"We all assign blame in our own best interest. So one of the most important functions in society is who controls the blame patterns. Why is that so many workers in my country assign blame downwards towards a few welfare chisellers who want to get a little something for nothin', instead of upwards towards a whole bunch of big-time chisellers who steal a whole lot of something for doing nothing at all?" - Utah Phillips
As an organizer, it is often frustrating to hear members of the community clearly opine on topics in ways that seem plainly incorrect: the frustration that the working poor express toward the welfare class is one of these. There are few moments more overwhelming than standing on a stranger's porch, or in the lobby after a meeting, or anywhere these first conversations happen, and find things to be moving along well, and positively, and then an offhand comment is made about how unfair it is that he or she should work so hard, and yet their tax dollars go toward supporting those who do not work at all!
This is a difficult statement to respond to, and many organizers want to simply chalk it up to subtle, quiet racism or classism, but I think it is more often motivated by exactly the type of directed blame pattern that Utah is talking about. If an individual feels fleeced, cheated, then resentment and bitterness is the correct response, especially if they actually ARE being cheated. I suspect, however, that while there is some fleecing going on, the vast majority of unjust tax dollars flow not into the pockets of the welfare class, but rather into the pockets of the elite, of the families and organizations well-represented in Washington.
Today, especially, it is remarkable that Hank Paulson can use numbers like 700,000,000,000 - I use the zeroes because 'billion' sounds almost fake - to describe the number of dollars it will take to bail out the banking industry, and it is still the folks down the street getting $150 a month for food who receive the resentment of their neighbors.
It is the nature of 'down the street,' I think, that helps to feed this ongoing flawed blame structure. Utah himself points to the public school system as the original motivator for this type of belief system (which I don't entirely buy), but it seems clear that it is easier to resent those actually in your neighborhood, that you have to wait in line behind at the grocery store, than these abstract 'bankers' and 'stock brokers' who continue to go on hundred-thousand-dollar 'leadership retreats.'
This is the type of problem which community organizers need to accept and face fearlessly. It is troubling that it is our own neighbors who face the brunt of our resentment when they feed on the crumbs dropped by the men and women at the top.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Social Capital Perception Preferences
It is sometimes difficult to separate our preconceived notions of what social capital looks like. We read 'Bowling Alone,' we try to define social capital, we look over tables of collected data, but what we end with is a personal internal image of the ways we believe strong social capital will manifest.
The problem, and I am growing more and more certain of its problematic nature, is closely tied to the problem of ego, which I have discussed previously. Our upbringing and previously internalized values and mores will implicitly impose themselves upon the ways in which we perceive social capital.
Being a postcollegiate Caucasian male, when I imagine a neighborhood teeming with social capital, I imagine community organizations, street clean-ups, a neighborhood watch. It is only by reflecting upon my own ingrained biases do I realize how destructive my own image-imposing model of organizing can be. It is becoming obvious to me that the very things which orthodox public agencies see as negative indicators are, in many cases, not indicators of poor network density, but rather signs of strong social capital.
I was walking a few of the students from my after-school earn-a-bike program home last week, and they were telling me how they would sit on one of their porches and rap, all day. This type of behavior is exactly the type of thing that would have made me nervous in the past: a group of poor kids shouting to one another, acting (apparently) aggressively, behaving in ways I would have associated with an area rife with poor social capital: after all, in my mind, social capital bears benefits like safe parks and quiet streets!
Social capital is not exclusively white or rich. Putnam tells us that areas which are more well educated and/or more well off financially tend to be the most likely to organize, to display outward manifestations of social capital. I would here assert that the usual measurements of social capital PREFER the manifestations of the upper-class whites: why should neighborhood watch organizations count any more than neighborhood rap battles?
The problem, and I am growing more and more certain of its problematic nature, is closely tied to the problem of ego, which I have discussed previously. Our upbringing and previously internalized values and mores will implicitly impose themselves upon the ways in which we perceive social capital.
Being a postcollegiate Caucasian male, when I imagine a neighborhood teeming with social capital, I imagine community organizations, street clean-ups, a neighborhood watch. It is only by reflecting upon my own ingrained biases do I realize how destructive my own image-imposing model of organizing can be. It is becoming obvious to me that the very things which orthodox public agencies see as negative indicators are, in many cases, not indicators of poor network density, but rather signs of strong social capital.
I was walking a few of the students from my after-school earn-a-bike program home last week, and they were telling me how they would sit on one of their porches and rap, all day. This type of behavior is exactly the type of thing that would have made me nervous in the past: a group of poor kids shouting to one another, acting (apparently) aggressively, behaving in ways I would have associated with an area rife with poor social capital: after all, in my mind, social capital bears benefits like safe parks and quiet streets!
Social capital is not exclusively white or rich. Putnam tells us that areas which are more well educated and/or more well off financially tend to be the most likely to organize, to display outward manifestations of social capital. I would here assert that the usual measurements of social capital PREFER the manifestations of the upper-class whites: why should neighborhood watch organizations count any more than neighborhood rap battles?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Problem of Ego
When organizing, it is not always easy to tame the opposing sides of one’s ego. Every organizer has a strong ego: it is important not to deny this. To believe oneself capable of bringing people together, to see oneself capable of helping communities rearrange the status quo’s turgid power structures, to embrace and encourage change, these things require a certain amount of belief in oneself and one’s abilities. These are properties which come along with a solid ego. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
What is a bad thing is when the organizer allows his or her ego to blind them to their own duties. An organizer’s job begins with listening: it begins with accepting the full humility of a newcomer. An organizer must accept that they are a stranger in a strange land – that what they see as problems may not be problems at all, that the issues they are working to repair may not be priorities of the community in which they live.
It is all to easy to step into an organizing position and assume that one is aware of the solutions to the problems which are present. This is a product of their ego: to believe that one can act as an agent of change means that one believes in change, believes in the catalyzing power of groups of people, these beliefs come with a certain idea of self-efficacy. It is easy to assume that that which appears to be an obvious problem is a problem: but a good organizer must take a step back from that view, as seemingly ego-free as it seems.
To organize well, one must keep a mind so open, so Zen, that the only things one sees as problems are things which one’s community members see as problems. You, the organizer, are problem free. Your only problems are those problems which you have detected by listening, by listening in a way which circumvents your ego, which does not take your worries into account.
Why would a community band together to solve a problem they do not accept as a problem?
They won’t. They will organize to solve the problems they all see. You must ask, you must be curious and you must be open to really, honestly, listen, or you will never know what those problems are. It is not always the easiest thing to set aside your own ego: but your success depends on it.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Taking the Step Back
The Iron Rule of Organizing, attributed to Mr. Alinsky, is this: "Do not do for anyone what they can do themselves."
When one is organizing a community, in close conjunction with local government, it seems almost too easy to do seemingly simple actions which would push your organization forward: brainstorming with other organizers, calling local authorities, making phone calls to locals, etc. The Midwest Academy suggests that every time an organizer stuffs an envelope or knocks on a door, they need to recognize that they are doing a job which could be done by a volunteer.
The recruiting of volunteers and the delegation of tasks to them is incredibly important. I know that it took me a pretty serious change of perspective to see that asking local residents to hand out fliers or make phone calls was not a negative thing. It is not a hassle, it is not the passing on of unpleasant jobs: the purpose of delegating these things is to empower the volunteers, to allow them to invest their time and labor into the organization. With this comes a certain sense of ownership, a more solid belief that the organization is truly a People's Organization, as opposed to another professional non-profit.
This type of delegation is also key in building sustainability in an organization. If you're lucky, your People's Organization will outlive you. The assumption here is that your organization is not a single-issue solution-driven organization, but rather an ongoing pro-democracy power-sharing type deal. If this is the case, the ongoing life of the organization depends upon the constant influx of volunteers, and the constant assignment of tasks. It is only by asking people to perform that the organizer is able to filter the reliable from the unreliable.
With this type of empowerment driven delegation comes a caveat: the organizer must be willing to step back, to avoid micromanaging, to truly place his or her trust and good will in the hands of the people. For an organization to truly be a People's Organization, it must reflect the people within it, for what else is there? Remember that, as organizers, our ego must be set aside: we exist only as tools to be used by the People, and the People's Organization. It may seem a small thing to let go the responsibility of stuffing envelopes - and for some, this warning may be useless! But know that the step back is important, is key in building a sustainable People's Organization. The training wheels cannot stay on forever.
When one is organizing a community, in close conjunction with local government, it seems almost too easy to do seemingly simple actions which would push your organization forward: brainstorming with other organizers, calling local authorities, making phone calls to locals, etc. The Midwest Academy suggests that every time an organizer stuffs an envelope or knocks on a door, they need to recognize that they are doing a job which could be done by a volunteer.
The recruiting of volunteers and the delegation of tasks to them is incredibly important. I know that it took me a pretty serious change of perspective to see that asking local residents to hand out fliers or make phone calls was not a negative thing. It is not a hassle, it is not the passing on of unpleasant jobs: the purpose of delegating these things is to empower the volunteers, to allow them to invest their time and labor into the organization. With this comes a certain sense of ownership, a more solid belief that the organization is truly a People's Organization, as opposed to another professional non-profit.
This type of delegation is also key in building sustainability in an organization. If you're lucky, your People's Organization will outlive you. The assumption here is that your organization is not a single-issue solution-driven organization, but rather an ongoing pro-democracy power-sharing type deal. If this is the case, the ongoing life of the organization depends upon the constant influx of volunteers, and the constant assignment of tasks. It is only by asking people to perform that the organizer is able to filter the reliable from the unreliable.
With this type of empowerment driven delegation comes a caveat: the organizer must be willing to step back, to avoid micromanaging, to truly place his or her trust and good will in the hands of the people. For an organization to truly be a People's Organization, it must reflect the people within it, for what else is there? Remember that, as organizers, our ego must be set aside: we exist only as tools to be used by the People, and the People's Organization. It may seem a small thing to let go the responsibility of stuffing envelopes - and for some, this warning may be useless! But know that the step back is important, is key in building a sustainable People's Organization. The training wheels cannot stay on forever.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Entitlement
When organizing groups, especially in pursuit of social justice issues, the idea of entitlement is an important one to foster. Entitlement generally gets a pretty rotten rap: after all, it's the sort of thing which has led us to mistreat poorly paid baristas and badmouth waitstaff (having been both a waiter and a barista, I can tell you: a sense of entitlement was just about the worst thing a customer could bring into the situation).
In terms of organizing, however, one must play a careful dance with entitlement. It is important to breed a certain type of human entitlement into one's works: that is, in virtue of our humanity, we are entitled to the ability to lead dignified lives, we are entitled to food, to the pursuit of happiness or success or whatever basic virtue you need to instill in those you are organizing in order to enable them to pursue their goals with a sense of Right.
The thing of it is, when we, as individuals, have internalized this type of dignity, when one truly believes that one is entitled to dignity, one must bring along with that the entitlement of others to lead dignified lives. It is only when a sense of entitlement advances selfishly, when one believes that one is entitled to dignity at another's expense, then one has failed to understand the importance of human dignity (or any of the above virtues).
In this way, it is important to choose one's rhetoric carefully. "Our dignity" must always be inclusive: never exclusive.
In terms of organizing, however, one must play a careful dance with entitlement. It is important to breed a certain type of human entitlement into one's works: that is, in virtue of our humanity, we are entitled to the ability to lead dignified lives, we are entitled to food, to the pursuit of happiness or success or whatever basic virtue you need to instill in those you are organizing in order to enable them to pursue their goals with a sense of Right.
The thing of it is, when we, as individuals, have internalized this type of dignity, when one truly believes that one is entitled to dignity, one must bring along with that the entitlement of others to lead dignified lives. It is only when a sense of entitlement advances selfishly, when one believes that one is entitled to dignity at another's expense, then one has failed to understand the importance of human dignity (or any of the above virtues).
In this way, it is important to choose one's rhetoric carefully. "Our dignity" must always be inclusive: never exclusive.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Organizing and Marketing
Over at Turn On Your Marketing Light I have been participating in a discussion regarding the similarities between marketing and organizing. I have a few thoughts regarding the two which I think are more well served in this space.
In a certain way, both organizers and marketeers have a similar job. Both in organizing and in marketing, one must be acutely aware of the way in which information flows, be it in a community or in a demographic. The organizer needs to keep in mind that many times those who most need his skills are those who have been failed by, or who put little stock in, traditional means of information flow - the marketing executive notes this as well, and engages in 'guerrilla marketing.'
Both need to have an awareness of how individual culture effects the impact of one's message. Geographically and culturally, people's willingness and ability to hear and disseminate information will differ. The speech given to retired union workers may not have quite the same effect when delivered to high school graduates. Only an awareness of one's audience will reveal the ideal ways and means to communicate to them: and that, really, is where both organizing and marketing plant their foundations, in communication.
In a certain way, both organizers and marketeers have a similar job. Both in organizing and in marketing, one must be acutely aware of the way in which information flows, be it in a community or in a demographic. The organizer needs to keep in mind that many times those who most need his skills are those who have been failed by, or who put little stock in, traditional means of information flow - the marketing executive notes this as well, and engages in 'guerrilla marketing.'
Both need to have an awareness of how individual culture effects the impact of one's message. Geographically and culturally, people's willingness and ability to hear and disseminate information will differ. The speech given to retired union workers may not have quite the same effect when delivered to high school graduates. Only an awareness of one's audience will reveal the ideal ways and means to communicate to them: and that, really, is where both organizing and marketing plant their foundations, in communication.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Diversity in Transportation
Part of an organizer's job is to help citizens find common ground upon which they can agree: to create a space in which individuals see each other not just as strangers in a gymnasium or church basement, but as citizens working together to make their collective lives better.
Much has been said regarding the importance of bridging gaps when organizing communities: oftentimes one has to bring together individuals of different classes, races and income levels. I would like to present an interesting take on a type of diversity which is often overlooked - and I only use the term diversity in its loosest sense.
An organizer needs to keep in mind a great many different vectors of commonality between their citizenry. Identifying these vectors can aid in increasing turnout, especially once improvements begin to occur. An often unseen commonality is one of transportation. When you consider your community to be organized, ask yourself: how do these people get where they are going? Individuals who drive to work are going to have a very different daily commute than individuals who take mass transportation, and different still from those who ride their bicycles or walk. it is important to seek these small facts for a number of reasons:
- Different transportation choices are going to change the priorities of an individual. If a citizen drives to work every day, and generally uses his or her car for recreational transportation, improved mass transit scheduling may not be important to him or her - not to say that they do not have an opinion, but it is not the sort of thing which will be at the front of his or her mind.
- A diverse transportation base is going to provide the group with all sorts of observations which a nondiverse base would not. Consider: a group of all drivers will all have fairly similar day-to-day observations regarding their neighborhood. They may be aware of broken street lights, or intersections where a stop sign might be useful. However, they may miss a great deal of other possible areas of concern - and all areas of concern are potential vectors of common ground. Bicyclists, for example, tend to be eminently aware of road conditions, and would be more readily able to provide the community with information regarding which roads are on the edge of disrepair - before the motorists even notice.
- Having an open discussion among community members regarding methods of transportation could create new relationships among members: carpools could be suggested, unknown bus routes discovered, an old interest in biking to work rekindled with new riding partners.
The best part about diversifying one's transportation base is that it is not difficult: every citizen you speak with has to get where they are going, and usually how they get there is not a sensitive subject, unlike race or class, which sometimes must be approached more cautiously. It can also be useful in reverse: an organizer should always be on the lookout for running clubs or cycling groups, which can be excellent resources both for recruitment and information.
Much has been said regarding the importance of bridging gaps when organizing communities: oftentimes one has to bring together individuals of different classes, races and income levels. I would like to present an interesting take on a type of diversity which is often overlooked - and I only use the term diversity in its loosest sense.
An organizer needs to keep in mind a great many different vectors of commonality between their citizenry. Identifying these vectors can aid in increasing turnout, especially once improvements begin to occur. An often unseen commonality is one of transportation. When you consider your community to be organized, ask yourself: how do these people get where they are going? Individuals who drive to work are going to have a very different daily commute than individuals who take mass transportation, and different still from those who ride their bicycles or walk. it is important to seek these small facts for a number of reasons:
- Different transportation choices are going to change the priorities of an individual. If a citizen drives to work every day, and generally uses his or her car for recreational transportation, improved mass transit scheduling may not be important to him or her - not to say that they do not have an opinion, but it is not the sort of thing which will be at the front of his or her mind.
- A diverse transportation base is going to provide the group with all sorts of observations which a nondiverse base would not. Consider: a group of all drivers will all have fairly similar day-to-day observations regarding their neighborhood. They may be aware of broken street lights, or intersections where a stop sign might be useful. However, they may miss a great deal of other possible areas of concern - and all areas of concern are potential vectors of common ground. Bicyclists, for example, tend to be eminently aware of road conditions, and would be more readily able to provide the community with information regarding which roads are on the edge of disrepair - before the motorists even notice.
- Having an open discussion among community members regarding methods of transportation could create new relationships among members: carpools could be suggested, unknown bus routes discovered, an old interest in biking to work rekindled with new riding partners.
The best part about diversifying one's transportation base is that it is not difficult: every citizen you speak with has to get where they are going, and usually how they get there is not a sensitive subject, unlike race or class, which sometimes must be approached more cautiously. It can also be useful in reverse: an organizer should always be on the lookout for running clubs or cycling groups, which can be excellent resources both for recruitment and information.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Formal and Informal Social Capital: A Perspective on Organizing
I want to use this space to discuss the work of the organizer, using the language of the social capital school of thought, specifically the interplay of formal and informal social capital.
Formal social capital arises most frequently due to employment networks. Formal social capital occurs in the networks which we belong in through necessity. A retail worker's formal capital exists among the connections that they have to their coworkers. A salesman's formal capital resides in the connections which he holds with the others in his office, and also to his clients. Formal social capital generally occurs in pre-existing, functional, top-down, sometimes regulated, networks.
Informal social capital tends to occur more organically, growing as more individuals gain access to a given network. Informal capital is found in networks and connections which we choose to be a part of, which we voluntarily embed ourselves within. A bowling team enjoys informal social capital among its members.
Both formal and informal social capital are useful insofar as helping individuals realize their goals more effectively than an individual could have realized those goals alone. However, informal social capital tends to be more social, more engaging - I admit that I have no formal studies to back this claim, however, it seems fairly self-evident: formal capital exists because it has to - we engage with our coworkers because if we did not, we could not do our jobs. We engage with our fellow bowlers because we have a common goal, a shared cause which stands outside mere subsistence, that perfect 300!
A community organizer's goal is to turn formal social capital into informal social capital. Everyone who lives in a community has a certain, sometimes miniscule, amount of formal social capital with their neighbors: there is always some mutual dependence on other members of one's immediate locale to avoid wanton destruction and mayhem. What an organizer does is to help the citizenry move from this formal relationships into informal states. This transition can only occur when informal capital is possible - with a shared cause or common goal. This goal may be something as small as griping about local politicians. What matters is that the common ground is found, and allows for the beginning of an open dialogue.
Formal social capital arises most frequently due to employment networks. Formal social capital occurs in the networks which we belong in through necessity. A retail worker's formal capital exists among the connections that they have to their coworkers. A salesman's formal capital resides in the connections which he holds with the others in his office, and also to his clients. Formal social capital generally occurs in pre-existing, functional, top-down, sometimes regulated, networks.
Informal social capital tends to occur more organically, growing as more individuals gain access to a given network. Informal capital is found in networks and connections which we choose to be a part of, which we voluntarily embed ourselves within. A bowling team enjoys informal social capital among its members.
Both formal and informal social capital are useful insofar as helping individuals realize their goals more effectively than an individual could have realized those goals alone. However, informal social capital tends to be more social, more engaging - I admit that I have no formal studies to back this claim, however, it seems fairly self-evident: formal capital exists because it has to - we engage with our coworkers because if we did not, we could not do our jobs. We engage with our fellow bowlers because we have a common goal, a shared cause which stands outside mere subsistence, that perfect 300!
A community organizer's goal is to turn formal social capital into informal social capital. Everyone who lives in a community has a certain, sometimes miniscule, amount of formal social capital with their neighbors: there is always some mutual dependence on other members of one's immediate locale to avoid wanton destruction and mayhem. What an organizer does is to help the citizenry move from this formal relationships into informal states. This transition can only occur when informal capital is possible - with a shared cause or common goal. This goal may be something as small as griping about local politicians. What matters is that the common ground is found, and allows for the beginning of an open dialogue.
Monday, June 23, 2008
For vs. With Youth
When organizing, a community needs to consider its most significant goals. These goals are generally fairly similar across the board: Safer neighborhoods, beautification, poverty reduction, to name a few. Many times 'Youth Programming,' or something similar, makes its way onto the list.
While, like many goals, 'Youth Programming' sounds promising - after all, what parent doesn't like the idea of their child spending time engaged in education or athletic activities? - it seems to me that it often strikes an unfair balance between being 'for' younger members of a community and being created 'with' the younger members of a community.
When I refer to children and youths as younger members of a community, I believe that they deserve this status. Young people, especially younger than voting age, can bring an enormous amount of information and wisdom to the table that their older counterparts may not be aware of, or may have simply missed. Putnam touches on this briefly in 'Better Together,' in his chapter on the 'Do Something' programs, but I feel that it deserves a deeper look.
Younger members of a community - especially in poverty-stricken neighborhoods - can, if listened to, provide an enormous, often overlooked, source of insight as to the ins and outs of a community. Sub-18 year-olds generally have more free time than adults and generally lack the singular motorized transit models of nine-to-five employees. Compare your awareness to the neighborhood you grew up in to your awareness of your current neighborhood. Where are the shortcuts? What parts of town should you avoid? Who has big dogs?
The methods of transit used by youngsters (bicycles, skateboards, on foot) provide all sorts of information. We should also consider the way that minors interact: if they are in school, they spend all day in a social beehive: the information flows which course through an inner-city high school must be incredible. The question is: how can community organizers tap into this information flow, and how can we use the information to benefit the community?
What I see as the most immediate answer to this question is simply: don't merely create programs FOR youth, create programs WITH youth. Any good organizer leaves his or her agenda at the door, allowing residents to identify their own issues and helps them find solutions. Why, then, do we still mandate programming upon youth, while they maintain a better idea as to what they, as a sub-community, actually need?
To involve younger members of a community in organizing efforts is key, and the first step in doing so is asking them what types of programs they want, what kinds of programs they see as being necessary.
While, like many goals, 'Youth Programming' sounds promising - after all, what parent doesn't like the idea of their child spending time engaged in education or athletic activities? - it seems to me that it often strikes an unfair balance between being 'for' younger members of a community and being created 'with' the younger members of a community.
When I refer to children and youths as younger members of a community, I believe that they deserve this status. Young people, especially younger than voting age, can bring an enormous amount of information and wisdom to the table that their older counterparts may not be aware of, or may have simply missed. Putnam touches on this briefly in 'Better Together,' in his chapter on the 'Do Something' programs, but I feel that it deserves a deeper look.
Younger members of a community - especially in poverty-stricken neighborhoods - can, if listened to, provide an enormous, often overlooked, source of insight as to the ins and outs of a community. Sub-18 year-olds generally have more free time than adults and generally lack the singular motorized transit models of nine-to-five employees. Compare your awareness to the neighborhood you grew up in to your awareness of your current neighborhood. Where are the shortcuts? What parts of town should you avoid? Who has big dogs?
The methods of transit used by youngsters (bicycles, skateboards, on foot) provide all sorts of information. We should also consider the way that minors interact: if they are in school, they spend all day in a social beehive: the information flows which course through an inner-city high school must be incredible. The question is: how can community organizers tap into this information flow, and how can we use the information to benefit the community?
What I see as the most immediate answer to this question is simply: don't merely create programs FOR youth, create programs WITH youth. Any good organizer leaves his or her agenda at the door, allowing residents to identify their own issues and helps them find solutions. Why, then, do we still mandate programming upon youth, while they maintain a better idea as to what they, as a sub-community, actually need?
To involve younger members of a community in organizing efforts is key, and the first step in doing so is asking them what types of programs they want, what kinds of programs they see as being necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
