Community

The focal point of this paper is to determine the commonalities between various different `communities` where an individual belongs. It is obvious that in the modern concept of society it is not possible to stay only in connection of a specified set of personnel and detach from the other echelons of life be it emotional of professional. It can be mentioned in this section of discussion that the term “community” in sociology indicates a group of people who share social interaction and some common ties between themselves and the other members of the group. It also indicates an area where the group gathers for at least some of the time.

Following this principal it can be stated that in general sense it could be stated that a person as an individual belongs to few specified groups initially. First there is the ethnic community were the individual belongs, second it is the faith or belief, both in religious and idealist manner, and third is the community of the professional level. Being personal in this context it can be stated that I am a white female, attend church, live in a middle class part of town, work as a paralegal and property manager; therefore, have associate with legal professionals and realtors and clients.

As a result it is obvious that the individuals associated with me are wide and diverse. But together they form a complete neighborhood for me. All these incorporate to form a neighborhood that the Chicago School of sociology believes is “ecology of consensual norms and values and a predictable set of intra-community personal bonds”. (Lecture notes, 6) For example, there is hardly any connection between the church and the legal professionals but is bonded in a same community where the bonding factor is an individual who is a part of both communities. It is thus true that these ‘intra-community personal bonds’, no matter how different the communities are, shapes up a definite psyche and identity of an individual. This way an individual finds a place in the society.

Thus, it can well be mentioned that this apparent difference in community seize to exist when the overall context of an individual’s perspective of life is taken into consideration. On the other hand these communities shape the identity of an individual. (Lamb, 2004, 89) It is not astonishing that according to Chicago School of sociology “a community and neighborhood were responsible for establishing human behavior that could be deviant or non-deviant.” (Lecture notes, 5) Thus, if seen from the perspective of an individual, we would see that an individual indulges into only those communities, under willful consideration, where the individual is able to synthesize the common parameters of the communities into itself. In other words an individual synthesizes the common features of all the communities and indulges into them otherwise it would have been impossible to communicate among the communities. (Lamb, 2004, 65)

It should be remembered that the common feature of the communities hardly lies in the communities itself but resides in the psyche of the beholder. It is this beholder or individual who searches for the common aspects and features and ultimately belongs to that certain community or communities. (Lamb, 2004, 59) From a personal point of view it could be stated that my infrastructure belongs to the community group of white middle class. From this single parameter the professional aspect can be well defined as most of the clients and legal professionals belong to the same background and those who do not certainly most of them visit church. Thus one way or the other the entire milieu of communities forms a single common feature.