The Power of Play

A recent article in the RSA Journal sports writer David Goldblatt talked of the potential of sporting clubs to make a real difference to the life of local communities. He wasn't talking about the professional clubs such as the Manchester Uniteds of the world but rather the primarily Victorian legacy of the club as a "mutual association of individuals who above all want to play and participate, rather than consume, make money or accumulate power".

He talks of the development of clubs such as AFC Wimbledon, formed in 2002 by fans appalled by the the move of Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes. Now AFC Wimbledon, still owned and run by its members is on the threshold of entering the Football League. Goldblatt also asks the question:

"If clubs are capable of mobilising citizens' energies for the benefit of common projects, can they do more than just put a team out on Saturday?"

In other words can they contribute to wider social activism? Can they use the power of play to engage citizens in projects that benefit the wider community?

Central to this is the idea of supporting common ownership and the transfer of relevant assets from state to society - for example in the case of football the transfer of playing fields - so that local communities can run them with and for their citizens.

Another legacy of the Victorian era is the voluntary and amateur arts club. This legacy still exists across the island of Ireland with 100,000s of people getting together to create art and craft every week in their communities. Voluntarily and collectively run by their members they account for the vast majority of arts participation and attendance at arts events across the country.

However, can they do more than just run their weekly and seasonal activities? What if there was collective ownership of underutilised or derelict spaces that could be turned into spaces for the arts? What if professional arts venues turned over sections of their programme and venue to voluntary arts groups to run?

At the very least this would help many groups who struggle to find or afford suitable spaces in which to run their activities. It would also help space owners populate their space and generate strong community connections. And what other assets are there that would be better placed in collective ownership run for the benefit of communities rather than profit.

No doubt this form of self-organisation is on the increase as essentially the state tries to withdraw. However, this very positive move by communities to help themselves is unlikely to be enough to drive the sort of transformation that many of us would like to see.

Governments and their policies have a crucial role to play because they are creating the frameworks in which we operate. At the moment we are seeing the strongest emphasis on rebalancing the books, with a nod towards a notional increase in civic and private sector engagement to take up the slack. The risks of that approach have been well documented. In Northern Ireland they are huge, with both civil society and the private sector still struggling to get back on their feet. In the Republic of Ireland it is at this point impossible to say. A former colleague suggested that the most likely outcome of the elections on 25th February is the return of Fianna Fail, the party that has presided over the recent national crisis. As unbelievable as that might seem she could well be right.

I think the truth of the matter is that in order to transform our society into one which is driven locally by engaged citizens which then influences government policy is going to cost more money in the first instance. I think I would agree that it should result in a healthier civil society and cost the state less in the mid-long term but the idea that we can radically cut our spending and then expect this transformation to happen is flawed - and in the Irish context particularly so.

The power of play and creativity to engage people in positive activities that have personal benefits and societal benefits is real. These benefits, although often economic, are primarily for the good of society. Like anything else they require investment of time and of money.

Are our governments brave enough to make them?

Kevin Murphy