An extract from M Y Alam’s introduction to The Invisible Village
‘Given the relatively recent change of government and the ensuing budgetary cuts, community led and voluntary sector organisations continue to play an extensive part in the life of neighbourhoods. Even while the interviews were taking place, as early as 2008, the promissory notes of ‘small government’ and ‘Big Society’ were already apparent. The relationship between us and the state is changing and can be evidenced by the normalisation of various forms of insurance (healthcare being a good example) and sizeable cuts in an array of public sector services. Additionally, the call for us all to do more, to be better and become involved in civic and community life, is heard regularly and with increasing intensity. However, people, by and large, were already living and working in the Big Society before it was actually given a name; the majority of those interviewed already happen to be civil, neighbourly and active members of society. Many are engaged with their communities and rather than being dependent on the state, their lives are characterised by routines and cultures of mutual support which, directly or otherwise, seek to achieve a greater social and community good.
Along with the insecurities arising from the financial crisis and the credit crunch, the workings of the Big Society idea may also serve to especially further disadvantage already deprived communities. Resources remain vital in the promotion of well-being and a broader sense of social cohesion: by removing or limiting resources, community aspirations and expectations are undermined. Without resources to tackle crime and improve services, for example, Big Society is little more than a short-term money saving exercise where the majority of us burden the costs incurred by the actions of an elite, powerful minority. It ought not to be surprising that most people seem to want to merely live their lives, work their jobs, raise their families and keep the peace. In exchange, we expect the state to provide reasonable and not unusual services. These and other elements of the social contract are not extraordinary, untenable or remotely outrageous, but are increasingly prone to displacement into the voluntary and private sectors or, in some cases, are at risk of being removed altogether.’