Definition

The ethic of community is underpinned by the belief that everyone is responsible for leadership. In other words, anyone who cares about student success and what happens within a post-secondary institution recognizes that working toward social justice is a communal responsibility rather than the purview of a transformational “heroic” leader with a vision (Furman, 2004).

This ethical paradigm shifts the locus of moral agency to the community as a whole. Moral leadership is thus distributed and requires that all members of the community develop and practice interpersonal and group skills, such as working in teams, engaging in ongoing dialogue, and navigating evolving community discourse within an increasingly polarized society (Furman, 2004; Barcinas & Fleener, 2023).

In addition to being a communal affair, the ethic of community is processual, meaning that “community” is not a product nor a tangible entity but rather an ongoing set of processes led by educators and students committed to these processes. When community is defined as a process, it is based on relationships, which are dependent upon communication, reciprocity, respect, dialogue, and collaboration rather than a set of shared values (Furman, 2002).

Furman (2004) argued that it is more important to inspire commitment to these processes than commitment to the metaphor of “community as an end product” (p. 221). Informed by the concept of deep democracy (Mindell, 2002; Barcinas & Fleener, 2023), the ethic of community is an ecosystem in which the health of the system is dependent on everyone having opportunities and developing capacities to engage and practice a form of governance in conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty.

As people work together within the ethic of community framework, they are focused on enhancing the collective well-being and common good of a community over individual self-interests (Furman, 1998). Leaders who follow this ethical paradigm value the ideals of a democratic system and are committed to open inquiry and the inclusion of diverse perspectives. From this perspective, a democratic community is defined as a participatory way of life, a process “not a stagnant end” (Kahne, 1996, p. 34).

This ethical paradigm demands that leaders foster connections through dialogue, collaboration, and shared experiences rather than focusing solely on individual values or top-down decision-making. Leaders promote a collective approach to moral agency and emphasize the importance of community-building processes. The following summary table highlights the main objectives of an ethic of community, core principles, and benefits of adopting this framework for analysing ethical dilemmas.

Historical Origins

The ethic of community was originally articulated by Gail C. Furman (2004), an American educator whose research focused primarily on school leadership. However, this ethical paradigm has roots in Ancient Greece along with the concept of “the common good,” the critique of liberal individualism, the ethical theory of democratic communitarianism, John Dewey’s (1916, 1927) understanding of democracy, and deep democracy (Green, 1999; Barcinas & Fleener, 2023).

Plato’s and Aristotle’s City-State

In Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle envisioned a city-state, the former in the Republic (375 BC) and the latter in Politics (350 BC). Plato emphasized the importance of justice and harmonious functioning of the state to achieve the common good, whereas Aristotle argued that the purpose of the state is to promote the good life for its citizens. For Aristotle, the common good was the ultimate end of political life and achieved through the virtuous actions of individuals within the community. Plato and Aristotle had differing views on the organization of the city-state, with Plato focusing on a structured hierarchy based on specialization and virtue and Aristotle emphasizing the importance of political participation, balanced governance, and ethical virtue in creating a flourishing community. Aristotle believed that:

“a city is not simply a concentration of needs and a division of the means of production. Right from the start something else is needed — justice, the power of what is better over what is less good” — as cited by Rancière (2004)

Aristotle’s ideas laid the groundwork for understanding the role of communal values in the development of Western societies and influenced the ethical theory of communitarianism. The roots of communitarianism can also be found in other ancient civilizations and religious traditions. Societies depicted in texts like the Hebrew Bible, Christian New Testament, early Islamic notions of shura, and Confucianism all embraced ideas of community, shared values, and collective well-being (Etzioni, 1996, 2014). These early doctrines highlighted the significance of communal harmony, social cohesion, and collective responsibility.

Communitarianism

Communitarianism is an ethical and political theory that emerged in the late 20th century. It placed a strong emphasis on the community and the common good as central to societal well-being. Communitarians argued that individuals are not isolated entities but are inherently social beings with interconnected relationships and obligations to the larger society; they believed that a sense of community is essential for a flourishing society and that individuals should prioritize the needs of the community over their own self-interests (Chang, 2022; Etzioni, 2014; Friedman, 1994; Golby, 1997).

During the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st, liberalism and individualism were heavily critiqued, as scholars and activists advocated for the common good and shared values within communities instead of individual rights at the detriment of the community. Modern communitarianism emerged as a response to American philosopher John Rawls (1971) and his foundational work A Theory of Justice (which informed our understanding of the ethic of justice). Communitarians contested Rawls’ notion that the primary role of government is to justly secure and distribute liberties and economic resources and the notion of state neutrality, advocating for a collective understanding of what constitutes the good; they opposed universalistic strategies that aimed to force a uniform set of ideals upon heterogeneous cultures (Bell, 2024; Etzioni, 2014; Golby, 1997).

Critics of liberalism in the 1980s were troubled by the adverse social and psychological impacts of modern liberal societies, such as alienation, greed, loneliness, urban crime, and high divorce rates (Bell, 2001). These issues spurred a second wave of communitarian thinkers in the 1990s, such as Israeli sociologist Amitai Etzioni (1996, 2014) and American politician William Galston (1993), who concentrated on advocating for social responsibility and implementing policies to reinforce communal life. Their ideas were disseminated through the flagship communitarian periodical The Responsive Community and Etzioni’s Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies.

Bell (2024) articulated three forms of communal life that are commonly accepted by modern communitarians:

• Communities of place — based on geographical locations and aim to preserve the unique character of local areas.
• Communities of memory — include groups that share histories, such as nations or ethnocultural groups.
• Psychological communities — involve face-to-face interactions characterized by trust and cooperation, such as families and small work groups.

Communitarians face challenges in balancing these forms of communal life. For instance, promoting workplace communities might undermine family life. Similarly, Etzioni’s proposals for pro-family measures may conflict with his call for increased civic engagement. Striking a balance between communal responsibilities and individual rights is one of communitarianism’s central principles (Chang, 2022; Etzioni, 2014).

Although communitarians acknowledged the value of individual autonomy, they contend that it should only be used within the parameters of a common set of standards and values that advance the common good. This school of thought aims to promote cooperation and solidarity among society’s members by creating a sense of mutual obligation and belonging (Chang, 2022).

Deep Democracy

Gail C. Furman’s (2004) ethic of community was influenced by John Dewey’s (1916, 1927) understanding of democracy, which related to experience, self-expression, and ongoing learning. Dewey (1899) argued that democracy occurs through civic engagement and debate that is informed, reasoned, and deliberative. Scholars have argued that democratic methods, rules, and laws alone do not create a sense of community (Mindell, 2002); instead, what is needed is deep democracy, which Barcinas and Fleener (2023) define as “the intellectual and practical commitment to equity, freedom, and self-determination through shared power and popular participation in free and just (sovereign) communities” (p. 133).

Mindell (2002) described deep democracy as an ecosystem in which the health of the system is dependent on everyone having opportunities and developing capacities to engage and practice a form of governance in conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty. Barcinas and Fleener (2023) drew connections between this framing of democracy with adult education and lifelong learning, where students develop “capacities to navigate evolving community discourse” (p. 135) and “embrace innovation, creativity, disruption, and paradigmatic shifts as worldviews are disrupted and challenged” (p. 138).

Social Justice

Nourishing a strong, democratic community requires continuous effort and commitment from all involved. In education, the concept of community is likened to a place of belonging, where all members feel valued and respected and are engaged in collaborative efforts.

Furman and Starratt (2002) problematized and redefined the concept of community to emphasize acceptance and celebration of difference rather than a focus on sameness and homogeneity. They argued for a new understanding of community based on interconnectedness, interdependence, and cultural capital exchange between educational institutions, the surrounding community, and the larger global community.

This redefined community is characterized by a sense of global interdependence, ecological sustainability, and global survival, highlighting the important link between educational institutions and broader social contexts. This reframing of community shifts organizations from an isolationist and competitive perspective to one focused on building strong partnerships with their surrounding communities.

Furman (2004) emphasized the connection between moral leadership and social justice education when she argued that:

“social justice cannot be realized given the status quo of hierarchical relationships in schools and the assumption that moral leadership is the purview of heroic leaders in administrative positions, and the dearth of opportunities for full participation and open inquiry” (p. 229).

Furman believed than an ethic of community could be the vehicle for working toward social justice because it centres leadership practice as a communal process.

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

The ethic of community has most commonly been associated with school leadership; however, Wood and Hilton (2012) applied this ethic to community college leaders. Furthermore, Barcinas and Fleener (2023) and others have drawn parallels between adult learning and deep democracy; therefore, it can inform ethical educational leadership practices today.

Ethic of Justice vs. Care

Western post-secondary systems are grounded in an ethic of justice, which focuses on rights, laws, and public policy for ethical guidance, and government legislation is aimed at accountability. How willing are we to acknowledge that educational institutions, both their structures and cultures, have a history of and remain, in many ways, unsupportive and/or hostile to students and their communities?

This is highly relevant in a time of truth and reconciliation, as Indigenous knowledges and ways are accepted (or not) by colonial academia (Smith & Smith, 2019) and as the globalization of post-secondary education challenges WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) views of academic integrity and plagiarism (Leask, 2007). Leaders must critically examine and question the rule of law, as it relates to service, equity, and the local community; moreover, post-secondary leaders must be prepared, when necessary, to bend and adapt rather than be rigid with policy.

Describing an educational institution as a community means acknowledging and enhancing the relationships, mutual dependencies, and exchange of cultural assets and resources among the institution, its local environment, and the broader global society (Furman & Starratt, 2002). This perspective of an educational community contrasts with common leadership structures that tend to be hierarchical and restrict participation in decision-making processes to a privileged few. Alternatively, leaders who follow an ethic of community engage with diverse viewpoints and celebrate differences.

Community Cultural Wealth

As post-secondary institutions become increasingly more diverse, it is important that educational leaders appreciate the cultural assets that students and employees carry with them. Yosso (2005) defined six types of cultural assets, referred to as “community cultural wealth,” that highlight the positive influence of students’ home communities:

• Aspirational — students’ hopes and dreams.
• Linguistic — students’ various language and communication skills (e.g., storytelling, multilingual, memorization, attention to detail, tone, and rhythm).
• Familial — students’ social and personal human resources drawn from extended family and community networks.
• Social — students’ peers and social contacts.
• Navigational — students’ skills and abilities that they use to navigate social institutions and educational spaces (i.e., how they navigate unsupportive or hostile environments).
• Resistance — students’ ability to secure equal rights and collective freedom through a historical legacy of injustice and resistance.

Yosso (2005) designed this model to capture the talents, strengths, and experiences that students from marginalized communities bring with them to university and aimed to disrupt the narrative that students are empty vessels waiting to be filled by their instructors. Rather, students bring with them prior knowledge and experience that contributes to the overall collective wisdom of the institution, including their instructors and peers.

Beware Deficit-Thinking

Unfortunately, deficit-thinking is common in Western organizational development theory (Stavros et al., 2003), social science research (Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008), and performance measurement (Anderson & Smylie, 2009). Leaders must be cautious of how student success is framed because deficit thinking negatively impacts racially marginalized people.

Benefits of Ethic

Globally, a prioritization of efficiency and consumerism, such as measuring return on investment through graduate outcomes (Schneider & Peek, 2018), has shifted the focus away from an ethic of community and the cultivation of diverse cultural knowledge and histories of marginalized communities. Instead, attention is diverted to competition, global rankings, revenue generation, and labour market outcomes, as is evidenced by:

• Recruitment beyond catchment areas
• Growth in advertising and marketing
• Reduction or elimination of arts-based programming (e.g., visual arts, music, philosophy, and history)
• A burgeoning bureaucratic and managerial culture.

Driving this cultural orientation is a neoliberal philosophy of post-secondary education, which assumes that “the only knowledge worth pursuing is that with more or less immediate market value” (Busch, 2017, xii). The problem with this short-sighted thinking is that the market does not help educational leaders address the social processes aimed at coordinated efforts and commitment to quality, nor the systemic inequities perpetuated by meritocracies.

Adopting an ethic of community has been shown to reduce student isolation by fostering a sense of belonging, which in turn boosts achievement through teamwork and shared learning responsibilities and promotes collegiality among educators, encouraging deep connections and shared governance and decision-making, and can lead to a more supportive work environment (Beck & Murphy, 1996; Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Shouse, 1996). For example, Crawford (2017) found that the incorporation of the ethic of community into leadership practices when addressing concerns related to undocumented immigrants in the United States resulted in more inclusive decisions that benefitted the entire school community.

Drawbacks of Ethic

Enacting an ethic of community centred on principles of deep democracy — communal processes, lifelong learning, and shared responsibility — is not without its challenges. Recent research theorizes the erosion of democracy is caused by the rise of populism and totalitarianism and influence of a “post-truth” era (Barcinas & Fleener, 2023; Fleener & Barcinas, 2022; Hoggan-Kloubert & Hoggan, 2022; Petrie et al., 2019; Schroeder et al., 2019). Information privilege, censorship, curriculum bans (e.g., anti-SOGI movements in Canada and anti-DEI movements in the USA), and public discourse permeated with racist, xenophobic, and openly violent messages restricts our ability to meaningfully engage in rational discourse.

Additionally, Barcinas and Fleener (2023) acknowledged generational shifts driving preferences for “less ambiguity, shorter information loads, and truncated learning and decision processes” (p. 132). They further rang alarm bells about “increasingly networked and diluted/polluted adult networks and webs of communication and influence [that] are more readily influenced, pressured, and derailed with potential “viral” challenges” (p. 132). To promote a democratic ecosystem, Barcinas and Fleener wondered:

• How can we excuse vile, hateful, and aggressive ideas or actions and, at the same time, make space for opposing discourse?
• How could communities acknowledge multiple polarized contexts without sliding into violence or a breakdown of caring, civil communities? (p. 132)

Thus, it becomes increasingly important for post-secondary leaders and communities to consider how they can help members develop the necessary skills for rational discourse within an increasingly chaotic and technology-enhanced society.

Additionally, as leaders try to balance a social justice agenda with the concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number,” tensions among community members will emerge and concessions and sacrifices will need to be made. Resource allocation poses a significant challenge, as leaders must equitably distribute limited resources to meet both individual and community-wide needs. Scholars have also questioned whether it is possible to promote and engage in communal processes in institutions that are marked by political and power struggles and where strong, decisive leadership may be necessary (Furman, 2003).

Finally, the ethic of the community has been criticized for the lack of empirical evidence supporting it as a standalone paradigm. Minimal research has been conducted on the ethic of community and its benefits, and what exists is predominantly centred on schools (as opposed to other educational systems, such as post-secondary). Over the past 20 years, few studies have focused on the ethic of community as a central theme, and scholars have debated whether the ethic of community is a dimension within existing frameworks or a standalone paradigm.

Shapiro and Stefkovich (2022) argued that community is a key aspect of the ethic of the profession, with its focus on relationships between individuals and local communities. Noddings (1992) and Gunzenhauser et al. (2023) referred to dimensions of community within their definitions of the ethic of care and advocated for a community-based ethics of caring, where everyone works together to protect and enhance the integrity of the educational experience. Stefkovich (2013) argued that focusing on the ethic of community as its own paradigm, as Furman (2004) advocated for, overemphasizes processes over people, potentially sidelining individual relationships.

Recommended Further Readings

• “Adult Education, Futures Literacy, and Deep Democracy: Engaging Democratic Visioning and Anticipatory Futures for More Sustainable Futures” by Susan J. Barcinas and M. Jayne Fleener, Adult Learning
• “The Ethic of Community” by Gail C. Furman, Journal of Educational Administration
• “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth” by Tara J. Yosso, Race, Ethnicity, and Education

References

Anderson, M. J., & Smylie, J. K. (2009). Health systems performance measurement systems in Canada: How well do they perform in First Nations, Inuit, and Métis contexts? Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 99–155. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582648/

Barcinas, S. J., & Fleener, M. J. (2023). Adult education, futures literacy, and deep democracy: Engaging democratic visioning and anticipatory futures for more sustainable futures. Adult Learning, 34(3), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231166726

Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1996). The four imperatives of a successful school. Corwin Press.

Bell, D. (2024). Communitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.

Busch, L. (2017). Knowledge for sale: The neoliberal takeover of higher education. The MIT Press.

Chang, Y. L. (2022). Communitarianism properly understood. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 35(1), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2021.21

Crawford, E. R. (2017). The ethic of community and incorporating undocumented immigrant concerns into ethical school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×16687005

Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society: Being three lectures. University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Holt Publishers.

Etzioni, A. (1996). The responsive community: A communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096403

Etzioni, A. (2014). Communitarianism revisited. Journal of Political Ideologies, 19(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2014.951142

Fleener, M. J., & Barcinas, S. J. (2022). Democracy’s relationship with the future: Transforming society’s promise. Journal of Transformative Education, 20(3), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221103174

Friedman, J. (1994). The politics of communitarianism. Critical Review, 8(2), 297–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819408443340

Furman, G. C. (1998). Postmodernism and community in schools: Unraveling the paradox. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 298–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×98034003003

Furman, G. C. (Ed.) (2002). School as community: From promise to practice. SUNY Press.

Furman, G. C. (2003). Moral leadership and the ethic of community. Values and ethics in educational administration, 2(1).

Furman, G. C. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410525612

Furman, G. C., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Leadership for democratic community in schools. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 104(9), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810210400906

Galston, W. (1993). The promise of communitarianism. National Civic Review, 28(3), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.4100820303

Golby, M. (1997). Communitarianism and education. Curriculum Studies, 5(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681369700200010

Green, J. M. (1999). Deep democracy: Community, diversity, and transformation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Gunzenhauser, M. G., Flores, O. J., & Quigley, M. W. (2023). Race-conscious caring and anti-racist leadership: A narrative ethics for cultivating communal responsibility. Journal of School Leadership, 34(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846231174151

Hoggan-Kloubert, T., & Hoggan, C. (2022). Post-truth as an epistemic crisis: The need for rationality, autonomy, and pluralism. Adult Education Quarterly, 73(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136221080424

Kahne, J. (1996). Reframing educational policy: Democracy, community, and the individual. Teachers College Press.

Leask, B. (2007). Plagiarism, cultural diversity, and metaphor: Implications for academic staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262486

Mindell, A. (2002). The deep democracy of open forums: Practical steps to conflict prevention and resolution for the family, workplace, and world. Hampton Roads Publishing.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. Teachers College Press.

Petrie, M., McGregor, C., & Crowther, J. (2019) Populism, democracy, and a pedagogy of renewal. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 38(5), 488–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1617798

Rancière, J. (2004). The order of the city (J. Drury, C. Oster, & A. Parker, Trans.). Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1344360

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

Schneider, M., & Peek, A. (2018). Accreditation and return on investment. In S. D. Phillips & K. Kinser (Eds.), Accreditation on the edge: Challenging quality assurance in higher education (pp. 157–171). John Hopkins University Press.

Schroeder, S., Currin, E., Washington, E., Curcio, R., & Lundgren, L. (2019). “Like, share and comment,” and learn: Transformative learning in online anti-Trump resistance communities. Adult Education Quarterly, 70(2), 119–139. https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1177/0741713619884270

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2022). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (5th ed.). Routledge.

Shouse, R. C. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict, congruence, and implications for student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02333405

Smith, G. H. & Smith, L. T. (2019) Doing Indigenous work: Decolonizing and transforming the academy. In E. A. McKinley & L. T. Smith (Eds.). Handbook of Indigenous education (pp. 1–27). Springer.

Stavros, J. M., Cooperrider, D. L., & Kelley, D. L. (2003). Strategic inquiry appreciative intent: Inspiration to SOAR, a new framework for strategic planning. AI Practitioner, 5(4), 10–17.

Stefkovich, J. A. (2013). Best interests of the student: Applying ethical constructs to legal cases in education (2nd ed.). Routledge

Wood, J. L., & Hilton, A. A. (2012). Five ethical paradigms for community college leaders: Toward constructing and considering alternative courses of action in ethical decision making. Community College Review, 40(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552112448818

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (Eds.) (2008). White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.