In Raymond Williams’ text Keywords, he notes that the word community has been in the English language since the fourteenth century, although it was not until the development of industrialisation and the development of more complex societies in the nineteenth century that the term was used to denote immediacy or locality. Williams points to the contradictory yet positive nature of the term community when he states ‘Community can be the warmly persuasive word to describe an existing set of relationships, or the warmly persuasive word to describe an alternative set of relationships. What is most important, perhaps, is that unlike all other terms of social organisation (state, nation, society, etc) it seems never to be used unfavourably, and never to be given any positive opposing or distinguishing term’ (Williams, Reference Williams1983: 75).

Peter Somerville acknowledges the familiarity of the term community in his new book Understanding Community: Politics, Policy and Practice and agrees that it is frequently dismissed as vague and imprecise. However, in this interesting if wide ranging text the author offers readers a scholarly and accessible examination of the term and how it is deployed in a variety of settings and circumstances. Somerville contends that community is in fact a highly contested notion and is ‘experienced, felt and imagined as a collective entity or project’ (p. 32). Importantly, the author explores different conceptions of community and argues that government accounts of the term fail to recognise the character of community life including social divisions which ignore key divisions based on poverty and inequality.

Somerville then considers community in a series of situations. For example, he devotes a chapter to community development in which he summarises some of the major ideas and movements in the activity. In this consideration, the author makes the valuable point that there is a need to specify more precisely the role and significance of ‘participation’ in community development. However, there are a number of omissions in this chapter, one of the major ones being any reference or consideration of the role of the National Community Development Project (1968–1978) which until New Labour launched ‘New Deal for Communities’ was the most comprehensive targeted form of neighbourhood intervention in the UK. Most of those employed in the twelve local projects during the 1960s and 1970s challenged and rejected conservative explanations of poverty and inner-city deprivation that ultimately blamed the poor for their situation (Craig et al., Reference Craig, Mayo, Popple, Shaw and Taylor2011; Popple, Reference Popple, Gilchrist, Hodgson, Jeffs, Spence, Stanton and Walker2011). The project practitioners and researchers made the point then which is as valuable today that it is impossible to have a full understanding of local communities and the issues facing them without an appreciation and consideration of the wider forces that shape events.

The other problem I have with Somerville's chapter on community development is his failure to recognise the role an experienced practitioner can have in working with people living in a particular community. His reading of Ledwith (Reference Ledwith2005) is, with due respect, incorrect and I would ask him to look more closely at her recent book (Reference Ledwith2011) that emphasises the importance of working alongside community members in order to achieve effective change.

In another chapter, Somerville considers community health and social care in which he rightly points to the fact that there is much to do improve health in communities and yet, in reality, there is little attention to one of the most stark of inequalities. He states that ‘the social determinants of health remain largely unaddressed and there is no joined-up approach to dealing with them, whether at a national or a local community level. The ideal of a healthy community, and therefore of a beloved community, remains far beyond our reach’ (p. 181). In order to address this problem, Somerville argues there has to be a move away from the medicalisation of health and the pressure to treat health as a private rather than a public good which has involved the dominance of the market and the influence at a political level of pharmaceutical companies. Instead, the author sees the need to develop the co-production of health through partnerships between NHS staff, patients and the community.

In the final chapter, Somerville brings together the arguments presented in the book, emphasising that community is at its core a shared recognition of what we have in common which provides ‘our liberation, through others’ (p. 239). Somerville points to Buddhist literature which contends that the main problem for the contemporary world is the lack of community; a lack of spiritual interconnectedness; and a lack of recognition of our common humanity. This can be addressed the author argues by ‘allowing the development of individuals through free cooperation with others on the basis not of desire but of mutual and equal respect’ (p. 240).

Overall this book is a valuable and at times incisive source for gaining a better understanding of the notion of community and the manner in which it is applied in community development, politics, government social policies, economic development, education, housing and community safety. It is topical, well referenced and contains plenty to consider, including Somerville's link with Buddhist thinking. It should prove to be a useful text for those studying social policy, sociology, community development, urban regeneration and social work.