Balancing tensions in community work: A look at the influence of power

In his 2018 essay Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime, the French philosopher Bruno Latour explores the actions of political figures relative to climate change and the ultimate impact these actions have on a perceived or real abandonment of a common world and therefore epistemological delirium (Latour, 2018, p. V). He explores the role of power and position and their influence on actors and actions. While admittedly this reflects a much larger scale focus on global climate change, it does beg the question of why people behave the way they behave and what happens when we feel the literal ground begin to slip away beneath our feet (Latour, 2018, p. 5). And how do we respond? Social scientists suggest that behavior is motivated by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors (Morris et al., 2022). What is the relationship between the exertion of power as an external factor associated with individual or group actions? Power, motivation, action/reaction, how is behavior impacted and what leads to tension and dissonance? Inevitably the concept of power, the role of power in relationships and behaviors, and the inequalities present in the power differential are intertwined.

There is no universal definition of power (see Guzzini, 2022), however, power in political science often refers to the “capacity to influence, lead, dominate, or otherwise have an impact on the life and actions of others in society” (Munro, 2024, p. 1). Similarly, Barnett and Duvall (2005) suggest that “power is the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate” (p. 37). They offer a taxonomy of power with four concepts: compulsory, institutional, structural, and productive. It is through this taxonomy that they answer the fundamental question “in what respects are actors able to determine their fate, and how is that ability limited or enhanced through social relations with others?” (Barnett & Duvall, 2005, p. 43). Research also ties power to empathy suggesting that those with more power are less likely to show empathy toward others (van Kleef et al., 2008). In other words, in what way do larger macro level realities impact action and using the example from Latour, how do we individually and collectively respond to groundlessness?

Each article in this issue embodies some type of tension. The Barnett and Duvall (2005) taxonomy could be instructive in better understanding the underlying static causing tension and individual and collective actions. Is the power exerted to have direct control of one entity over another? Is the power exerted by institutions in economic, political or legal ways? Is the power held by the structures of wealth, politics, etc. that determines the norms within which we must operate? Or is it productive power which “concerns discourse, the social processes and the systems of knowledge through which meaning is produced, fixed, lived, experienced, and transformed” (Barnett & Duvall, 2005, p. 55).

In each of the articles in this issue, there are key players with varying levels of power that wield that power differently. In addition to the power differential, the tension between community versus individual interests is present as is the tension between individual identities and formal roles held by individuals. Grassroots efforts versus top-down political change initiatives highlight the tension between formal and informal power structures and resource distribution as does local system level cross sector partnerships versus governmental agency leadership and control. In general, motivation, behavior and power are interrelated and influenced by positionality, identity, formal roles, and experiences (historical and structural), and are often guided by prior values, assumptions and experiences.

This issue begins with a critical reflection employed by Mavundla et al. (2024), to explore how sports are used for placemaking purposes via a campaign in a low-income community in South Africa. The campaign is a participatory and community-based intervention that seeks to strengthen community cohesion to empower democratically led change and influence the political process. The authors reflect on the process rather than the outcome of such campaigns. The authors share their collective impressions of the reality of the Campaign’s soccer tournament and the impact of power and patronage politics relative to their hopes and intentions of the use of sport as placemaking. One reflection shared by the authors demonstrates the duality present in the multiple identifies individuals hold and how the choices made influenced by one identity versus another can create a different reality/outcome. The intent of the Campaign is to engage a variety of community stakeholders to “strengthen community relations, celebrate local histories of struggle, as well as pool and lobby for resources for collective problem-solving” (Mavundla et al., 2024, p. 154). Their hope is that sport, specifically soccer, will bring the community together, disrupt the identity of the community as violent, and create a more positive place identity. Similar to the Lowenhaupt et al. (2024) study, power dynamics between formal governmental and nonprofit organizations and grassroots groups and efforts are explored with the hopes of strengthening the informal efforts via the resources of the formal structures. Here, however, the impact of patronage politics adds an additional complicating factor. The identities and political alignment of certain individuals outpace the desire for the collective good thereby disrupting the intentions of the sport as placemaking and reminding us of the power of patronage politics, individual interests and motivations versus community.

Chaos often provides opportunities for growth and change. Lowenhaupt et al. (2024) explore COVID-19 as an environmental jolt and investigate the role of leadership sensemaking for the agency to stabilize during instability. The authors examine the creation of a system level cross sector partnership designed to improve support for children during the pandemic and explore how leaders respond to environmental crises guided by their prior values, assumptions, and experiences. The tension between the oppressive effects of the pandemic and the gifts of being able to refocus efforts on existing issues in the community, finding new ways to collaborate, staying committed to mission critical work, and lifting up and extending work that was already needed and active exemplifies the power of the institution and structure. How the leaders made sense of the impact of the pandemic influenced how they responded and conveyed meaning to those they employed and serve.

Mutual aid groups emerged around the world in response to the global pandemic. Different from charity groups, mutual aid groups are informal, self-organizing groups designed to provide support around a shared issue. Mao et al. (2024) explore safeguarding measures among community mutual aid groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors were concerned primarily with “protection from harm,” “retaining the character of mutual aid,” and “making appropriate referrals” (pg. XX). Authors conducted semi-structured interviews with mutual aid group leadership who held power via an organizing role within the group. Participants were asked about the structure of the groups, safeguarding practices, resources, relationships with formal infrastructure and support needs. Similar to the challenges identified in the Lowenhaupt et al. (2024) study, Mao et al. (2024) identify the tension between informal/grassroots structures and more formal power structures (political) in the context of mutual aid and safeguarding. The authors suggest that mutual aid groups would benefit from relationships with more established organizations, primarily to access resources already developed or structures already formed, noting the risk of losing group autonomy.

When COVID-19 resulted in immediate lock downs, social distancing and fear of exposure, routine activities became impossible or extremely changed. However, innovation and ingenuity expanded and new ways of going on with activities emerged. One area most impacted was community-based research. Community-based research is participatory, collaborative, and relational. Fundamental to this methodology is the development of relationships – mostly in-person. The pandemic challenged researchers’ ability to bring people together in-person. With the desire for partnerships and research to continue, some considered the use of technology. Mendivil-Aguayo et al. (2024) explore the use of digital information and communication technologies (ICTs), specifically Zoom and WhatsApp, as substitutes for in-person interactions to maintain social connections and continue community-based research during the pandemic. Given the swift move to lock downs and fully remote work, researchers with active projects sought ways to adapt to continue the important work. Research on the use of ICTs in community engaged studies is scant. This study looks at the results before and after the implementation of the ICTs in an already ongoing study offering both guidelines and positive outcomes that could be useful as community engaged research considers using technology to reach study participants that may not otherwise participate. The authors provide encouraging findings and “evidence” that these technological tools can be effective when engaging community members and building social connections. They disrupt the norms (power) of research methodological expectations and conclude that “It is clear that the norming of ICTs in research contexts, which previously may have seemed implausible or infeasible, is a lasting legacy of the pandemic” (pg 5). They also noted some unintended consequences. As on participant said, “Learning to navigate Zoom was an experience that opened my eyes to the world of technology. Zoom opened-up a whole new world for us.” (pg 14).

Julia Okun (2024) explores the limits of limited equity cooperatives, specifically related to opportunities and obstacles to increasing black homeownership and decreasing the racial wealth gap in Washington, D.C. The study highlights the tension between “low income” and race forward approaches in the structure of the limited equity cooperatives shared equity homeownership and questions whether this is a benefit or one more structural mechanism to prevent Black Americans from being afforded the wealth associated with independent homeownership. If, as the author suggests, homeownership is a critical path to wealth accumulation, what is the role of limited equity cooperatives in this space and how do we rectify the complicity identified in the D.C municipal housing policy and the stated intent to rectify racial disparity in governmental resource distribution.

The articles in this edition reflect a larger epistemological struggle. Taking on one position may feel like another is being abandoned. How do our formal and informal roles, identities, and intersectionalities, motivate us and impact our action? Just as the soccer coaches in the Mavundla et al. (2024) article were ultimately motivated by the financial needs of their families, or the District of Columbia housing leadership by control, or the needs of some of the participants in the Mendivil-Aguayo et al. (2024) study to have community and contact with others during the COVID-19 pandemic, the intersection of individual needs, political actors, structural resources, and power speak to the tensions that arise when forging a collective path within a political environment of individualism and positionality. Individualism is illusive – as Latour (2018) says – it’s not my land versus your land when we are all losing the earth beneath us. Understanding and recognizing the role of power and working ardently outside, within, and against power structures to imagine alternative futures of belonging amidst a reality of groundlessness is critical.