This article examines whether a high number of neighborhood associations within a community promotes or hinders civic health and offers two concepts for civil society scholarship: the insular civil society organization (CSO), which is primarily or solely committed to internal development and membership cultivation, and nonreciprocal civility, which captures the absence of relational ties between such CSOs. Based on the analysis of two urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland, the authors found that a high number of neighborhood associations reflect community-level factionalism, primarily manifested through resource competition and turf conflict. This was apparent despite strong consensus among community residents on key community issues and concerns. Possiblereasons for this factionalism are identified, the consequences of such divisiveness for civic health are examined, and suggestions for addressing the limitations posed by insular associations are offered.
Baer, S., & Marando, V. (2001). The subdistricting of cities: Applying the polycentric model. Urban Affairs Review, 36(5), 721-733.
2.
Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. (2002). Census and neighborhood association data. Retrieved November 15, 2002, from www.bnia.org/pdf/citywidestat.pdf
3.
Berman, S. (1997). Civil society and the collapse of the Weimer Republic. World Politics, 49(3), 401-429.
4.
Brambilla, R., & Longo, G. (1979). What makes cities livable? Learning from Baltimore. New York: Institute for Environmental Action.
5.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.
6.
Chambers, S., & Kopstein, J. (2001). Bad civil society. Political Theory, 29, 837-865.
7.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little, Brown.
8.
Chaskin, R. (2003). Fostering neighborhood democracy: Legitimacy and accountability within loosely coupled systems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 161-189.
9.
Chenitz, W., & Swanson, J. (1986). From practice to grounded theory. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
10.
Claibourn, M., & Martin, P. (2000). Trusting and joining? An empirical test of the reciprocal nature of social capital. Political Behavior, 22(4), 267-291.
11.
Cnann, R. (1991). Neighborhood-representing organizations: How democratic are they?Social Service Review, 65(4), 614-634.
12.
Cooper, T., & Musso, J. (1999). The potential for neighborhood council involvement in American metropolitan governance. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 1(2), 199-232.
13.
Crenson, M. (1983). Neighborhood politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Cress, D., McPherson, J., & Rotolo, T. (1997). Competition and commitment in voluntary memberships: The paradox of persistence and participation. Sociological Perspectives, 40(1), 61-79.
15.
Denzin, N. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
Douglas, J. (1987).Political theories of nonprofit organizations.In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector (pp. 43-54). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Figueira-McDonough, J. (2001). Community analysis and praxis: Toward a grounded civil society. Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
18.
Fisher, R. (1994). Let the people decide. New York: Twayne.
19.
Foley, M., & Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38-52.
20.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
21.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973).The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),1360-1380.
22.
Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Hurlbert, J., Beggs, J., & Haines, V. (2001). Social networks and social capital in extreme environments. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 209-232). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
24.
Hyde, C., & Meyer, M. (2002, November). Does neighborhood consensus lead to neighborhood collaboration: An exploratory analysis of an urban community. Paper presented at the ARNOVA Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
25.
Hyde, C., Meyer, M., & Cook, D. (2002).Anew twist in nonprofit, for-profit, and public sector relationships: The community benefits district. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22(11/12), 55-76.
26.
Jacob France Institute at the University of Baltimore. (2003). Neighborhood associations in Baltimore city: A report for the Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. Baltimore: Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance.
27.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
28.
Knickmeyer, L., Hopkins, K., & Meyer, M. (2004).Exploring collaboration among urban neighborhood associations. Journal of Community Practice, 11(2), 13-25.
29.
Lee, R. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Logan, J., & Rabrenovic, G. (1990). Neighborhood associations: Their issues, their allies, and their opponents. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26(1), 68-94.
31.
Lopez, M., & Stack, C. (2001). Social capital and the culture of power: Lessons from the field. In J. Saegert, J. Thompson, & M. Warren (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp. 31-59).New York: Russell Sage.
32.
Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder.
33.
Mesch, G., & Schwirian, K. (1996).The effectiveness of neighborhood collective action. Social Problems, 43(4), 467-483.
34.
Minkoff, D. (1997). Producing social capital: National social movements and civil society. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 606-619.
35.
Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 575-586.
36.
Olsen, M., Perlstadt, H., Fonseca, V., & Hogan, J. (1989). Participation in neighborhood associations. Sociological Focus, 22(1), 1-17.
37.
Popielarz, P., & McPherson, M. (1995). On the edge or in-between: Niche position, niche overlap, and the duration of voluntary association memberships. American Journal of Sociology, 101(3), 698-720.
38.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
39.
Rauch, J. (Ed.). (1994). Hyperpluralism. In Demoscleorsis: The silent killer of American government (pp. 36-62). New York: Random House.
40.
Rich, P. (1999). American volunteerism, social capital, and political culture. Annals of the American Academy, 565, 15-34.
41.
Rosenblum, N. (1998). Membership and morals: The personal uses of pluralism in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Rotolo, T. (1999). Trends in voluntary association participation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 199-212.
43.
Rusk, D. (1996). Baltimore unbound: Creating a greater Baltimore region for the twenty-first century. Baltimore: The Abell Foundation.
44.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.).(1992). America’s nonprofit sector: Aprimer. New York: The Foundation Center.
45.
Skocpol, T. (1999). Advocates without members: The recent transformation of American civil rights. In T. Skocpol & M. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 461-509). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
46.
Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
47.
Smith, D. (1997a). Grassroots associations are important: Some theory and a review of the impact literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(3), 269-306.
48.
Smith, D. (1997b). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing “flat earth” maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 114-131.
49.
Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
Stolle, D. (1998).Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19(3), 497-525.
51.
Suttles, G. (1972). The social construction of cities. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
52.
Swindell, D. (2000). Issue representation in neighborhood organizations: Questing for democracy at the grassroots. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(2), 123-137.
53.
Wuthnow, R. (1998). Loose connections: Joining together in America’s fragmented communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
