The myth of capacity building
Kevin Harris, at Neighbourhoods has a nice rant about capacity building today:
As far as I can recall, capacity building the community sector has not been the problem anywhere I’ve worked. The problem is relationships. Too many people in positions of power are behaving in disempowering ways towards residents and towards those who experience exclusion, and then using the notion of capacity-building as a smokescreen. If there’s any capacity building to be done, it’s in terms of getting these people to behave in a civilised and grown-up manner towards those they are supposed to be supporting, or just get out of the way. If we get these people out of the way, IMHO, the capacity of the community sector will always reassert itself.
I tend to agree with him. In the world of First Nations community development, “capacity building” became a buzzword in the early nineties, around the time of the Royal Commission. I think it started out innocently enough as a term meaning to build up the ability of communities to self-govern and self-manage. It was always talked about without context however, and I have met few people working in indigenous communities here who understand capacity building in terms of asset-based community development, appreciative inquiry or other similar bodies of thought and practice.
The problem now with the term is that is has become completely degraded. When people talk about “capacity building” now I have to ask them what they mean. In its worst connotations, government uses the term to mean “Aboriginal communities taking more responsibility for their own futures” which is often code for “we want out of this.” Likewise on the community side, I hear the word “capacity” used in place of “funding” so that capacity building becomes about getting more funding to do new things. (Of course there are many examples that are counter to what I am saying, but this is a general trend).
I think we would do well to forget the term “capacity building” as Kevin suggests and just focus on what the real need is. By engaging in collaborative work around these well articulated needs, we create the relationships necessary to sustain the work over time. That creates a learning community, and only through self-organization, self-education and self-empowerment, can a community understand, harness and realize its own capacities.
[tags]capacity building[/tags]
I also think “capacity building” has an inherent patronising tone..as though “we” know what should be done and “they” should pay attention .. “audience development” is another one of those terms that makes me decidedly uncomfortable..
Yes…that too. It comes out of a scarcity mindset and often from those perceived to have more to those perceived to have less.
I cant agree with you more Chris. We may have talked about this at sometime in our travels. The underlying assumption in a lot of the “capacity building” approachs is that somehow government can build capacity in Aboriginal communities, as if someone can build someone elses self-esteem. And its always in a context that itself defines what is considered an asset or capacity to be “built”, leaving a large unencountered area of marginalia. So I find there is often an assumption that those with “capacity” define what infact is “capacity”, and given the regine of the auditor in government culture, I wonder what gifts fall within the cultural gap between government and first nations, and more to your point, how do we venture into that gap as a place of relation and learning, I see the work you do and your gifts helping to open that space, now we just need to get the auditors in a room with those intended to be supported by the civil service..