Focus Pocus vs. Self-interest, which one’s better?


“Near Dark”, F/M & Near Dark Joint Venture, 1987.

Written and presented by

T. Bey-Sahjaza

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen,

As is normal within the culture of the modern living Vampyre, and associated cultural blocs, “groups” come and go with amazing speed and regularity, just as rapidly many of those will fade and disappear, so what’s the key in starting, and maintaining, a “group” for your goals, aims, initiatives and – above all – personal reward?

The first thing to consider is what is going to be the key topic, or point of view (POV) of the group. Generally a group with a focus and goal will fare somewhat better than yet another “catch all” group designed to simply net as many members as possible. It seems, in this age, that meme sharing has replaced conversation and the quickest way to kill a “conversation” is to post the question on Facebook. In a “focus”, or “self-interest” group you can gather a number of “like-minded” contributors for the purpose of accumulating a store of knowledge and information for common use. A “library” and discussion group if you will.

What’s the difference between a “focus” group and a “self-interest” group?

A focus group is comprised of a number of DIFFERENT individuals with DIFFERENT points of view brought together to brainstorm and develop a response to a SPECIFIC problem or issue.

Tecnically speaking a “self interest group” is defined as, “Define self-interest: concern only for getting what you want or need and not about what happens to other people.” I would suggest that in the context of the modern Vampyre, and associated, cultures it could be held to reflect a slightly different process but one which still achieves the same end result as the rather narrow technical definition, i.e.  a “self-interest” group is one which aims to accumulate, store, disseminate and learn from a collected amount of information and COMMONLY HELD opinion.

img source:

Practical examples;
If you wanted to build a house you would bring together architects, carpenters, masons, electricians and plumbers – in the first instance – to create the building. This is an example of a “focus” group where each different point of view is represented as a part of the final solution.

If you wanted to create a group about British Military History you would bring together Military Historians, and perhaps ex-servicemen of the British Military, to contribute and share information to create a complete picture of the subject.

Which way is best?

It all depends on what you want to achieve.

Take, for example, a hypothetical “Group Project” – Top 5 set-up requirements.

1) Balanced and co-ordinated “founder team”. It has been proven, in psychological and workplace studies that a “Focus Group” consisting of individuals of different strengths and specialties makes for the best mix of creation. The one thing that is important above all, each member of the team should, ideally, be in the project for the ‘right’ reasons.

2) Advertise. From day one, a presentation for public consumption. This will thwart the “rumour mill” and the “haters”.

3) Communicate. Create a webpage, not a group, where you can feed regular updates on progress and growth to “followers” and have them see, thus spread the word, that you are NOT hiding anything.

4) Appoint a spokesperson, 1 ONLY. All communications for public consumption should be made by that person only. Extra people, throwing in extra words may seem to be uncoordinated and will, even if unintentionally, provide ammunition to the “haters and critics”.

5) Maintain the flow, growth and development. Appoint more staff if you need to, assign specific tasks and goals to each. DON’T try and go it alone. Any delays will come across to followers as, “Yeah, well, not really THAT interested, just doin’ it for shit’s an’ giggles really…”

img. source: wiseGEEK

The majority of modern Vampire Culture groups, in my opinion, fall firmly into the “Self-interest” group category and because of this the struggle to outdo other, similar, groups is always intense with each entity vying for the attention, and loyalty, of as many members as possible. As with anything of like nature there are problems inherent in each methodology that need be considered fully prior to any “group” coming into being.

“Focus Group” – The danger with a focus group is that it can get bogged down in minutiae and let the finicky details overcome the achievement of aims. For example, let’s say our ‘House Building’ focus group was looking over the Architect’s plans for the building. The Mason might say, “You can’t make brick and mortar do that, you’ll have to use another material, ten times more expensive.” The Architect says, “It’s my project, I say we do that.” Then the plumber pops up and says, to the electrician, “You’ll have to re-route the mains here and here because I need to hard-pipe to make the plumbing navigate this space effectively.” To which the Electrician replies, “Sorry, that’s not code, can’t do that.”

img. source: Applied Vision Works

So, instead of actually achieving the end result in a reasonable space of time and within a reasonable budget, protracted disagreements based on EACH CONTRIBUTOR’S agenda can dog the project.

In a “Self-Interest Group”, at the heart of it is the group “owner’s”, or “convener/s” personal agenda in opening the group. This “personal self-interest” can sometimes preclude reasonable debate because opinions, as we all know, are like assholes and getting around that, especially among modern living Vampyres, is kinda like getting to Australia from the U.S. in a canoe. The more members that are attracted to the more open self-interest group increases the available “opinions” that each demands to be heard and thus, in a way much like the “Focus Group” example, an atmosphere of argumentative clash of opinions can be fostered and once prevailing is very difficult to remove unless you begin throwing members out which gets you marked as elitist, snobby and bitchy.

img: source: (Chinese language site)

It can seem, with either case, as if it’s a “no win” scenario but, in each case, the thing that will save the day is even handed, fair, accommodating but consistently firm control.

Set the rules BEFORE you go into the launching of the group or project. Make anyone wishing to join the group REVIEW AND ACCEPT IN WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT those rules thus no one can complain when they get dumped for breaking the rules.

Stick to your main theme, goal or aim. Make that the central item, or topic, of the group and don’t let the inevitable “side tracks” take control and muddy the water to the point where you lose sight of the initial concept.

Most of all, DON’T GO IT ALONE unless you only plan on having 6 to 10 friends in it with you. Find one or two trusted accomplices (friends) who share your point of view to help administer the thing, remember the old saying, “No man is an island unto himself.”

Of course, this is all just an opinion based on around twenty years “real life” experience, and professional qualifications, in procurement, warehouse management, engineering and mechanical workshop supervision, occupational health safety and welfare co-ordination and people management roles…

Copyright TB-S & RVL, 2017


NB: This article may be linked to but may not be copied or reproduced, nor redistributed in any manner, including electronic without the express permission of the copyright owners.

The views and opinions presented in this article are the opinions of the author and/or contributors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of The Owner/s of RVL, their officers, assigns or agents. RVL and its officers do not personally, individually, or jointly necessarily recommend or condone any of the activities or practices represented.

Where used, quoted portions of other works are reproduced by permission, or under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, wherein allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

For further information please see the RVL Website Disclaimer


New for old for old for new?

Written and presented by


Good evening,

In the way of all things, history especially, things do seem to turn in full circles over a course of time don’t you think?

Many topics, questions and subjects that have been visited in the past seem to find new life breathed into them from time to time and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Fresh eyes, looking at old problems, or questions, can very often see things that may have “slipped through the cracks” previously.

The subject, or rather subjects, of this editorial are twofold; firstly, the consideration of a perception that has been called “Med-Sang”, or Medical Sanguinarianism which engenders a proposed re-definition of “Vampire types” and, secondly, the renewed calls for “separation” from the overall culture by specific groups of real living Vampires.

It is sometimes difficult, given interactions and exposure to certain groups, to maintain a strictly neutral air when attempting to present information but I would like to assure everyone reading this that neither I, nor RVL, have a vested interest in these issues. We simply wish to bring the information to light so that our readers are in a position to make informed decisions about which sides of which fences they may wish to stand.

Img. source:

Having said as much let us turn, initially, to the matter of a relatively newly coined phrase, “Med-Sang”. That is not to say, of course, that the concepts behind the “Med-sang” term are new, quite the reverse in fact.

From reading an article entitled, “Consider the Med Sang Point of View” presented at website The Red Cellar, we are given to understand that, quote, “Many blood drinking “Vampires” are turning their eyes towards possible medical explanations for their conditions, disregarding the glamour of the vampire image and focusing on how to quietly and safely acquire what is for them, the only medication they know of to effectively treat perceived physical and psychological symptoms.”

This, in its turn, leads us to seek a definition for exactly what a “Med-Sang” might actually be. An explanation can be found at the web resource Vampire Network News where the definition offered is contained in an editorial entitled, “The Case for Separation Of The Vampire Community [ And Its Benefits ]”. The term “Sanguivore” is contained in a list of “types” of Vampire created by the author of the work. These types are,
Cultural vampires, or people who choose to ingest blood, or energy but not in order obviate medical or psychological complications. These people are held to be such that practice vampire lifestyles and envelop themselves in the cultural aspects of the Vampire.

Next are the Energy vampires, described as those “who must intake energy (in various forms) in order to avoid potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology”.

The third offered definition is “Sanguivores”, these Vampires are held to be those ingest blood so that they can avoid, “potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology.”

The final definition is that of Hybrids, or, Vampires who must ingest “both blood and energy in order to avoid potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology.”

The Suscitatio Lexicon [1] provides some further delineation of types in its definition of Sanguinarian where it records that, “Sanguinarian vampires can vary in their experience of blood hunger and in how often or in what quantities they need to feed, but the unique craving for blood and the physical symptoms associated with neglecting to drink blood are unifying features of sanguinarian vampirism.

It goes on to say that, “there is a popular but not universally-held theory within the Community that the life force energy or “prana” contained within the blood is the source from which they feed, rather than any physical component of the blood itself. This theory is supported by the notably small amount of blood that vampires consume to alleviate their hunger, but challenged by the fact that vampires who consider themselves primarily blood drinkers often do not display as many or any of the psychic tendencies that psychic vampires do, and more often report more physical symptoms, such as sense acuity and physical strength, than do the psychic vampires.”

Indeed, it can get confusing, even, we suspect, within the Sanguinarian population.

From the articles at both The Red Cellar and The VNN we are led to understand that the Med-Sang is of the “Sanguivore” type of modern living Vampire, i.e. one who MUST ingest blood to stay alive, to avoid threats, possibly fatal, to mind and/or body and who experiences “enhanced physiology”.

This distinction raises several unanswerable questions and the first and foremost of these is, “What, exactly, is the component in blood that keeps modern Sanguine Vampires from becoming physically or psychologically unwell?” Of course, at this time, there is no identification of that component available so the effects of the blood intake can’t be gauged because there are no indicators to measure against. There are a great many reports, some from very creditable sources that describe what a “lack of blood feeding” can lead to. The problem is that these are anecdotal evidences, not empirical and although these sources are impeccable in themselves the shot that the hard-line sceptics will fire off with, every time, is, “Prove it”. The truth is, at this point in time there is no “proof” available, there is no “empirical evidence” in support of the Med Sang point of view, however, consider this, as of 2012, 2.2 billion Christians believed in God… [2]

I haven’t seen any proof of him around the place, have you? However, the faith and belief in this deity provides the inspiration for millions upon millions to “get through” life. Belief can be a very strong ally indeed.

Img. source:

It would do everyone well to remember that modern Vampires, of any type or description, are NOT obliged to “prove” anything to anyone, no more than a Christian has to “prove” their God exists and the naysayers should accept that they have no right to demand such proof, much less to feel they are owed such proof.

The Med-Sang cultural element are, as is anyone else, perfectly entitled to their beliefs, perceptions and their own places to discuss such, what they do not have the right to do, however, is to attempt to impose; either directly, or indirectly, their cultural sub-set labels on anyone else and this is where any appeal for wider recognition of their existence can fall through.  Somebody once commented to me, roughly, that, “words don’t always mean what they mean in the dictionary, they mean what the majority of people understand them to mean.” In essence, if I convinced enough people that the colour of a summer sky was actually green then blue would become the new green… only one problem, where would that leave poor old green?

Med-Sangs employ the term to describe, within their own faction, the meaning of their perceived, and believed, condition or their “normal” state of being. Outside of that environment the term has little meaning to anyone who is not a Med-sang but it does, however, identify a person as being from that particular cultural group – whether we understand it or not and at this time, to all intents and purposes, that is the aim. Another issue may, and has done, raise its head, what about people who don’t agree with the “Med-sang” perspective? What’s to be done with them?

In one word, tolerance. It doesn’t matter how loudly someone yells to make themselves heard, it doesn’t matter what rhetoric or explanations they choose to employ, it doesn’t matter what insults they may throw at people who don’t “believe” the fact remains that anything that challenges another’s beliefs, challenges another’s perception and challenges another’s understanding will be met with various levels of resistance. The true test of the theory is whether those proposing the new theory are able, or competent, to mount a defence of their position based in logic, fact and plausible surmise. Biting back often does more harm than good and, in the case of the early reports of the ‘Med-sang’ issue this caused some great commotion, a great deal of angst and even ended up setting friend against friend. Not a great start if you’re looking for acceptance and recognition.

Img. source: louisdietvorst,


This brings us, in a semi-direct manner, to the second point of this editorial. By involving themselves, predominantly, in the case for separation of the Vampire Culture by Vampire type they are seeking to categorize the entire membership of the global culture according to their own definitions. This is fine within their own circles and enclaves but this, more than any other factor, could be the very thing that will see any attempt to separate the culture, ultimately, fail. Rather than separation, which has not been declared as an absolute end goal of the Med-Sang contingent, it would seem that a partial separation would be better considered. Perhaps a good compromise might be a group, or groups, where Med-Sangs can be and can discuss their own business, the business of discovering what and who they are, if that’s the case then fine but, in open discussions and multi-membership forums in combined web resources; that is websites where Vampires and Otherkin of diverse types gather, there have been instances where other members of the Vampire culture have been ridiculed and harangued for voicing their opinions against the case for separation.

Now, you might say that this is normal for the online vampire environment and that, unfortunately, is why so many good and possibly productive discussions come apart and lose all semblance of the rational. Perhaps the honoured Deacon Gray, Member of House of the Dreaming, was not so very far off the mark when he opined that a good name for a group of Vampires would be “a ‘bicker’ of Vampires”.

Img. source: Big

A question, at this point, if I may… do you think that if the Vampire culture were segregated according to type the bickering, the insults, the tantrums and the rhetoric might achieve a more rational level of productive talks? I wonder…

Forming a self-interest group to tackle such issues and questions necessarily needs to include people from ALL sectors influenced by such things so that a balanced outcome and view of the subject is achieved, without this you simply have an “exclusionist” group.


The case for separation of the Vampire Culture has been alive and kicking since the early days of the online culture when Lady Amy Kreiytaz was writing of  a psi versus sang separatism, it was the topic of an article written, and presented in Lady CG’s “Smoke and Mirrors”, by CJ, then The Infamous CJ, entitled, “A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community”, which has been reposted at The Red Cellar, and, most recently in the previously mentioned, “The Case for Separation Of The Vampire Community [ And Its Benefits ]” and subsequent discussions held at the web resource Vampire Network News. It is, in essence, an old chestnut, it is a problem that has not been resolved in some three decades or more, thus it is not a problem that is going to go away because one group within the culture wants to break away.

In speaking of the article, “Separation Of The Vampire Community [And Its Benefits]” Lady Jane More of The Vampire Network wrote;

the piece doesn’t actually support the idea of “us vs them”. What it does do is gently and respectively present the concept of us vs Us; microcosms based on specifically nurtured needs, catering to individuals in a way that enables them to feel safe, learn, and grow unhindered. Protecting the most vulnerable among us in a way that just might save lives, instead of risking them. It asks that we put aside any and all kinds of power struggles for collective spaces, so we may ultimately enable greater cooperation and understanding in the future. When fully developed microcosms can come together to form a non-contentious whole.”

Lady Lia Tajra of The Vampire Network, went on to note;

By partitioning into smaller groups based on physical and mental commonality, there is a better opportunity for individuals to understand themselves, find the community that suits them best, grow there, and become ambassadors for their subtype who can THEN reach out to other subtypes and establish a clearer, stronger and more cohesive GVC.”

The situation at the heart of the problem is, indeed, far, far older than these discussions and perspectives, it comes back to the very basic of necessities for progress and improvement… one word answer…

Img. source:

Whether or not the Med-Sang movement decides to withdraw from the wider culture, so be it… everyone MUST respect the decision. Whether people agree or disagree with the “Separatists”, so be it but everyone MUST respect the point of view of the separatist contingent. Whether people completely without vested interest either way have questions and opinions, or not, their right to voice those questions and/or opinions is inviolable and should be respected.

For everyone who wants someone to respect their rights, they MUST, in turn, respect the rights of that someone and until that situation is resolved an “agreeable” separation of anything is never going to work.

Img. source:

The only remaining option then is for the Med-Sang people to leave and set up their own place. If the Psi contingent don’t want to endure what they see as devaluation and/or criticism then the ONLY option they have is to separate from the wider culture. If the Hybrid contingent want their own home place, free of interference or mischief, then the ONLY option they have is to completely separate themselves from the wider culture.

In fact, if you think about it, if you don’t have, and exercise, a level of common decency and respect then, well, you already have separation.

Copyright TB & RVL 2017


  2. ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). “Global Christianity”. Retrieved 2012-08-17.

Further references:

“True Blood? Not Yet.” []

NB: This article may be linked to but may not be copied or reproduced, nor redistributed in any manner, including electronic without the express permission of the copyright owners.

The views and opinions presented in this article are the opinions of the author and/or contributors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of The Owner/s of RVL, their officers, assigns or agents. RVL and its officers do not personally, individually, or jointly necessarily recommend or condone any of the activities or practices represented.

Where used, quoted portions of other works are reproduced by permission, or under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, wherein allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

For further information please see the RVL Website Disclaimer


Community Development: A world of hope



Presented by:



Vampires, modern living vampires, very often refer to the sum of the interactions between themselves as the “community”, it is a term that has been in use since the beginning and is probably, by far, the most easily and universally recognised descriptor of what we recognise as being the “social” group of modern living vampirism. You may have seen (read) me arguing the point and trading precise definitions with others, of the word “community”. One of the reasons that I feel so strongly about the use of term in our situation is that the basis of the definition is restrictive in its literal meaning and in considering such it becomes even more necessary to examine the prospects for future “community development”. It is a simple fact of life that if a community doesn’t develop, change and grow then the eventual stagnation will become too great for the community structure to resist and the growth will be overtaken by social entropy.


Each community faces unique challenges that are, often times unavoidable but it is how that community faces and rises to those challenges which define it as being a strong or weak community.

I was talking with a person the other day who has visited Detroit and mention was made of the fact that the city was disappointing and that they couldn’t believe the number of abandoned and derelict buildings there, the fact is that with the all but collapse of American car manufacturing it was inevitable that a community based around that industry would suffer with the loss of industry. Think of a mining boom ghost town of the old days, while the gold was coming out of the ground the town was alive, vibrant, full of people and rich in “community” but when the gold ran out and there was nothing to replace it… entropy set in and eventually the community is abandoned.

One image that may be closer to home for everybody exists in the health care sector. When you are in pain or have a health problem you go to a doctor or a hospital. Those people or institutions set to work to isolate the problem assess it and fix it and everybody says thank you. Now think about how many people you know that “hate” dentists. Why do people hate dentists? What have dentists ever done to deserve their hatred? Often people will go to a dentist because they have a toothache but in order to stop the toothache the dentist, often, has to inflict a greater amount of pain, if you go to a dentist for a check up you may be feeling fine when you go in but the dentist finds a problem that needs fixing and all of a sudden someone is ramming horse-scale needles into your mouth before the scream of the drill sets your nerves on edge and they cause more pain by drilling at your teeth, followed quite naturally by the recovery period which is filled with a kind of sickly, burning soreness that can take a couple of days or more to go away. People hate dentists because in order to cure the pain, or potential pain, dentists have to inflict pain. People hate dentists because dentists inflict pain, that’s the general logic. It doesn’t matter that you might not have looked after your own dental hygiene properly, it doesn’t matter about the accident that cracked your tooth and it doesn’t matter about the chap that punched you in the face in the half-time brawl at the football, those reasons pale into insignificance next to the fact that you are being “hurt” by the man in the white smock coat. Being hurt by the dental health community.


Communities are defined by their effect on those within and around them and the development of communities, according to Wenger, McDermott and Snyder [1] “is their ability to generate enough excitement, relevance and value to attract and engage members


Yes, the modern living vampire sub-culture may be a sub-culture and it may, at times, attract greater than usual participation and activity but the end result always seems to be a return to hiatus and very little “community development”, if any. If, on the other hand, all of its constituent elements be they artistic, social, charitable, academic and cultural could be forged into a working community development program then the benefits for the whole would be astounding.

The Seven Design Principles

As eschewed by Wenger et al, “The goal of community design is to bring out the community’s own internal direction, character, and energy.”

The principles designed by the authors, simply listed, are:

1. Design for evolution.

2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives.

3. Invite different levels of participation.

4. Develop both public and private community spaces.

5. Focus on value.

6. Combine familiarity and excitement.

7. Create a rhythm for the community.


It may be perceived, by different observers that these things are, to one extent or another already appearing to some stage or another but the entire project of community development hinges on not one, two or three of them being in focus at any given time rather that all receive the equal input and effort to bring on the whole rather than trying to keep the “parts” tied together.

The principles can be as flexible or as rigid as required and the developments driven by community needs rather than outside expectations. For example, outside charities are indeed worthy causes and the activities that are directed to that quarter are undoubtedly something to be proud of however, they do not directly benefit the modern vampire community wherein there are many who are in dire need of aid and support. Caring for, and working within, ones own “community” primarily enhances the quality of that community sector and therefore makes the entire community stronger and more stable. When community figures are known and respected for listening to “their” people then they may achieve greater things still.

In a paper delivered to the Shaffer Symposium at the University of Wisconsin in 2001, Dr. J.M. Cavaye observed:

Community development initiatives clearly need to provide information and services.

However, development agencies need to do more than disseminate information and services. Staff need to also partner communities to help them gain access to services and information. This means training, coaching and working with community groups to help them access appropriate information and help them improve their capacity to navigate the broad array of services available.”[2]


In order to develop, extend and “rethink” it is vital that old and outdated ideas give way to new ideas, concepts and thinking. It has been almost fourteen years now since the first version of the famous Black Veil ( written as a guide for the community and in that time there have been great changes indeed, there have been steps forward and there have been setbacks, the fact is that somehow, through it all, the “community” has survived. It has survived because new thoughts kept it growing and for those of us who have been around for ten or more years in this environment it is sometimes difficult to let go of old ideas and old ways. If the newcomers, with their fresh ideas and interpretations, are not nurtured, and their ideas allowed to grow and blossom, then we become an old, archaic and irrelevant icon of the past. Rather than trying to “train” new people to think like us we should be training ourselves to let go of prejudices and preconceptions so we can open the way for another burst of growth and expansion of the global vampire sub-culture.

In conclusion:

The demographic of the sub-culture is changing, the people who are coming into the field have different concepts and ideas and while not all have been tried before some have, maybe they have been tried to no avail but that doesn’t mean that will always be the case. Perhaps, at other times, it wasn’t the right time and place for an idea to take root, grow and produce benefits but if we look on at the new ideas, sneer and say, “What do you know, you’ve only been here five minutes?” then we are condemning ourselves to the image of a cynical, crusty and inflexible old grump which will drive the new ideas away… just when we could use them.

Somebody once typed to me, “Community unity is a myth.” Vampires are a myth but here we are and I would imagine the people of north America felt that way too… until the War of Independence.


Man on the moon was a myth, a fantasy, giant squid were a myth, travelling at hypersonic speeds was a myth… if they had stayed that way we wouldn’t have those things and the contributions and spin-off benefits that we have today. Nothing is impossible but it really does depend on a suspension of disbelief, a willingness to engage positively toward a group goal and the flexibility to put prejudices and preconceived ideas aside in favour of hearing and reading the new.


I don’t believe that “Community Unity” is a myth, I never have. I’ve never believed those who say it’s a pipe dream because so many things have, over the centuries, been seen in the same light and have, ultimately, been realised. I think it’s time to realise the truth that the modern real living vampire community can be so much more than it is and it is time to form a sub-culture wide approach to making that happen.


© TB/RVL 2013


NB: Quoted portions of other works are reproduced under the “fair use for education” provisions of relevant legislations.

The views and opinions presented in this article are the opinions of the author and/or contributors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of The Owner/s of RVL, their officers, assigns or agents. RVL and its officers do not personally, individually, or jointly necessarily recommend or condone any of the activities or practices represented, and accept no liability, nor responsibility, for the use or misuse thereof. Anything that the reader takes from this article is taken at their own discretion. 

For further details please see our Website Disclaimer


1) Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, HBSWK Pub. 2002

2) Cavaye J.M. (2001) Rural Community Development: New Challenges and Enduring Dilemmas. The Journal of Regional Policy Analysis Vol 31 No 2 pp 109-124.


Further Reading:
The Citizen’s Handbook