Got Soul?

 

On October 8th the Columbia Conversation Facebook page posed an interesting question:

Good morning Conversation crew! Continuing to dig into “what people get wrong about Columbia”   One comment - “that it’s a soulless suburb with boring McMansions” - got us thinking. What gives Columbia SOUL? 

Whether it’s people, places or things, we want to hear your opinion!

I think that’s a great question. I’ve really gotten bogged down over here trying to answer it. My favorite answer came from an Oakland Mills resident who happens to be a reader of this blog.

Its residents who take action from their hearts and passions. There are so many events and organizations with home bases in Columbia, that grew up in Columbia, that started with a resident and their passion. 

This response brought to mind the conversation I had with my friend over drinks and dinner at Ale House.

One thing that came up in our conversation was that we were in complete agreement that all the people who are doing outstanding, transformative community work right now in Columbia/HoCo are women.

These are women who “take action from their heart and passion.” Quite a few of them are in Columbia. I promise I’ll write a post about this but for the moment I’m putting two questions to you:

1. What gives Columbia soul?

2. Have you participated in the Columbia Conversation (FB and/or website)?

As to the second question: I have answered a few things on their FB page but I’ve been reluctant to go ‘all out’ because there’s nothing worse than that kid who does all the talking and takes over all the group projects, if you get my analogy. 

I wonder how many new folks they are drawing into the conversation. That’s been an ongoing challenge. People who have been here for a while tend to take up a lot of space in such conversations. On the other hand they are the people who tend to show up more consistently to participate. Their commitment is admirable.

Way back when CA discontinued the Inspire Columbia project, I asked why. The answer was that they ascertained that it was drawing engagement from more or less the same people that they were already successfully engaging. So it was, in effect, redundant. (And, I’m guessing, an expensive way of hearing from Columbia ‘regulars’.)

It’s a challenge to get a new assortment of voices into the conversation. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying. 

So, what do you think? What gives Columbia soul? To get you thinking, here’s a basic definition from Oxford Languages.