theory has often concerned itself with the idea of
community in this latter sense, where all members of the society share values so
closely that neither a separation between individual and state, nor the enforce-
ment of collective obligations, is necessary. The traditional model of such a
community is an extended family, or sometimes a tribal grouping in a pre-state
society. Here, it is argued, an identification of the good of the individual with
the good of the group is complete (seecommon good). Where positions of
authority ordivisions of labourand responsibility have to exist, they are non-
contentious and even ‘natural’. This idealized view of a community is found as
early asPlatoandAristotle, and is still powerful today with thinkers like
Marcuseand many supporters of movements such as the Greens. In most
social science uses community is an empirical concept describing a collectivity
of individuals who share many values and life experiences, and can be expected
to act with some degree of consensus and co-operation in political matters.
Community Power
Community power studies were popular among academics, especially in
North America, during the 1950s and late 1960s. Becausepoweris not only
conceptually elusive but empirically hard to study on the national level, it was
felt that it could best be investigated in narrower contexts. As a result, a series of
studies were conducted into the distribution of power and influence in
individual towns and cities. Most of the studies were carried out to test or
develop pluralist theories of power and democracy (seepluralism). The results
suggested that the communities were not fully democratic, but were domi-
nated by e ́lite groups which controlled different areas of policy. However, most
of the studies went on to claim that the various e ́lites functioned separately,
without the overlapping that might have given one or more of them a wider-
ranging power. The studies were subjected to considerable criticism, largely of
a methodological nature, since no obviously correct methodology existed to
discover who was influential, or why. Even more disappointing was the fact
that it did not really prove possible to extrapolate from studies of local
communities to form a picture of power at the national level.
The utility of the studies was even less clear outside the USA. The federal
nature of US politics, and the absence of welfare state regulations, did make it
sensible to find out who, for example, might be responsible for building a new
hospital, or, given the decentralization of education, to enquire into the
influence of Parent–Teacher Associations aspressure groups. In countries
such as Britain, where most such decisions are either taken or very strongly
influenced and closely regulated by central government, there is rather less to
study. Very few such studies have been carried out in recent years, and it is
doubtful whether they will again be seen as a solution to problems involved in
Community Power