Despite its varied definitions and applications, community development is fundamentally about the development of ‘community’; but what do we mean by ‘community’? It makes sense to begin by examining what we know and understand about the concept. This book is based on a belief that the experience of community is generated by and manifest in the informal networks that exist between people, between groups and between organisations. Community provides a crucial dimension to our lives and is a persistent theme within policy making. Throughout history, people have lamented the decline or eclipse of community (Stein, 1960) and the associated weakening of local social ties.

The idea of community is generally regarded as a force for good: a means of survival and progress. Lack of community is considered a present-day ‘social evil’, confirming an apparent yearning for community spirit and mutuality (Duerden, 2018). A survey carried out in the UK indicated that the presence of strong community spirit came fourth in people's wish list for what made an ideal place to live (Nextdoor, 2016). The majority in this sample also reported that they felt there had been a loss of ‘community belonging’, as compared with their grandparents’ generation, resulting in a sense of loneliness and vulnerability in the face of criminal or anti-social behaviour. But, as Lawrence (2018) suggests, we are facing a strange paradox between people wanting to be more connected at community level, on the one hand, while also choosing to live independently in single households and zealously guarding their right to privacy. Bauman (2000, 2003) contends that community can be seen as ‘liquid’, accommodating the lumps and bumps of existing circumstances and flowing with prevalent trends and discourses, notably a Western or contemporary desire for freedom and autonomy. Without becoming cynical, it is important to remember that references to community values and identities have also been used to impose responsibilities, deny rights, generate conflict and resist change (Day, 2006; Somerville, 2016).