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.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
