A group of young people working with older people in a community development project in Hong Kong. Photo: Author / contributor

A group of young people working with older people in a community development project in Hong Kong.

Portrait of Sum Kung

Sum Kung
Lecturer, Kingston College, UK

Reserved Trust: Community Development Practice in Hong Kong under Transformed Socio-Political Conditions after 2019

Introduction

Community development (CD) in Hong Kong has historically functioned as both a vehicle for social welfare delivery, a platform for grassroots participation, and social transformation. It embodies principles of empowerment, collective action, and social justice, fostering social dialogue and collaboration among citizens to address social and structural challenges. Following the socio-political events of 2019, and with the subsequent implementation of the National Security Law (NSL), alongside the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, community development practice operates in an increasingly complex and sensitive socio-political environment.

This article examines how CD practice has adapted under these conditions, highlighting the emergence of reserved trust, the impact of practitioner caution, and the structural and relational mechanisms that shape participation. While the NSL is an important contextual factor, the discussion is framed around professional, relational, and methodological perspectives. The aim is to provide insights for future-oriented politics of social work, emphasizing ethical, adaptive, and community-centered approaches to practice

Community Development: Values and Core Functions

Community development practice draws on theories of empowerment, participatory action, and critical consciousness. Freire’s (1986) Pedagogy of the Oppressed emphasizes the role of dialogue and reflection in enabling communities to perceive structural influences on their lives and to act collectively. Similarly, Alinsky (1969) highlights the importance of organizing communities to mobilize resources and foster collective agency. These perspectives underscore the dual nature of CD both addressing immediate needs while promoting long-term social transformation.

Bourdieu’s (1990) concept of habitus provides a lens to understand how both practitioners and service users internalize social and political constraints, shaping their dispositions and practices. Habitus allows CD actors to navigate complex environments by adapting their engagement strategies in ways that preserve both relational trust and professional integrity. Goffman’s (1959) work on impression management further illuminates the subtle ways practitioners and service users regulate expression, particularly in sensitive socio-political contexts, to maintain relational safety.

Foucault’s (1977) notion of governmentality complements this analysis by highlighting how regulatory norms shape conduct through indirect mechanisms rather than overt prohibition. In the CD context, soft organizational guidance, professional codes, and societal expectations interacts to form an environment where adaptive practice becomes both a necessity and a skillful strategy. Collectively, these theoretical perspectives provide a framework for analyzing how contemporary CD practice compromises empowerment with safety and ethical responsibility.

Key Issues in Contemporary Community Development

Reserved Trust and Community Participation — A defining feature of current CD practice is the emergence of reserved trust. Service users continue to engage in group activities and collaborative projects, yet participation is often filtered to focus on practical concerns such as resource allocation, livelihood support, and social cohesion. Dialogue on systemic or policy-related issues is largely avoided, reflecting a tacit understanding of safe boundaries. Reserved trust ensures continuity of engagement and maintains a basic level of collaboration, yet it simultaneously limits the transformative potential of CD practice. By prioritizing safety over open dialogue, communities may address immediate challenges without interrogating the structural factors that perpetuate inequities. This shift represents an adaptive strategy. The focus on pragmatic solutions allows practitioners and service users to sustain participation while navigating an environment of perceived risk. The implications are twofold. First, CD remains relevant and functional, continuing to foster community solidarity and collective problem-solving to a limited extent. Second, the diminished scope for critical engagement raises questions about the long-term capacity for empowerment and structural awareness, traditionally central to the field (Rubin & Rubin, 2008; Wong, 2009).

Practitioner Caution and Professional Adaptation — Practitioner's experiences reveal a pervasive sense of caution shaping professional practice. Social workers and CD practitioners have developed strategies to ensure ethical compliance, relational safety, and effective service delivery. These strategies include careful facilitation, neutral framing of discussions, and risk-aware documentation practices. Such caution reflects an internalized regulative habitus, in which professional identity and ethical commitment are calibrated in response to contextual constraints. Practitioners compromise the imperatives of empowerment, advocacy, and user-centered care with the practical need to safeguard both themselves and the communities they serve. This adaptation is not a withdrawal from professional values but a strategic recalibration to sustain practice under challenging circumstances. This adaptive practice illustrates both the compromise and resilience of CD professionals. By focusing on actionable tangible support and relational stability, practitioners preserve engagement while minimizing potential harm. These strategies demonstrate the diminished role of practitioners to navigate highly sensitive environments while maintaining ethical integrity.

Mutual Anticipation of Boundaries — A key relational dynamic is the mutual anticipation of boundaries, in which both practitioners and service users implicitly regulate conversation and behavior to avoid perceived risks. This co-constructed caution stabilizes relationships and ensures continued participation but may inadvertently constrain deeper dialogue. Mutual boundary anticipation fosters a form of relational trust. Participants rely on each other to maintain safe discussion spaces, even as the scope of topics is limited. This trust, while protective, is primarily functional rather than expressive, preserving engagement without necessarily deepening communal bonds or facilitating critical consciousness. The duality of this dynamic is evident. It safeguards both practitioners and service users while simultaneously curbing opportunities for reflection on structural influences and systemic inequities. As such, it represents a pragmatic adaptation of traditional CD principles, reflecting the realities of operating within a sensitive socio-political landscape.

Self-censorship on dialogue — Closely related to boundary anticipation is self-censorship on dialogue. Both practitioners and service users avoid addressing potentially sensitive issues, reinforcing a form of self-censorship on dialogue. This allows CD activities to continue without overt conflict but reduces the potential for critical consciousness-raising. In practice, conversations prioritize immediate, tangible concerns, such as resource distribution, livelihood challenges, and collective welfare. Systemic or policy-oriented discussions are largely deferred, if not annihilated, reflecting a protective strategy rather than a lack of professional or civic commitment. These dynamic highlights the ethical and relational complexities of practice. Practitioners sustain engagement, maintain community cohesion, and provide support, even as traditional mechanisms for empowerment and critical reflection are constrained. While self-censorship limits transformative capacity, it also preserves continuity of engagement and ensures that communities continue to benefit from practical support, reinforcing a form of adaptive professional ethics that prioritizes safety and service sustainability over empowerment and social transformation.

Implications for the politics of community development

The contemporary dynamics of community development in Hong Kong have substantial implications for its socio-political functions. Practitioners are navigating an environment where traditional mechanisms of advocacy, policy critique, and consciousness-raising are constrained. To respond effectively, community development must adopt strategically adaptive and ethically grounded approaches.

  1. Pragmatic Consciousness-Raising — Even when explicit critique of political structures is constrained, politics of community development can promote pragmatic consciousness-raising. This involves equipping service users with knowledge and skills to navigate social services, access resources, and understand organizational and institutional processes that shape their everyday lives. While the focus may be on tangible outcomes such as access to protective equipment, employment support, or community resources, practitioners can embed reflective discussion about decision-making processes, rights, and collective problem-solving strategies. This approach preserves the core principle of empowerment while minimizing risk exposure for both practitioners and service users.
  2. Relational and Trust-Based Facilitation — The notion of reserved trust underscores the importance of relational skill in the politics of community development. Practitioners must be adept at fostering safe, inclusive, and participatory spaces, where service users feel confident to share concerns within agreed-upon boundaries. Training in relational facilitation, conflict mediation, and boundary-setting becomes essential. Practitioners can employ techniques that encourage critical thinking and self-efficacy, even when discussions cannot explicitly challenge systemic constraints. This relational emphasis ensures that communities remain engaged, supported, and resilient.
  3. Adaptive, Resilience-Oriented Practice — The politics of community development must prioritize adaptive resilience, focusing on community cohesion, mutual aid, and collective problem-solving. By mobilizing networks, pooling resources, and developing collaborative strategies to address immediate challenges, practitioners can sustain social solidarity and civic participation. For instance, organizing coordinated support for vulnerable service users during public health crises, or facilitating volunteer networks for resource distribution, demonstrates the politics of community development’s capacity to navigate constraints while sustaining meaningful social impact.
  4. Ethical Vigilance and Professional Reflexivity — A central implication is the heightened need for ethical vigilance. Practitioners must continually reflect on professional responsibilities, balancing care, empowerment, and legal awareness. The politics of community development in this context requires meticulous attention to ethics, confidentiality, and risk management, ensuring that interventions do not inadvertently compromise participants’ safety. Reflexivity also allows practitioners to evaluate the effectiveness and boundaries of practice, adjusting strategies as social, political, and regulatory conditions evolve.
  5. Multi-Level Advocacy Within Safe Parameters — Politics of community development can continue to influence transformative change by focusing on safe, indirect advocacy. This may include:
    • Strengthening community networks to enhance collective efficacy.
    • Documenting community needs and outcomes to inform policy planning or service improvement.
    • Engaging in professional forums or inter-organizational collaboration to share learning and best practices.

Even without direct political critique, such strategies enable practitioners to maintain the transformative ethos, reinforcing structural awareness and social justice orientation while adhering to contextual constraints.

Politics of the Future

The evolving landscape of community development in Hong Kong suggests a forward-looking model of politics of community development and civic engagement characterized by pragmatism, relational sensitivity, and adaptive strategy embedded with social justice orientation.

  1. Pragmatic, Value-Driven Engagement — Future politics of CD will prioritize interventions that are both practical and ethically grounded, emphasizing tangible outcomes such as social support, community cohesion, and resource accessibility. Practitioners will need to design programs that foster empowerment and agency without exposing participants to undue risk. This approach may include educational workshops, skills training, and collaborative problem-solving initiatives that simultaneously enhance individual and collective capacities.
  2. Relationally Sensitive Practice — The future politics of CD will rely heavily on relationally sensitive approaches. Practitioners must be able to navigate multiple social and political perspectives within the community, fostering inclusive participation while respecting the boundaries established by residents. Cultivating emotional intelligence, negotiation skills, and trust-building will be central to sustaining community engagement and collaboration over time.
  3. Ethical and Reflexive Practice as Core CD Strategy — Ethics and reflexivity will become core strategies in the practice of future community development. Practitioners will need to continuously evaluate the implications of their interventions, the safety of participants, and the broader social impact of their work. Reflexive practice allows for adaptive decision-making, ensuring that community development remains relevant, responsible, and effective even in complex or constrained environments.
  4. Subtle Forms of Civic Engagement and Activism — While explicit political action may be limited, future politics will likely emphasize subtle, relational, and indirect forms of civic engagement. These include mutual aid networks, community education, collaborative problem-solving, and advocacy for procedural improvements. By emphasizing action that strengthens social cohesion and community resilience, politics of CD can maintain its transformative potential without relying on overt political critique.
  5. Sustaining Transformative Capacity — The politics of the future involves balancing protective caution with transformative intent. Practitioners and communities can develop adaptive strategies that sustain empowerment, solidarity, and resilience, even in environments where direct advocacy or political critique is constrained. This requires:
    • Continuous development of adaptive facilitation skills.
    • Strategic identification of safe spaces for dialogue and reflection.
    • Strengthening community agency through resource mobilization and participatory problem-solving.

In essence, the future politics of community development and political social work is relational, adaptive, ethically vigilant, and value-driven, focusing on sustaining empowerment, social justice, and collective well-being in dynamic and sensitive environments.

Conclusion

Community development in Hong Kong continues to evolve under transformed socio-political conditions. The implementation of the National Security Law (NSL) and the societal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have reshaped both the practice and scope of community development. This discussion has highlighted how reserved trust, practitioner caution, mutual anticipation of boundaries, and self-censorship collectively influence engagement strategies and professional conduct.

Looking forward, the politics of community development in Hong Kong will require adaptive, value-driven, and relationally sensitive approaches. Practitioners must continue to balance ethical obligations, professional responsibility, and community empowerment with a nuanced understanding of the evolving social and regulatory environment. Future-oriented strategies include pragmatic consciousness-raising, relational facilitation, resilience-building, and safe yet meaningful civic engagement. By sustaining these approaches, social work can maintain both the practical and transformative dimensions of community development, even under constrained circumstances. The future of political social work and community development lies in safely navigating constraints while fostering empowerment, social solidarity, and collective well-being, illustrating a forward-looking model of practice that is both ethically vigilant and socially impactful.

References

  1. Alinsky, S. (1969). Reveille for radicals (2nd ed.). Vintage Books.
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
  3. Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
  4. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
  5. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  6. Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I. (2008). Community organizing and development. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
  7. Scottish Community Development Centre. (n.d.). What is community development? Retrieved May 6, 2023, from https://www.scdc.org.uk/who/what-is-community-development
  8. Wong, H. (2009, January). Lecture 2: What is community work? In Integrated practice III (Lecture PowerPoint Slide). https://web.swk.cuhk.edu.hk/~hwong/pubfile/teaching/SOWK_5953_L2_What_is_Community_Work.pdf