I suppose it depends on the definition of community. I also think that it would be a mistake to see the heritage profession as a non-community simply on the basis that we can`t agree on anything!
If the truth be known, the diversity of disciplines and opinions makes for a vibrant and dynamic community. I would argue that any community (however you choose to define it) is made up of individuals that tend to huddle in groups of likeminded members. Those groups essentially make up the community.
Angi hit the nail on the head when she points out that we are all essentially working towards the same thing. Of course, the success of any "community" depends on one simple foundation-that of communication.
I believe that communities tend to fail and fragment when hierarchical systems evolve and the listening stops. When one or more of those huddled groupings decides to speak for the entire community without mandate. As the heritage profession incorporates such a diversity of disciplines and, is essentially geographically divorced, communication is even more essential now than it ever has been. Is this where the beauty of the internet comes to the fore? Interestingly, we seem to have replicated our primal group huddles in the form of a multitude of heritage related websites.
Wouldn`t it be nice if we could pool our human resources together when it is most needed? The impending changes or replacements to PPGs for example? What about the (unmentionable) Federation idea? Couldn`t this be a rallying point to which we all muster in times of peril?
If indeed we are all (ish) working towards the same (ish) goals, then we should rally together as a community regardless of any real or perceived alliances/allegiances that appear to muddy the water. We do all dance to different tunes-granted but when needed, communities can all step forwards at the same time!:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)